Четвертое отделение. Как относиться к идоложертвованному (1Кор.8:1–11:1)

“We must say in advance what the Apostle means here; then his speech will be clear to us. Anyone who sees someone accused and does not know in advance the nature of his guilt cannot understand what is said. What does the Apostle accuse the Corinthians of here? - A great crime that caused many evils. Which one exactly? Many of them, knowing that “it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what goes out” (Matthew 15:17-18), and that idols, that is, trees and stones, can neither harm nor benefit, used such perfect knowledge unwisely, to the harm of others and themselves. They entered the churches, took part in meals there, and thus carried out disastrous actions. For those who were still afraid of idols did not learn to despise them and therefore took part in the suppers there, seeing that the most perfect were doing the same - they received great harm from it; for they did not touch what was offered with the same disposition as those who were perfect, but as if they were sacrificing to idols, which is what supported idolatry; at the same time, the perfect ones themselves fell into an important sin, becoming defiled by demonic meals. This was the guilt of the Corinthians” (St. Chrysostom). Thus, those who ate what was sacrificed to idols committed two sins: they seduced the weak and themselves became defiled, although they did not think of doing either one or the other. “The blessed Apostle, wanting to correct them, does not suddenly use words of reproof, for what happened among them was the result of more foolishness than corruption, and therefore it was necessary at the beginning to use more exhortation than strong and angry reproof” (St. Chrysostom). 1) First, the Apostle speaks against the first sin - seducing the weak (1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor. 9). 2) Then - against the second sin - desecration by offering to idols (1 Cor. 10:1-11:1). 1. About seducing the weak (1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor. 9) Speaking against eating something sacrificed to idols from the side that the weak are tempted by this, the Apostle a) reveals in advance how this temptation occurs (1 Cor. 8); and b) then – convinces to refrain from this (1 Cor. 9). a) How temptation occurs (1 Cor. 8) And revealing how temptation occurs, the Apostle encourages people to abstain from eating things sacrificed to idols. To do this, he undermines the basis on which those who partook rested - the mind's view of this matter. aa) From the mind, he says, it turns out just like that that eating something sacrificed to idols is nothing (1 Cor. 8:1-6); but, acting according to your mind, you must also keep in mind that you would not have a harmful influence on others. bb) Your freedom in this regard definitely has a bad influence on the weak, and you would do better if you did not do so. When you do this, you sin (1 Cor. 8:7–13). 1 Corinthians 8:1. We know about those sacrificed to idols; like all the minds of the imams. The mind boasts, but it creates love. The first words: “about those sacrificed to idols, like all minds are imams,” were probably taken from a letter written to the Corinthians. Having repeated them, the Apostle makes a remark on them, which goes to the end of the third verse. In the fourth verse, he repeats them again: “about eating things sacrificed to idols,” and then sets out what is and should be the knowledge of Christians about this subject, until the end of verse 6. The second half of the chapter begins with the seventh verse, in which it is outlined how careless action of the mind seduces and destroys the weak. “About those sacrificed to idols,” that is, about eating sacrifices to idols, as can be seen from the beginning of the fourth verse. The sacrifices made to idols were not all burned, but some; the rest - partly went to the priests, partly was returned to those who brought it, who established a meal from it, either right there at the churches, or at home. Christians who were more educated, knowing that an idol is nothing and therefore cannot convey any harm or sin to food, approached this meal without fear when they were invited either by kinship, or by acquaintance, or for some other reason; but the simplest Christians were tempted by this. The leaders of the church probably asked: we know that eating something sacrificed to idols is nothing; but now they are tempted, what can they do? – How to proceed, the Apostle explains below, and now he takes from their letter only the first words: we know, and denounces the arrogance of knowledge and its inability to act for the benefit of others. “We are all minds of imams.” The Corinthians say about themselves that they understand very well what idol sacrifices mean. The Apostle does not say anything against this, he reserves this advantage for them. Afterwards he will say that not everyone has understanding (v. 7); and now he gives in, saying, as it were: so be it. Theodoret notes that the Apostle testified here about their reason with some mockery, as can be seen from the following reproach to reason: “they have no understanding.” And Saint Chrysostom says: “Having left the weak, as he always does, he first turns his speech to the strong and first overthrows their pride. He does not reject knowledge, but