1 Corinthians 8

1 Corinthians 8:1

Ambrosiaster: Paul means that knowledge is a great thing and very useful to the person who has it, as long as it is tempered by love. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Paul means that knowledge only does good in company with love. Otherwise it merely puffs a man into pride. — City of God 9.20

Clement of Alexandria: But the “supposition of knowledge inflates “and fills with pride; “but charity edifieth “which deals not in supposition, but in truth. Whence it is said, “If any man loves, he is known.”. But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the apostle, “puffeth up.”. And there are those who say that the knowledge about things sacrificed to idols is not promulgated among all, “lest our liberty prove a stumbling-block to the weak. For by thy knowledge he that is weak is destroyed. " — The Stromata Book 2

Clement of Alexandria: Love builds up. It moves in the realm of truth, not of opinion. — The Stromata Book 1

Irenaeus: It is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skilful, to be found — Against Heresies Book II

John Chrysostom: “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge.” Leaving alone the weak, which he always doth, he discourses with the strong first. And this is what he did also in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, “But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother?” for this is the sort of person that is able to receive rebuke also with readiness. Exactly the same then he doth here also.

And first he makes void their conceit by declaring that this very thing which they considered as peculiar to themselves, the having perfect knowledge, was common to all. Thus, “we know,” saith he, “that we all have knowledge.” For if allowing them to have high thoughts, he had first pointed out how hurtful the thing was to others, he would not have done them so much good as harm. For the ambitious soul when it plumes itself upon any thing, even though the same do harm to others, yet strongly adheres to it because of the tyranny of vain-glory. Wherefore Paul first examines the matter itself by itself: just as he had done before in the case of the wisdom from without, demolishing it with a high hand. But in that case he did it as we might have expected: for the whole thing was altogether blameworthy and his task was very easy. Wherefore he signifies it to be not only useless, but even contrary to the Gospel. But in the present case it was not possible to do this. For what was done was of knowledge, and perfect knowledge. Nor was it safe to overthrow it, and yet in no other way was it possible to cast out the conceit which had resulted from it. What then doeth he? First, by signifying that it was common, he curbs that swelling pride of theirs. For they who possess something great and excellent are more elated, when they alone have it; but if it be made out that they possess it in common with others, they no longer have so much of this feeling. First then he makes it common property, because they considered it to belong to themselves alone.

Next, having made it common, he does not make himself singly a sharer in it with them; for in this way too he would have rather set them up; for as to be the only possessor elates, so to have one partner or two perhaps among leading persons has this effect just as much. For this reason he does not mention himself but all: he said not, “I too have knowledge,” but, “we know that we all have knowledge.”

This then is one way, and the first, by which he cast down their pride; the next hath greater force. What then is this? In that he shews that not even this thing itself was in all points complete, but imperfect, and extremely so. And not only imperfect, but also injurious, unless there were another thing joined together with it. For having said that “we have knowledge,” he added, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth:” so that when it is without love, it lifts men up to absolute arrogance.

“And yet not even love,” you will say, “without knowledge hath any advantage.” Well: this he did not say; but omitting it as a thing allowed by all, he signifies that knowledge stands in extreme need of love. For he who loves, inasmuch as he fulfils the commandment which is most absolute of all, even though he have some defects, will quickly be blest with knowledge because of his love; as Cornelius and many others. But he that hath knowledge but hath not love, not only shall gain nothing more, but shall also be cast out of that which he hath, in many cases falling into arrogance. It seems then that knowledge is not productive of love, but on the contrary debars from it him that is not on his guard, puffing him up and elating him. For arrogance is wont to cause divisions: but love both draws together and leads to knowledge. And to make this plain he saith, “But if any man loveth God, the same is known of Him.” So that “I forbid not this,” saith he, “namely, your having perfect knowledge; but your having it with love, that I enjoin; else is it no gain, but rather loss.”

