Still, no teaching places the human being as high as Christ placed him, for if help given by us to anyone around us turns out to be help given to Him Himself, then here we see more than God's love for the human being. Here we rediscover the meaning of the long-known words that the Lord created us in His image and likeness, and even the fact that we constantly defile this image does not cancel the highest purpose He intended for us.

Here too we find an answer to those people who anxiously ask, "What will become of those who were far from faith but did good works?" Of course, none of us can answer with complete certainty the question of who will end up where. And yet, if the deeds really were good, those who did them will not be forgotten. For even without thinking of serving the Lord, they cared for Him. Correspondingly, those who did not give proper help to those around them will be asked according to their deeds, not according to adherence to theoretical positions.

It is interesting that if at the beginning of the parable the subject is the Son of Man, then afterward the story speaks of the King. Christ once again reveals to the disciples who He is, for by justice only the Lord is worthy to be King.

When we read today's Gospel text, we usually become very afraid, because we do not dare to imagine that the Lord will count us among the righteous. And we feel how our reason, with all its strength, demands Purgatory. This is a difficult question; at some point each person resolves it for himself. And although we understand that the line between good and evil runs through the human soul, we must still hold firmly to the Word of God, setting aside, as far as possible, the entire cultural burden of two thousand years, which at times only darkens our perception.

So the Lord speaks about the separation of the righteous from the wicked. Let us not look for our own place in this "icon," but look at it as we usually look at icons, discerning the theological meaning in the depth of the symbolism. The main message of this text, as we understand it, is that there will be no more half measures: good will be completely separated from evil. But what about that share of evil present in everyone whose mother bore him "in sins" (Ps 50), that is, in every human being?

The solution to this difficult problem may be Purgatory, or it may be Forgiveness. We have no right to impose our solution on anyone; each person comes to this himself, provided only that we respect another person's choice.

So-called food offered to idols was a fairly serious problem for the first Christians. The problem was that one church community could very well include both Jews and recent pagans. At the same time, it is important to remember that the mass paganism of the Gospel era was no longer a deeply religious phenomenon. Those whom we call pagans would more accurately be called simply secular people; most of them, before turning to Christ, thought little about religion, if they thought about it at all. Such people habitually ate the food familiar to them, without thinking at all, and perhaps having completely forgotten, that formally the meat bought, for example, in the city market had been dedicated to the gods who patronized that very market.

The result was that formally all food sold in the markets was dedicated to pagan gods; it was all food offered to idols. But the recent pagans who had turned to Christ were no more troubled by this than they had been before their conversion. They simply did not think about any gods or any religion when buying food in the city market, either before conversion or after. Jewish Christians, however, took everything much more seriously. They never bought meat or other products in the city market; they had their own shops, where all products were guaranteed kosher.

Of course, after the coming of Christ, everything described above no longer had fundamental significance, all the more for pagans, from whom no one had ever demanded observance of kashrut. Nevertheless, when Jews and recent pagans found themselves at one table, it could happen that food formally dedicated to pagan gods appeared on that table. And if such a dedication meant exactly nothing to the former pagans and changed nothing, for Jews the situation was clearly a stumbling block. They could not shake the thought that they were sinning against God by eating food dedicated to pagan gods, and their conscience condemned them, although objectively they had no reason for concern. In such a situation Paul advises that this kind of concern not be ignored. One should not put a brother in a situation that is difficult for him and fraught with temptation if it can be avoided. Of course, the question can arise: how far can the demands of those who are scandalized by one thing or another go, and what is truly worth giving up in order to meet someone else's religious scrupulousness?

The answer is not hard to find in the apostle's letter: there the question concerns things that are spiritually indifferent to the one ready to make an accommodation. Things that do not touch the essence of his spiritual life. For a recent pagan, for example, it made no difference at all whether the meat on the table was kosher or had been bought in the city market. In that case it is better to meet the one to whom it does matter halfway, because the recent pagan's spiritual life does not suffer in the least from such a step.

But the spiritual life of his Jewish brother can suffer: constant inner discord does not contribute to normal spiritual life at all. This is the general rule Paul advises following: a person who is less religiously scrupulous should yield to one who is more religiously scrupulous insofar as such concessions do not destroy his own spiritual life. Then many problems of church life will resolve themselves, and there will be more peace in church gatherings.