strikes the pride that comes from it by the fact that knowledge itself is not only incomplete, but also very imperfect, and not only imperfect, but also harmful, unless something else is combined with it.” “Reason boasts, but creates love.” – “Ubo” is not in the original; there is no particle there. This gives freedom - to combine this speech with the previous one, as you decide. Let him, he says, have reason - knowledge; but knowledge alone is an unreliable guide to life. It arouses arrogance, and from arrogance - division. Only love creates - οικοδομει - builds out of all Christians one whole and harmonious building - the house of the living God. Therefore, if there is no love with knowledge, then it can be more harmful than useful. Saint Chrysostom explains it this way: “If knowledge is not combined with love, then it produces pride. Knowledge needs love. He who loves, as one who fulfills the most important of all commandments, even if he has some shortcomings, with the help of love can soon acquire knowledge; and whoever has knowledge without love will not only gain nothing, but often lose what he has. Knowledge removes love from an inattentive person, giving rise to pride and arrogance in him. Pride divides, but love unites. I do not forbid, he says, to have perfect knowledge, but I command to have it together with love; otherwise it is not only useless, but also harmful. What are you proud to know? If you do not have love, it will harm you, for what is worse than pride? If you have love, then your knowledge will be trustworthy, for whoever knows his neighbor more and loves him will not become arrogant, but will tell him the same. Therefore, having said: “the mind is boastful,” he added: “and it creates love.” He didn’t say: it humbles, but he expressed something much more important and useful. Just as knowledge not only puffs up, but also produces division, so love is characterized by opposite actions” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:2. If anyone thinks that he knows something, he has no understanding, as he should understand. There he only said: it’s good that you know, but see if with knowledge there is also love, for if it is only one, then do not expect good from it. Consequently, reproof remains only on condition, although he knew that they had already sinned against love. And here he directly denounces. From the very same thing, he says, that you said: “we have”, we have all the reason - knowledge, from this very thing I deduce that your knowledge is bad. Whoever thinks that he knows something, thereby denounces that he does not know as he should. For the simplest objects have many inexplicable sides, and the more someone knows, the more secrets, hidden things, and misunderstandings he encounters. Examples are before us: tell me, how do we see, how do we hear, how do we speak? Therefore, whoever knows for sure and goes deep into the field of knowledge will never say: I know, we all know this. If this happens in simple things, how much more so in spiritual things? This conviction is very strong; but the Apostle softens it, expressing his thought in a general position. “By this the Apostle showed that the Corinthians not only lack love, but also lack knowledge, which they ascribed to themselves and thought highly of themselves. The accusation is expressed vaguely, because he wants to heal rather than strike” (Theodorit). “And see how he has brought down their pride. He did not say: you do not have proper knowledge about the objects proposed, but about everything in general; He did not say: you, but: everyone, whether Peter Paul, or anyone else. With these words he excellently consoled and humbled them” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:3. If anyone loves God, he is known quickly from Him. From the words, if someone thinks of himself that he knows something, directly conclude that he does not know anything as he should - it does not follow that someone who does not think so knows something as he should. On the contrary, it follows from this that no one knows anything as they should, and therefore, just because this position is true, the first one is also true. From here the question naturally arises: what should we do? Where to look for knowledge? If it is natural for this question to arise, then it is natural to expect its resolution from the Apostle after this. He says: “Whoever loves God is known by Him.” The speech is definitely about knowledge, but not at all in the form that would be expected. If he had said: he who loves God knows what he should know and knows how he should, then this would fully meet his expectations and satisfy him. And he says: whoever loves God is known from Him, εγνωσται υπ αυτου. Although it is translated in Russian: knowledge has been given to him from Him; but it is obvious that this does not correspond to the original. The Slavic translation is real. So, what does it mean to “be known of God”? - since God knows everything, when it is said that someone is known by God, some peculiarity of knowledge must be understood here, as happens when someone sees everything, but looks at something in particular. The prophet says: “The Lord knows the way of the righteous.” This means that He looks at him with special attention and watches over him, especially cares about him, as can be seen from the