Do you see how he already sounds the first note of his discourse concerning love? For since all these evils were springing from the following root, i.e., not from perfect knowledge, but from their not greatly loving nor sparing their neighbors; whence ensued both their variance and their self-satisfaction, and all the rest which he had charged them with; both before this and after he is continually providing for love; so correcting the fountain of all good things. “Now why,” saith he, “are ye puffed up about knowledge? For if ye have not love, ye shall even be injured thereby. For what is worse than boasting? But if the other be added, the first also will be in safety. For although you may know something more than your neighbor, if you love him you will not set yourself up but lead him also to the same.” Wherefore also having said, “Knowledge puffeth up,” he added, “but love edifieth.” He did not say, “Behaveth itself modestly,” but what is much more, and more gainful. For their knowledge was not only puffing them up but also distracting them. On this account he opposes the one to the other. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

1 Corinthians 8:2

Ambrosiaster: Only when a person has love can he be said to know as he ought to know. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Desert Fathers: Once some brothers came to visit Antony, and Joseph was with them. Antony, wanting to test them, began to speak about holy Scripture. He asked the younger monks first the meaning of text after text, and each of them answered as well as he could. To each he said, ‘You have not yet found the right answer.’ Then he said to Joseph, ‘What do you think is the meaning of this word?’ He replied, ‘I don’t know.’ Antony said, ‘Indeed Joseph alone has found the true way, for he said he did not know.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

John Chrysostom: And then he adds a third consideration, which was of force to set them down. What then is this? that although charity be joined with it, yet not even in that case is this our knowledge perfect. And therefore he adds,

“But if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” This is a mortal blow. “I dwell not,” saith he, “on the knowledge being common to all. I say not that by hating your neighbor and by arrogance, you injure yourself most. But even though you have it by yourself alone, though you be modest, though you love your brother, even in this case you are imperfect in regard of knowledge. For as yet thou knowest nothing as thou oughtest to know.” Now if we possess as yet exact knowledge of nothing, how is it that some have rushed on to such a pitch of frenzy as to say that they know God with all exactness? Whereas, though we had an exact knowledge of all other things, not even so were it possible to possess this knowledge to such an extent. For how far He is apart from all things, it is impossible even to say.

And mark how he pulls down their swelling pride: for he said not, “of the matters before us ye have not the proper knowledge,” but, “about every thing.” And he did not say, “ye,” but, “no one whatever,” be it Peter, be it Paul, be it any one else. For by this he both soothed them and carefully kept them under. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Tertullian: " That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat; " who also “thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know.” When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Tertullian: " “Know ye not that we are to judge angels? " Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these): “Ye are already enriched! ye are already satiated! ye are already reigning!” and, “If any thinks himself to know, he knoweth not yet how it behaves him to know I” Is he not even then “smiting some one’s face,” in saying, “For who maketh thee to differ? What, moreover, hast thou which thou hast not received? Why gloriest thou as if thou have not received? " Is he not withal “smiting them upon the mouth,” (in saying): “But some, in (their) conscience, even until now eat (it) as if (it were) an idol-sacrifice. — On Modesty

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul shows not only that they have no love but that they have no knowledge either. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 215

1 Corinthians 8:3

Augustine of Hippo: Paul says: “If one loves God, one is known by him.” He certainly did not say “one knows God,” a dangerous presumption, but “he is known by God.” Elsewhere he remarks, “But now you know God,” and then immediately corrects himself: “or rather you are known by God.”

John Chrysostom: “But if any man love God, the same,” he doth not say, “knoweth Him,” but, “is known of Him.” For we have not known Him, but He hath known us. And therefore did Christ say, “Ye have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you.” And Paul elsewhere, “Then shall I know fully, even as also I have been known.”

Observe now, I pray, by what means he brings down their high-mindedness. First, he points out that not they alone knew the things which they knew; for “we all,” he saith, “have knowledge.” Next, that the thing itself was hurtful so long as it was without love; for “knowledge,” saith he, “puffeth up.” Thirdly, that even joined with love it is not complete nor perfect. “For if any man thinketh that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing as yet as he ought to know,” so he speaks. In addition to this, that they have not even this from themselves, but by gift from God. For he said not, “hath known God,” but, “is known of Him.” Again, that this very thing comes of love which they have not as they ought. For, “if any man,” saith he, “love God, the same is known of Him.” — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

1 Corinthians 8:4

Ambrosiaster: Paul now develops his argument in detail in order to show that knowledge without love is both useless and harmful. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Although man has made his own gods, he nevertheless became their captive once he was handed over to their fellowship by his act of worshiping them… For what are idols but things, as the Scripture says, which “have eyes and see not”? City of God

Clement of Alexandria: Such, then, being the case, the Greeks ought by the Law and the Prophets to learn to worship one God only, the only Sovereign; then to be taught by the apostle, “but to us an idol is no, thing in the world” — The Stromata Book 6

