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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?"

Inasmuch as he had said, "If meat make my brother to stumble I will eat no flesh forever;" a thing which he had not yet done, but professed he would do if need require: lest any man should say, "Thou vauntest thyself at random, and art severe in discourse, and utterest words of promise, a thing easy to me or to any body; but if these sayings come from thy heart, shew by deeds something which thou hast slighted in order to avoid making thy brother stumble:" for this cause, I say, in what follows he is compelled to enter on the proof of this also, and to point out how he was used to forego even things permitted that he might not give offence, although without any law to enforce his doing so.

And we are not yet come to the admirable part of the matter: though it be admirable that he abstain even from things lawful to avoid offence: but it is his habit of doing so at the cost of so much trouble and danger "For why," saith he, "speak of the idol sacrifices? Since although Christ had enjoined that those who preach the Gospel should live at the charge of their disciples, I did not so, but chose, if need were, to end my life with famine and die the most grievous of deaths, so I might avoid receiving of those whom I instruct."

Not because they would otherwise be made to stumble, but because his not receiving would edify them: a much greater thing for him to do. And to witness this he summons themselves, among whom he was used to live in toil and in hunger, nourished by others, and put to straits, in order not to offend them. And yet there was no ground for their taking offence, for it would but have been a law which he was fulfilling. But for all this, by a sort of supererogation he used to spare them.

"Am I not an Apostle?" For besides all that hath been said, this also makes no small difference that Paul himself is the person thus conducting himself. As thus: To prevent their alleging, "You may taste of the sacrifices, sealing at the same time:" for a while he withstands not that statement, but argues, "Though it were lawful, your brethren's harm should keep you from doing so;" and afterwards he proves that it is not even lawful. In this particular place, however, he establishes the former point from circumstances relating to himself. And intending presently to say that he had received nothing from them, he sets it not down at once, but his own dignity is what he first affirms: "Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?"

Thus, to hinder their saying, "True; thou didst not receive, but the reason thou didst not was its not being lawful;" he sets down therefore first the causes why he might reasonably have received, had he been willing to do so.

Further: that there might not seem to be any thing invidious in regard of Peter and such as Peter, in his saying these things, (for they did not use to decline receiving;) he first shows that they had authority to receive, and then that no one might say, "Peter had authority to receive but thou hadst not," he possesses the hearer beforehand with these encomiums of himself. And perceiving that he must praise himself, (for that was the way to correct the Corinthians,) yet disliking to say any great thing of himself, see how he hath tempered both feelings as the occasion required: limiting his own panegyric, not by what he knew of himself, but by what the subject of necessity required. For he might have said, "I most of all had a right to receive, even more than they, because 'I labored more abundantly than they.'" But this he omits, being a point wherein he surpassed them; and those points wherein they were great and which were just grounds for their receiving, those only he sets down.

"Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?" i.e. "have I not authority over myself? am I under any, to overrule me and forbid my receiving?"

"But they have an advantage over you, in having been with Christ."

"Nay, neither is this denied me." With a view to which he saith, "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" For "last of all," saith he, "as unto one born out of due time, He appeared unto me also." Now this likewise was no small dignity: since "many Prophets," saith He, "and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them:" and, "Days will come when ye shall desire to see one of these days."

"What then, though thou be 'an Apostle,' and 'free,' and hast 'seen Christ,' if thou hast not exhibited any work of an Apostle; how then can it be right for thee to receive?" Wherefore after this he adds, "Are not ye my work in the Lord?" For this is the great thing; and those others avail nothing, apart from this. Even Judas himself was "an Apostle," and "free," and "saw Christ;" but because he had not "the work of an Apostle," all those things profited him not. You see then why he adds this also, and calls themselves to be witnesses of it.

Moreover, because it was a great thing which he had uttered, see how he chastens it, adding, "In the Lord:" i.e., "the work is God's, not mine."

"If to others I am not an Apostle, yet at least I am to you."

Do you see how far he is from enlarging here without necessity? And yet he had the whole world to speak of, and barbarous nations, and sea and land. However, he mentions none of these things, but carries his point by concession, and even granting more than he need. As if he had said, "Why need I dwell on things over and above, since these even alone are enough for my present purpose? I speak not, you will observe, of my achievements in other quarters, but of those which have you for witnesses. Upon which it follows that if from no other quarter, yet from you I have a right to receive. Nevertheless, from whom I had most right to receive, even you whose teacher I was, from those I received not."

"If to others I am not an Apostle, yet at least I am to you." Again, he states his point by concession. For the whole world had him for its Apostle. "However," saith he, "I say not that, I am not contending nor disputing, but what concerns you I lay down. 'For the seal of mine Apostleship are ye:'" i.e., its proof. "Should any one, moreover, desire to learn whence I am an Apostle, you are the persons whom I bring forward: for all the signs of an Apostle have I exhibited among you, and not one have I failed in." As also he speaks in the Second Epistle, saying, "Though I am nothing, truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works. For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the Churches?" Wherefore he saith, "The seal of mine Apostleship are ye." "For I both exhibited miracles, and taught by word, and underwent dangers, and shewed forth a blameless life." And these topics you may see fully set forth by these two Epistles, how he lays before them the demonstration of each with all exactness.

"Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer?"

Why, how are these sayings a defence? "Because, when it appears that I abstain even from things which are allowed, it cannot be just to look suspiciously on me as a deceiver or one acting for gain."

Wherefore, from what was before alleged and from my having instructed you and from this which I have now said, I have matter sufficient to make my defence to you: and all who examine me I meet upon this ground, alleging both what has gone before and this which follows: "Have we no right to eat and to drink? have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer?" Yet for all this, having it I abstain?

What then? did he not use to eat or to drink? It were most true to say that in many places he really did not eat nor drink: for "in hunger," saith he, "and in thirst, and in nakedness" we were abiding. Here, however, this is not his meaning; but what? "We eat not nor drink, receiving of those whom we instruct, though we have a right so to receive."

"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.

For the brethren too of the Lord, being freed from their first unbelief, had come to be among those who were approved, although they attained not to the Apostles. And accordingly the middle place is that which he hath assigned to them, setting down those who were in the extremes before and after.

"What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?"

For since, which was the strongest point, he had proved from the Apostles that it is lawful to do so, he next comes to examples and to the common practice; as he uses to do: "What soldier serveth at his own charges?" saith he. But do thou consider, I pray, how very suitable are the examples to his proposed subject, and how he mentions first that which is accompanied with danger; viz. soldiership and arms and wars. For such a kind of thing was the Apostolate, nay rather much more hazardous than these. For not with men alone was their warfare, but with demons also, and against the prince of those beings was their battle array. What he saith therefore is this: "Not even do heathen governors, cruel and unjust as they are, require their soldiers to endure service and peril and live on their own means. How then could Christ ever have required this?"

Nor is he satisfied with one example. For to him who is rather simple and dull, this also is wont to come as a great refreshment, viz. their seeing the common custom also going along with the laws of God. Wherefore he proceeds to another topic also and says, "Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?" For as by the former he indicated his dangers, so by this his labor and abundant travail and care.

He adds likewise a third example, saying, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk thereof?" He is exhibiting the great concern which it becomes a teacher to show for those who are under his rule. For, in fact, the Apostles were both soldiers and husbandmen and shepherds, not of the earth nor of irrational animals, nor in such wars as are perceptible by sense; but of reasonable souls and in battle array with the demons.

It also must be remarked how every where he preserves moderation, seeking the useful only, not the extraordinary. For he said not, "What soldier serveth and is not enriched?" but, "What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?" Neither did he say, "Who planteth a vineyard, and gathereth not gold, or spareth to collect the whole fruit?" but, "Who eateth not of the fruit thereof?" Neither did he say, "Who feedeth a flock, and maketh not merchandize of the lambs?" But what? "And eateth not of the milk thereof?" Not of the lambs, but of the milk; signifying, that a little relief should be enough for the teacher, even his necessary food alone. (This refers to those who would devour all and gather the whole of the fruit.) "So likewise the Lord ordained," saying, "The laborer is worthy of his food."

And not this only doth he establish by his illustrations, but he shows also what kind of man a priest ought to be. For he ought to possess both the courage of a soldier and the diligence of a husbandman and the carefulness of a shepherd, and after all these, to seek nothing more than necessaries.

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

And on what account hath he mentioned this, having the example of the priests? Wishing to establish it far beyond what the case required. Further, lest any should say, "And what have we to do with the saying about the oxen?" he works it out more exactly, saying, "Is it for the oxen that God careth;" Doth God then, tell me, take no care for oxen? Well, He doth take care of them, but not so as to make a law concerning such a thing as this. So that had he not been hinting at something important, training the Jews to mercy in the case of the brutes, and through these, discoursing with them of the teachers also; he would not have taken so much interest as even to make a law to forbid the muzzling of oxen.

Wherein he points out another thing likewise, that the labor of teachers both is and ought to be great.

And again another thing. What then is this? That whatever is said by the Old Testament respecting care for brutes, in its principal meaning bears on the instruction of human beings: as in fact do all the rest: the precepts, for example, concerning various garments; and those concerning vineyards and seeds and not making the ground bear divers crops, and those concerning leprosy; and, in a word, all the rest: for they being of a duller sort He was discoursing with them from these topics, advancing them by little and little.

And see how in what follows he doth not even confirm it, as being clear and self-evident. For having said, "Is it for the oxen that God careth?" he added, "or saith he it altogether for our sake?" Not adding even the "altogether" at random, but that he might not leave the hearer any thing whatever to reply.

And he dwells upon the metaphor, saying and declaring, "Yea for our sakes it was written, because he who ploweth ought to plow in hope;" i.e., the teacher ought to enjoy the returns of his labors; "and he that thresheth ought to thresh in hope of partaking." And observe his wisdom in that from the seed he transferred the matter to the threshing floor; herein also again manifesting the many toils of the teachers, that they in their own persons both plough and tread the floor. And of the ploughing, because there was nothing to reap, but labor only, he used the word, "hope;" but of treading the floor he presently allows the fruit, saying, "He that thresheth is a partaker of his hope."

Further, lest any should say, "Is this then the return for so many toils," he adds, "in hope," i.e., "which is to come." No other thing therefore doth the mouth of this animal being unmuzzled declare than this; that the teachers who labor ought also to enjoy some return.