following: “but the way of the wicked will perish,” being abandoned as if without attention by the Lord. Thus God knows the one who loves Him; knows by the fact that he especially cares about him, or, what is the same, loves him. It turns out: whoever loves God is known by Him, that is, he is under His special care, as one of His own, loved by Him. If he who loves God lives in God, then God, by Whom he who loves Him is loved, dwells in this latter. He who loves God abides in God, and God abides in him. Is this not what the Apostle wanted to say? We are accustomed to valuing knowledge too highly, and we think that the Apostle, who reproached our knowledge, should show us the path to it; The Apostle’s whole concern is about life, and not about knowledge. Therefore, having reproached knowledge, was it not in his mind to say: knowledge alone, without love, is infuriating; yes and no it is perfect. Someone will ask: what to do, where to get knowledge? – I’ll tell you this: give up all your worries about knowledge; love God and you will be loved by Him; - that's all. This is your goal! There is nowhere to go further, there is nothing more to wish for. Blessed Theodoret writes: “We need a lot of knowledge, and in real life to acquire perfect knowledge is something impossible. Therefore, let us love God so that we may be counted worthy of His providence for us. This is what the Apostle expressed in the words: “whoever loves God is known by Him,” that is, he is made worthy of His care. So blessed Moses said to the God of all Himself: “Thou hast advertised to me; You have found grace before Me and know you above all" (Ex. 33:12-17)." Blessed Theophylact leads in the same way to knowledge: “This is what the Apostle says here: whoever loves his neighbor, of course loves God. He who loves God is quickly known from Him, that is, he becomes known to Him, his own - at home. Having become so intimately known to God, he receives knowledge from Him, although at the same time it is not perfect. So, even if you have knowledge, do not become arrogant, for it is imperfect, and this imperfection is not yours, but God’s gift. See how the Apostle humbles their arrogance!” 1 Corinthians 8:4. Regarding the eating of those sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no one but One God. Having repeated the first words from the letter of the Corinthians on this subject and making comments on them, it seems the Apostle continues to read their letter in this and in the next two verses - the 5th and 6th; and from the 7th verse he begins his remarks again. Having accepted this assumption, we will see more clearly the structure and flow of speech in this chapter. Because the words of verses 4-6 are considered the words of the Corinthians, they will not lose their dogmatic importance; for from whom did the Corinthians receive them, if not from St. Paul? Therefore, even though the Corinthians bring them, they are not the work of their mind, but are the essence of the revealed apostolic word. Moreover, the Apostle, citing them here, confirms with his agreement, for he does not make any comments on them, but approving them with all his strength, further notes that not everyone understands the matter so accurately and clearly, and then says what came of it. This is the perfection to which Saint Paul brought his disciples, that they could assimilate and utter such lofty truths! Or maybe, from the letter of the Corinthians, only the first words before - “vema” were taken again, and then the Apostle in his own words explains the thought contained in “vema”. “About eating things sacrificed to idols,” he repeats the same thing, only adding: “about eating,” to show that the bewilderment concerned precisely this, and not the fact that they are idols and things sacrificed to idols. - “We are, like an idol is nothing.” Theodoret puts the following word into the mouth of the Apostle: “This is how you used to say, because you learned to say it from me, that is, that idols are inanimate, insensitive, and that the Creator and Ruler of all things is one God.” “There is no idol in the world.” “But are there no idols? Are there no idols? - Eat; but they have no power, and are not gods, but stones and demons” (St. Chrysostom). “In the world,” that is, among things that actually exist in nature and are necessary in the chain of beings. They are a figment of the human imagination and have no meaning. About idols and idols, others thought that they themselves were gods; while others believed that idols served only as the dwelling of the gods, and the gods were special beings. The Apostle calls both an idol, and, combining both in one word, says that an idol is nothing. Idol actually means something ghostly, dreamed, imaginary, but in fact non-existent. They imagine that the idol is a god, but it is not a god; They imagine that someone lives in it, but there is no one there. These are all dreams. God is one, and besides this one God there is no other. 