Didache: And concerning food, bear what thou art able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on thy guard; for it is the service of dead gods. — The Didache, Chapter 6

Ignatius of Antioch: And those very apostles, who said “that there is one God,” said also that “there is one Mediator between God and men.” Nor were they ashamed of the incarnation and the passion. For what says [one]? “The man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself” for the life and salvation of the world. — Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Antiochians

Irenaeus: For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him.” — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: “Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one.” Look what a strait he hath fallen into! For indeed his mind is to prove both; that one ought to abstain from this kind of banquet, and that it hath no power to hurt those who partake of it: things which were not greatly in agreement with each other. For when they were told that they had no harm in them, they would naturally run to them as indifferent things. But when forbidden to touch them, they would suspect, on the contrary, that their having power to do hurt occasioned the prohibition. Wherefore, you see, he puts down their opinion about idols, and then states as a first reason for their abstaining the scandals which they place in the way of their brethren; in these words: “Now concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world.” Again he makes it common property and doth not allow this to be theirs alone, but extends the knowledge all over the world. For “not among you alone,” says he, “but every where on earth this doctrine prevails.” What then is it? “That no idol is anything in the world; that there is no God but one.” What then? are there no idols? no statues? Indeed there are; but they have no power: neither are they gods, but stones and demons. For he is now setting himself against both parties; both the grosser sort among them, and those who were accounted lovers of wisdom. Thus, seeing that the former know of no more than the mere stones, the others assert that certain powers reside in them, which they also call gods; to the former accordingly he says, that “no idol is anything in the world,” to the other, that “there is no God but one.”

Do you mark how he writes these things, not simply as laying down doctrine, but in opposition to those without? A thing indeed which we must at all times narrowly observe, whether he says anything abstractedly, or whether he is opposing any persons. For this contributes in no ordinary way to the accuracy of our doctrinal views, and to the exact understanding of his expressions. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Origen of Alexandria: “An idol is nothing,” says the apostle. One who makes an idol makes what is not. But what is that which is not? A form which the eye does not see but which the mind imagines for itself. — HOMILIES ON Exodus 8.3

Tertullian: We have, I think, faithfully carried out our plan of showing in how many different ways the sin of idolatry clings to the shows, in respect of their origins, their titles, their equipments, their places of celebration, their arts; and we may hold it as a thing beyond all doubt, that for us who have twice renounced all idols, they are utterly unsuitable. “Not that an idol is anything,” as the apostle says, but that the homage they render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods. — De Spectaculis

Tertullian: He introduces his discussion about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning idols (themselves): “We know that an idol is nothing in the world.” Marcion, however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, “to us there is but one God, the Father. — Against Marcion Book V

1 Corinthians 8:5

John Chrysostom: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.” Since he had said, that “an idol is nothing” and that “there is no other God;” and yet there were idols and there were those that were called gods; that he might not seem to be contradicting plain facts, he goes on to say, “For though there be that are called gods, as indeed there are;” not absolutely, “there are;” but, “called,” not in reality having this but in name: “be it in heaven or on earth:-in heaven,” meaning the sun and the moon and the remainder of the choir of stars; for these too the Greeks worshipped: but upon the earth demons, and all those who had been made gods of men:-“yet to us there is One God, the Father.” In the first instance having expressed it without the word “Father,” and said, “there is no God but one,” he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others.

Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; “of Whom are all things.” For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said, “Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish.” Then he subjoins what is not less than this, “and we unto Him.” For when he saith, “of Whom are all things,” he means the creation and the bringing of things out of nothing into existence. But when he saith, “and we unto Him,” he speaks of the word of faith and mutual appropriation, as also he said before, “but of Him are ye also in Christ Jesus.” In two ways we are of Him, by being made when we were not, and by being made believers. For this also is a creation: a thing which he also declares elsewhere; “that He might create in Himself of the twain one new man.”

“And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him.” And in regard to Christ again, we must conceive of this in like manner. For through Him the race of men was both produced out of nothing into existence, and returned from error to truth. So that as to the phrase “of Whom,” it is not to be understood apart from Christ. For of Him, through Christ, were we created.

Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, “Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all.” And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, “but to us there is but One God,” it would have been superfluous, his adding the word “Father,” with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.

And this is not all, but there is another remark to make: that if you say, “Because it is said ‘One God,’ therefore the word God doth not apply to the Son;” observe that the same holds of the Son also. For the Son also is called “One Lord,” yet we do not maintain that therefore the term Lord applies to Him alone. So then, the same force which the expression “One” has, applied to the Son, it has also, applied to the Father. And as the Father is not thrust out from being the Lord, in the same sense as the Son is the Lord, because He, the Son, is spoken of as one Lord; so neither does it cast out the Son from being God, in the same sense as the Father is God, because the Father is styled One God.

Now if any were to say, “Why did he make no mention of the Spirit?” our answer might be this: His argument was with idolaters, and the contention was about “gods many and lords many.” And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: why marvel at his not having mentioned the Spirit? His contest was, so far, with the Gentiles: his point, to signify that with us there is no plurality of Gods. Wherefore he keeps hold continually of this word, “One;” saying, “There is no God but One; and, to us there is One God, and One Lord.” From which it is plain, that to spare the weakness of the hearers he used this mode of explanation, and for this reason made no mention at all of the Spirit. For if it be not this, neither ought he to make mention of the Spirit elsewhere, nor to join Him with the Father and the Son. For if He be rejected from the Father and Son, much more ought He not to be put in the same rank with them in the matter of Baptism; where most especially the dignity of the Godhead appears and gifts are bestowed which pertain to God alone to afford. Thus then I have assigned the cause why in this place He is passed over in silence. Now do thou if this be not the true reason, tell me, why He is ranked with Them in Baptism? But thou canst not give any other reason but His being of equal honor. At any rate, when he has no such constraint upon him, he puts Him in the same rank, saying thus: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all:” and again, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit: and there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God.” But because now his speech was with Greeks and the weaker sort of the converts from among Greeks, for this reason he husbands it so far. And this is what the prophets do in regard of the Son; no where making mention of Him plainly because of the infirmity of the hearers. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Tertullian: For the name of God, as being the natural designation of Deity, may be ascribed to all those beings for whom a divine nature is claimed,-as, for instance, even to idols. The apostle says: “For there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth.” The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation; and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation. — Against Marcion Book III

Tertullian: Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be “only in the Lord,” that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. But when he says, “although there be that are called gods, whether in l heaven or in earth,” the meaning of his words is clear-not as if there were gods in reality, but as if there were some who are called gods, without being truly so. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be “gods many” ), yet “the blessed God,” (who is “the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ,” will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis, and is Himself “blessed by all things,” as Daniel tells us. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: For “although there be that are called gods” in name, “whether in heaven or in earth, yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things; " whence the greater reason why, in our view, that which is the property of God ought to be regarded as pertaining to God alone, and why (as I have already said) that should cease to be such a property, when it is shared by another being. — Against Hermogenes

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul says “so-called” here because he is showing that they do not really exist. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

1 Corinthians 8:6

Ambrose of Milan: In saying, then, “through Him,” has he denied that all things were made in Him, through Whom he says that all things exist? These words, “in Him” and “with Him,” have this force, that by them is understood one and like in all respects, not contrary. Which he also made clear farther on, saying: “All things have been created through Him and in Him;” for, as we said above, Scripture witnesses that these three expressions, “with Him,” and “through Him,” and “in Him,” are equivalent in Christ. — On the Holy Spirit, Book 3, 84

Ambrose of Milan: Who, then, would dare to deny the oneness of Name, when he sees the oneness of the working. But why should I maintain the unity of the Name by arguments, when there is the plain testimony of the Divine Voice that the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one? For it is written: “Go, baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” He said, “in the Name,” not “in the Names.” So, then, the Name of the Father is not one, that of the Son another, and that of the Holy Spirit another, for God is one; the Names are not more than one, for there are not two Gods, or three Gods. — On the Holy Spirit, Book 1, 132

Ambrosiaster: Everything which exists has been created by the Father through the Son. It is impossible for God not to be Lord as well, and since the Lord is God, it is clear that Father and Son are one. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: You have made not only what is created and formed but also whatever can be created and formed. Everything which is formed from the formless must first be formless before it can be a formed thing. — Confessions 12.19

Augustine of Hippo: “From him” means from the Father. “Through him” means through the Son. “In him” means in the Holy Spirit. It is self-evident that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. — ON THE TRINITY 1.13

Clement of Alexandria: “Have we not power to eat and to drink?” And “we know”—he says the truth—“that an idol is nothing in the world; but we have only one true God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus. But,” he says, “through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ.” — The Instructor Book 2