1 Corinthians 8:5. Moreover, the essence of the verbs is bozi, either in heaven or on earth, just as there are many gods and many lords. “Even if they are the essence”, not in fact “the essence”, but “the essence of verbemia”, they are called like that, they call them like this: gods, but in fact they are not the essence of that. - There are gods in heaven, or imaginary dreamy creatures, or the sun, moon, stars. - “On earth” gods are earthly creatures or people who have become famous for something and are revered as gods. - “Like the essence of the gods is many and the Lord is many.” Again, the “essence” is not in reality, but is considered to be so. This says, as it were: for look how many gods and lords are honored everywhere. Gods and lords are not higher and lower gods, but they mean the same thing: who is not given divine honor? – And all this is a dream. Saint Chrysostom says: “Since he said that an idol is nothing and there is no other God - and meanwhile there were both idols and so-called gods - then, so as not to think that he rejects the obvious, he adds: “even if the essence of the verbs is bozi” - although there are gods, not just gods, but verbs, that is, not really existing, but only so-called. "Either in heaven or on earth." In the sky he means the sun, the moon and other luminaries, for the pagans worshiped them too; and on earth demons and all deified people.” – Theodoret writes: “The Greeks affirm the existence of many gods, they are also called lords, but they do not exist at all, they are known by only names. According to Hellenic fables, some gods were called heavenly, such as Dia, Apollo, Ira, Athena, and others were earthly, such as springs, rivers, the so-called nymphs, Herakles, Dionysus, Asklipius and thousands of others.” 1 Corinthians 8:6. But for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom all things are worthless, and we are with Him; and there is one Lord Jesus Christ, in Him are all things, and we are in Him. “But to us,” - not in the thought that those have many, and we have one, giving any meaning to those many, but this way: in our opinion, according to our true faith, “there is one God”; There is only one God. “The Greeks, engulfed in the darkness of ignorance, are mistaken, recognizing many, and, moreover, non-existent gods, but we know one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ” (Theodoret). “There is one God the Father, from Whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, Who is all things.” There is one God, one Lord. since God and Lord are the names of the Divine nature, the Apostle thereby affirms the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. He says to the Father: “all things are from the Worthless” - εξ ου - not from His nature, but from His creative power - the same as from Him. To the Son: “By Him are all things,” - δι ου, through Whom, not as through an instrument, but as by self-acting, omnipotent power, as in the Gospel of John: “By Him were all things” (1 Cor. 1:3) - the same as from Him. - Both “from Negozhe” and “through Negozhe” mean the same thing: from Him. This confirms the oneness of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. – What the Father does, the Son also does at the same time. - He says about us - in relation to the Father: “and we are with Him,” - εισ αυτον, - in Him, that is, we are destined to be in communion with Him, in Him is our goal, and the supreme good. And in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ: and “we are the One,” - δι αυτου, - that is, through Him we come to God, we are reunited with Him after falling away and we achieve our final destination. Here is what St. Chrysostom says in this important place: “The very names (that is, God and Lord) used by the Apostle should not be understood as if the title “Lord” exclusively belonged to the Son, and the title “God” to the Father. In Scripture one is often used instead of the other, for example when it is said: “the Lord spoke to my Lord” (Ps. 109:1); and again: “For this reason of anointing you, God your God” (Ps. 44:8); and again: “from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God above all” (Rom. 9:5). And in many other places these names are used one instead of the other. If each of them exclusively belonged to one Person, if the Son were not God, and such a God as the Father, but would only be the Son, then Paul, having said: “but to us there is only one God,” would in vain add the word: “Father,” to signify an unborn being, for for this it would be enough to say the word: “God”, if it belonged to Him alone. - Not only this, but something else can be said. God (the Father), you will say, is called “one (God)”; therefore, the name of God is not characteristic of the Son. But look, the same thing is said about the Son; and the Son is called “the one Lord”; however, we do not say that therefore the name of the Lord is peculiar to Him alone. Therefore, whatever meaning the word one has in relation to the Son, is the same in relation to the Father; how the fact that the Son is called the one Lord does not prevent the Father from being Lord, and the same Lord as the Son; so the fact that the Father is called one God does not prevent the Son from being God, and the same God as the Father.” Here are the words of Theodoret: “Here the apostolic wisdom is worthy of surprise. For in what was said above, having shown that the name: God, the name: Lord is equivalent (in the words: “the gods are many and the Lord is many”), now the Apostle divided these names and put one to the Father, and the other to the Son, thereby healing the weakness of the Corinthians (that is, leading them to the knowledge of the equality of the Father and the Son). – And