Cyril of Alexandria: Just as there is one God the Father from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things. — LETTER 50.26

Cyril of Jerusalem: We say “one” to stop anyone dreaming that there could be another. We say “one” lest you should hear of his work under manifold names. — Catechetical Lecture 10:3

Hippolytus of Rome: For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father; " — Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

Severian of Gabala: The Father is one, just as the Son is one. If the Son is called Lord, that does not make the Father any less Lord, just as when it is said that God the Father is one, the Son is no less God. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Tertullian: Marcion, however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, “to us there is but one God, the Father.” Now, from whom do all things come to us, but from Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You have them in a preceding part of the epistle: “All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodoret of Cyrus: Note once more the apostle’s wisdom. For having first demonstrated that the words Lord and God are synonymous, he then splits them up, calling the Father one and the Son the other. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 215

1 Corinthians 8:7

Clement of Alexandria: We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, “whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God.” — The Instructor Book 2

John Chrysostom: “But not in all is knowledge,” saith he. What knowledge doth he mean? about God, or about things offered in sacrifice to idols? For either he here glances at the Greeks who say that there are many gods and lords, and who know not Him that is truly God; or at the converts from among Greeks who were still rather infirm, such as did not yet know clearly that they ought not to fear idols and that “an idol is nothing in the world.” But in saying this, he gently soothes and encourages the latter. For there was no need of mentioning all he had to reprove, particularly as he intended to visit them again with more severity.

“But some being used to the idol eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.” They still tremble at idols, he saith. For tell me not of the present establishment, and that you have received the true religion from your ancestors. But carry back your thoughts to those times, and consider when the Gospel was just set on foot, and impiety was still at its height, and altars burning, and sacrifices and libations offering up, and the greater part of men were Gentiles; think, I say, of those who from their ancestors had received impiety, and who were the descendants of fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers like themselves, and who had suffered great miseries from the demons. How must they have felt after their sudden change! How would they face and tremble at the assaults of the demons! For their sake also he employs some reserve, saying, “But some with conscience of the things sacrificed to an idol.” Thus he neither exposed them openly, not to strike them hard; nor doth he pass by them altogether: but makes mention of them in a vague manner, saying, “Now some with conscience of the idol even until now eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; that is, with the same thoughts as they did in former times: ‘and their conscience being weak is defiled;’” not yet being able to despise and once for all laugh them to scorn, but still in some doubt. Just as if a man were to think that by touching a dead body he should pollute himself according to the Jewish custom, and then seeing others touching it with a clear conscience, but not with the same mind touching it himself, would be polluted. This was their state of feeling at that time. “For some,” saith he, “with conscience of the idol do it even until now.” Not without cause did he add, “even until now;” but to signify that they gained no ground by their refusing to condescend. For this was not the way to bring them in, but in some other way persuading them by word and by teaching.

“And their conscience being weak is defiled.” No where as yet doth he state his argument about the nature of the thing, but turns himself this way and that as concerning the conscience of the person partaking. For he was afraid lest in his wish to correct the weak person, he should inflict a heavy blow upon the strong one, and make him also weak. On which account he spares the one no less than the other. Nor doth he allow the thing itself to be thought of any consequence, but makes his argument very full to prevent any suspicion of the kind. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Tertullian: But, so sinning, by shocking the weak consciences of the brethren thoroughly, they will sin against Christ.” By this time, indeed, (he mentions individuals) by name: “Or have we not a power of eating. — On Modesty

1 Corinthians 8:8

Augustine of Hippo: “Neither shall we have any abundance if we do eat, nor shall we suffer any loss if we do not eat.” That is to say: neither will the former make me rich, nor will the latter make me poor. — Confessions 10.45

Clement of Alexandria: The natural use of food is then indifferent. “For neither if we eat are we the better “it is said, “nor if we eat not are we the worse.”. For it is not in the food of the belly, that we have heard good to be situated. But he has heard that “meat will not commend us” — The Instructor Book 2

Cyprian: That too great lust of food is not to be desired. In Isaiah: “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This sin shall not be remitted to you even until ye die.” Also in Exodus: “And the people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: “Meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want.” . And again: “When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment.” Also to the Romans: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” In the Gospel according to John: “I have meat which ye know not of. My meat is, that I should do His will who sent me, and should finish His work.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

John Chrysostom: “But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse.” Do you see how again he takes down their high spirit? in that, after saying that “not only they but all of us have knowledge,” and that “no one knoweth any thing as he ought to know,” and that “knowledge puffeth up;” then having soothed them, and said that “this knowledge is not in all,” and that “weakness is the cause of these being defiled,” in order that they might not say, “And what is it to us, if knowledge be not in all? Why then has not such an one knowledge? Why is he weak?"-I say, in order that they might not rejoin in these terms, he did not proceed immediately to point out clearly that for fear of the other’s harm one ought to abstain: but having first made but a sort of skirmish upon mention of him, he points out what is more than this. What then is this? That although no one were injured nor any perversion of another ensued, not even in this case were it right so to do. For the former topic by itself is laboring in vain. Since he that hears of another being hurt while himself has the gain, is not very apt to abstain; but then rather he doth so, when he finds out that he himself is no way advantaged by the thing. Wherefore he sets this down first, saying, “But meat commendeth us not to God.” See how cheap he holds that which was accounted to spring from perfect knowledge! “For neither if we eat are we the better,” (that is, stand higher in God’s estimation, as if we had done any thing good or great:) “nor if we eat not are we the worse,” that is, fall in anyway short of others. So far then he hath signified that the thing itself is superfluous, and as nothing. For that which being done profits not, and which being left undone injures not, must be superfluous. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Tertullian: Meantime they huff in our teeth the fact that Isaiah withal has authoritatively declared, “Not such a fast hath the Lord elected,” that is, not abstinence from food, but the works of righteousness, which he there appends: and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel has given a compendious answer to every kind of scrupulousness in regard to food; “that not by such things as are introduced into the mouth is a man defiled, but by such as are produced out of the mouth; " while Himself withal was wont to eat and drink till He made Himself noted thus; “Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker: " (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that “food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not.” — On Fasting

1 Corinthians 8:9

John Chrysostom: But as he goes on, he discloses all the harm which was likely to arise from the matter. For the present, however, that which befel the brethren is his subject.

“For take heed,” saith he, “lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak among the brethren.”

He did not say, “Your liberty is become a stumbling-block,” nor did he positively affirm it that he might not make them more shameless; but how? “Take heed;” frightening them, and making them ashamed, and leading them to disavow any such conduct. And he said not, “This your knowledge,” which would have sounded more like praise; nor “this your perfectness;” but, “your liberty;” a thing which seemed to savor more of rashness and obstinacy and arrogance. Neither said he, “To the brethren,” but, “To those of the brethren who are weak;” enhancing his accusation from their not even sparing the weak, and those too their brethren. For let it be so that you correct them not, nor arouse them: yet why trip them up, and make them to stumble, when you ought to stretch out the hand? but for that you have no mind: well then, at least avoid casting them down. Since if one were wicked, he required punishment; if weak, healing: but now he is not only weak, but also a brother. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

1 Corinthians 8:10

Ambrosiaster: Paul is afraid that the weaker brother may be tempted to eat meat sacrificed to idols, not because he also possesses the knowledge that there is no such thing as an idol but because he might think that there is some spiritual power in such food, which he will acquire if he eats it. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Tertullian: Give nothing and take nothing from an idol! If it be against the faith to recline at table in the temple of an idol, what would you call it if one wore the garb of an idol? — THE CHAPLET 10

Tertullian: What schoolmaster, without a table of the seven idols, will yet frequent the Quinquatria? The very first payment of every pupil he consecrates both to the honour and to the name of Minerva; so that, even though he be not said “to eat of that which is sacrificed to idols” nominally (not being dedicated to any particular idol), he is shunned as an idolater. — On Idolatry

Tertullian: What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord’s day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ’s side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel’s trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey. — De Corona

1 Corinthians 8:11

Augustine of Hippo: If you love the weak person less because of the moral failing that makes him weak, consider the One who died on his behalf. — QUESTIONS 71

Irenaeus: And again: “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died; " — Against Heresies Book III

John Chrysostom: “And through thy meat he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died.”