the Old Testament Scripture shows these names combined. For it is said: “I am the Lord your God” (Ex. 20:2): and “hear to Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4); and: “Lord my God, you are greatly exalted” (Ps. 103:1), and much like that. Therefore, the true God is, without a doubt, the Lord; and the true Lord, without a doubt, is also God. Moreover, there is no other God the Father, because there is one God the Father, and there is no other Lord Jesus Christ, because there is one Lord Jesus Christ. – And the words: “and we are with Him” mean: we must turn to Him, look at Him, and constantly praise Him. The words: “and we by Him” mean not creation, but salvation, because everything was created by Him, and we, who believed, received salvation through Him.” But St. Chrysostom refers both expressions: “we are with Him” and “we are by Him,” equally to salvation, as “all things are from Worthless,” and “who is all things” - to creation: “With the words: “all things are from Worthless,” he indicates creation and bringing from non-existence into being; and with the words: “and we are with Him” indicates our faith and our union with Him, as he says above: “you are of worthlessness in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30). We are from God in two ways: by being and by faith, which is also creation. “The same must be understood about Christ, for through Him the human race was brought from non-existence to being, and from error to truth, which the Apostle expressed in the words: “By whom we are all, and by him we are.” 1 Corinthians 8:7. But not everyone has reason: some, with an idolatrous conscience, even hitherto eat something sacrificed to idols, and their conscience is weak and defiled. If the Apostle spoke the previous words on his own behalf, then at the end of them it is fitting to put the following words into his mouth: this is how one should reason about idols, and, accordingly, about things sacrificed to idols; but not everyone has yet risen to such concepts. If we accept that he takes these words from the letter of the Corinthians, then these are: you reason well, but not all of them have convictions regarding idols - not “everyone has the same mind.” Others consider idols to be something, and about the sacrifices made to them, they think that they receive a corresponding quality from them, so that eating these sacrifices, in their opinion, means entering into communication with idols, or the forces hidden in them. Previously they thought so; and even though they had recently fallen behind idolatry, they had not yet had time to wean themselves from such convictions regarding idols and things sacrificed to idols. This is what the Apostle called “an idol’s conscience.” “But on their own they do not even think of touching anything idolatrous.” They rejected all this, accepting the Christian faith and, with its acceptance, acquiring a Christian conscience. This conscience abhors them to touch something sacrificed to idols, since, in their thoughts, this means participating in idolatry. Meanwhile, encountering examples of strong reasoners, who, looking at things sacrificed to idols, like any other food, pure, eat it with a calm conscience, are carried away by them and also eat things sacrificed to idols, without having the same reasoning that the strong have, holding the thought that eating something sacrificed to idols means communicating with idolatry, and despite the fact that the Christian conscience abhors them to do this. Thus, they act against their Christian conscience and become defiled, staining their conscience. - “And their conscience is weak and the essence is defiled.” “It is not eating that defiles, but the conscience that becomes defiled, not having accepted perfect knowledge, but being still possessed by idolatry’s deception” (Theodoret). “Some, he says, have not yet realized that “an idol is nothing in the world,” and therefore continue to be afraid of idols. Do not point out to me the present state in which you find yourself, having accepted piety from your ancestors, but turn your thoughts to those times when preaching had just begun, when wickedness still reigned, altars were burned, sacrifices and libations were made, when there were still a lot of pagans - and imagine how those who inherited wickedness from their ancestors, descended from such fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and only converted to Christianity - how they must have feared and trembled! This is what the Apostle means when he says: “With an idol’s conscience they even eat what was sacrificed to idols,” that is, with the same thoughts with which they ate before. “And their conscience is weak and defiled,” because it still cannot consider these sacrifices as nothing and completely despise them, but still remains in doubt. As if someone, considering, according to the Jewish way of thinking, touching a dead person to be desecration for himself, abstained from this - and then, seeing that others were touching him with a clear conscience, he would begin to touch him himself, only not with the same thoughts, so it was then with the Corinthians. “And their conscience became defiled” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:8. Brashno does not place us before God: we are more than pits, we are excessive; Below, if there are no pits, we are deprived. In the previous verse, the Apostle expressed a general thought about how others’ consciences can be corrupted if they eat something sacrificed to idols without proper convictions. Now it was only necessary to make an application and say: here you, strong in mind, eat what was sacrificed to idols and do not become defiled, because you are convinced that through this you have no fellowship with idolatry. But your example may captivate the weak who have no such convictions; but not having them, they, by eating things sacrificed to idols, will offend their Christian conscience and become defiled; the desecration of conscience is the destruction of the soul. Thus, with your mind you are destroying your brother, and by destroying him, you are sinning against Christ. So, refrain. “But they could say: what do we care about them?” – Let them understand their concepts! “And this would lead to stubbornness and bitterness.” Preventing this, the Apostle says in advance: to eat or not to eat is not a great matter before God. From which it directly followed: therefore, there is nothing to argue about. This thought cut off any objection from them before it even arose and paved the way for the full effect of the corrective suggestions of the Apostle. This is how our interpreters understand the flow of the Apostle’s speech. Saint Chrysostom says: “Until now, the Apostle had not yet spoken about the essence of the matter, but only paid attention to the conscience of the eater, fearing that, while correcting the weak, he would not offend the strong and make him also weak; equally spares both. Why does he say: “Brahno does not place us before God,” warning them so that they do not say: what do we care if not everyone has such knowledge? - Why doesn’t so-and-so have knowledge? - Why is he weak? – He does not directly move on to the conclusion that one must abstain (from sacrifices to idols) so as not to harm one’s neighbor, but, having only previously pointed this out, he suggests something more important. What is it? – That, even if intemperance (from these dishes) did not cause harm to anyone or tempt one’s neighbor, in this case one should abstain, for this is a useless matter. He who knows that a business, although it causes harm to another, brings benefit to himself, will not quickly leave it, but will rather leave it when he is convinced that he himself will not receive any benefit from it. That is why he says in advance: “He does not put us before God.” Do you see how insignificant he represents that which apparently comes from perfect knowledge? - “Below the pit, we are abundant,” that is, we do not deserve God’s favor, as if we had done something good and great; “below the pit, we are deprived,” that is, we lose nothing. Thus, he proved that eating something sacrificed to idols is unnecessary and insignificant, for what does not bring benefit when it is, and does not harm when it is not, is unnecessary.” By rubbish here we mean precisely what was sacrificed to idols. The Apostle’s thought is this: you who boast of a high mind and a clear understanding of the matter, do not think that you are doing anything valuable in the eyes of God when you eat the remnants of sacrifices to idols. This does not result in any addition to your pleasing to God, acquired through other deeds. Also, do not think that those who do not eat this kind of meat are diminished in the eyes of God. No, their piety, acquired in another way, does not suffer any damage or deprivation through this. – From here it is clear how unfounded it is to attach the word of the Apostle to fasts! 1 Corinthians 8:9. Take heed, lest this power cause you to be weak. Some interpreters consider the previous words about the brush to be the words of the Corinthians. In their opinion, the Apostle’s speech proceeds in this order: he took from the letter the words: “We know that an idol is nothing” and so on; and made a remark to them: this is true, but not everyone has such a mind. Then he again reads from the letter of the Corinthians: “it’s bad” and so on, that is, the Corinthians write: idols are nothing, therefore, what is sacrificed to idols receives neither holiness nor sinfulness from them; it's like any other food. Food in itself does not place us before God: if you eat, nothing is added in this regard, and if you don’t eat, nothing is diminished. So we eat. - The Apostle now makes a remark on this: it is true that this is an indifferent matter, but it is necessary to look so as not to cause stumbling to your brother. The particle: “the same,” and the one placed in front: “it’s great,” and here repeated: “Take heed,” and especially the words: “This is your power,” stand for this assumption. And the structure of speech seems to be more harmonious. But there is no need to insist on this. The structure of speech even with the stated understanding loses nothing. You can, however, leave this to your own discretion. – Let us take the thought previously stated and continue: The Apostle says, as it were: the fact that, with such an understanding of the matter, you eat from the remnants of sacrificial offerings does not defile you; but this does not add anything to you in pleasing God - your main task. Meanwhile, look at the danger! Your brother may stumble from such a free attitude towards sacrificial brushes. And this