For there are two things which deprive you of excuse in this mischief; one, that he is weak, the other, that he is thy brother: rather, I should say, there is a third also, and one more terrible than all. What then is this? That whereas Christ refused not even to die for him, thou canst not bear even to accommodate thyself to him. By these means, you see, he reminds the perfect man also, what he too was before, and that for him He died. And he said not, “For whom even to die was thy duty;” but what is much stronger, that even Christ died for his sake. “Did thy Lord then not refuse to die for him, and dost thou so make him of none account as not even to abstain from a polluted table for his sake? Yea, dost thou permit him to perish, after the salvation so wrought, and, what is still more grievous, ‘for a morsel of meat?’” For he said not, “for thy perfectness,” nor “for thy knowledge,” but “for thy meat.” So that the charges are four, and these extremely heavy: that it was a brother, that he was weak, and one of whom Christ made so much account as even to die for him, and that after all this for a “morsel of meat” he is destroyed. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul magnifies the accusation in order to prevent people from committing the crime. — COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 217

1 Corinthians 8:12

Augustine of Hippo: It is the very law of Christ that we bear one another’s burdens. Moreover, by loving Christ we easily bear the weakness of another, even him whom we do not yet love for the sake of his own good qualities, for we realize that the one whom we love is someone for whom the Lord has died. — QUESTIONS 71

Basil of Caesarea: Consequently, either when something is done which is intrinsically evil and scandal results, or if the performance of a licit act and one within our sphere of competence causes scandal to one who is weak in faith or knowledge, then the penalty is clear and unescapable.… “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck.”. — CONCERNING BAPTISM 10

John Chrysostom: “And thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”

Do you observe how quietly and gradually he hath brought their offence up to the very summit of iniquity? And again, he makes mention of the infirmity of the other sort: and so, the very thing which these considered to make for them, that he every where turns round upon their own head. And he said not, “Putting stumbling-blocks in their way,” but, “wounding;” so as by the force of his expression to indicate their cruelty. For what can be more savage than a man who wounds the sick? and yet no wound is so grievous as making a man to stumble. Often, in fact, is this also the cause of death.

But how do they “sin against Christ?” In one way, because He considers the concerns of His servants as His own; in another, because those who are wounded go to make up His Body and that which is part of Him: in a third way, because that work of His which He built up by His own blood, these are destroying for their ambition’s sake. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20

Pseudo-Clement: For this does not profit us, that another stumble because of us. Let us, therefore, be studiously on our guard at all times, that we do not smite our brethren and give them to drink of a disquieting conscience through our being to them a stumbling-block. For “if for the sake of meat our brother be made sad, or shocked, or made weak, or caused to stumble, we are not walking in the love of God. For the sake of meat you cause him to perish for whose sake Christ died.” For, in “thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their sickly consciences, you sin against Christ Himself. For, if for the sake of meat my brother is made to stumble,” let us who are believers say, “Never will we eat flesh, that we may not make our brother to stumble.” [1 Corinthians 8:12-13] — Two Epistles on Virginity

1 Corinthians 8:13

Ambrosiaster: It is all right to have a wife, but if she commits adultery she is to be rejected. Likewise, it is all right to eat meat, but if it has been sacrificed to idols it is to be refused. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Those who are stronger and are not troubled by scruples are nevertheless commanded to abstain so as not to offend those who, on account of their weakness, still find abstinence necessary. — THE WAY OF LIFE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 71

Clement of Alexandria: “For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts “says he, “that I may not make my brother stumble.” — The Instructor Book 2

Cyprian: Moreover, what a number of serious mischiefs we see to have arisen hence; and what a multitude of virgins we behold corrupted by unlawful and dangerous conjunctions of this kind, to our great grief of mind! But if they have faithfully dedicated themselves to Christ, let them persevere in modesty and chastity, without incurring any evil report, and so in courage and steadiness await the reward of virginity. But if they are unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better that they should marry, than that by their crimes they should fall into the fire. Certainly let them not cause a scandal to the brethren or sisters, since it is written, “If meat cause my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” — Epistle LXI

John Chrysostom: “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever.” This is like the best of teachers, to teach in his own person the things which he speaks. Nor did he say whether justly or unjustly; but in any case. “I say not,” (such is his tone,) “meat offered in sacrifice to an idol, which is already prohibited for another reason; but if any even of those things which are within license and are permitted causes stumbling, from these also will I abstain: and not one or two days, but all the time of my life.” For he saith, “I will eat no flesh for ever.” And he said not, “Lest I destroy my brother,” but simply, “That I make not my brother to stumble.” For indeed it comes of folly in the extreme that what things are greatly cared for by Christ, and such as He should have even chosen to die for them, these we should esteem so entirely beneath our notice as not even to abstain from meats on their account. — Homily on 1 Corinthians 20