is not an unimportant matter. So, beware! “ “Watch.” He did not say: your power is a stumbling block, - he did not express it positively, so that they would not become more shameless, but how? - “watch,” he says, arousing in them fear, shame and determination not to do this. He did not say: this is your intelligence or your perfection, which would mean more praise, but: “power”, which more expressed their shamelessness, insolence and pride. He did not say: to the brethren, but: “to the weak” - from the brethren, increasing their guilt by the fact that they do not spare even the weak, and, moreover, you do not correct your brother - so be it; but why do you put an obstacle in front of him and bring him to the point of falling, when you should not give him a helping hand; at least do not cast him down, then he needs correction; healing" (Saint Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:10. If anyone sees you, having reason, reclining in the tavern, isn’t his weak conscience creating food sacrificed to idols? Explains how stumbling can occur. “He will see,” he says, “your brother in the treasury—you, whom he knows as a man of great knowledge, revered by all, whose word and deed always carry weight among the brethren—he will see and be carried away by your example of also sitting down to a meal sacrificed to idols, while in his conscience he considers this deed not sinless for a Christian.” By doing this, he will offend his conscience and sin before God, for in no case should he act against his conscience. This is how a weak brother can stumble and fall! – “And this temptation comes not only from his weakness, but also from your foolishness; you make him even more weak” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:11. And the weak brother in your mind will perish, for whose sake Christ died. "He will perish"; for, acting against conscience, he sins; or it may also be that, having partaken of the demonic meal, he will completely fall away from the faith and again turn to idolatry. Fell - lost until he repents; but if he fell away, he died completely. The reason is your mind; You look at things reasonably, but act unreasonably despite your reasonable views. And the brother died - the brother for whom Christ died. A startling reminder! He has already accepted the cleansing and sanctifying effect of Christ’s death: drops of the Lord’s blood on him for salvation. And you plunge him into his former uncleanness and together with him you trample on this saving, priceless blood. Doesn't this terrify you?! “The harm you cause is unforgivable for two reasons: because your neighbor is weak, and because he is your brother; but there is also a third reason, the most terrible. Which? - The one that Christ did not refuse to die for him, and you do not even want to show him leniency. He does not say: for whose sake you should die, but much stronger: “for whose sake Christ would die.” Your master did not refuse to die for him, but you do not pay any attention to him, you do not want to abstain for him even from an unclean meal, but you allow him to perish after his salvation has been accomplished in this way, and, what is most difficult, because of food! (Saint Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:12. In the same way, when you sin against your brethren, and beat their weak consciences, you sin against Christ. Such people sin “against the brethren,” that is, against the brethren. They accepted the gift of reason and knowledge in order to build up the brethren, but by acting foolishly they upset them. Beating the conscience is a merciless action! As we sometimes say: you hit me in the heart. They beat the conscience not only by leading them into temptation, but by leading them astray and plunging them into deeds that are contrary to their conscience. Their conscience has been beaten because of you; and, being beaten, beats them: they suffer. - “They sin against Christ,” that is, against Christ, and to those who have already commanded: “Be careful that you do not despise one of these little ones,” the least of “those who believe in Me” (Matthew 18:10), and they do not pay any attention to this; and especially by plunging a brother into sin. “Do you see how gradually and little by little he proved that their guilt was the most serious crime? – They sin against Christ: firstly, because He appropriates to Himself what concerns His servants; secondly, those who were beaten constitute His body and His members; thirdly, those who beat (the conscience of the weak), through their pride, destroy the work that He accomplished with His death” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 8:13. Moreover, if he tempts my brother with cruelty, let me not eat meat forever, lest I tempt my brother. The Apostle says: judging by such destructiveness of the temptation, this is what I have decided on: that if food tempts a brother, then I will not taste it forever, so as not to tempt my brother. He sets forth his own will, decisions, rules and regulations; but his thought was to give a lesson to the Corinthians that this is exactly how they should act. He sets his own example to make them more willing to do the same. “He acts like an excellent mentor, setting an example within himself for what he teaches. Doesn't say whether it will be fair or unfair, but be that as it may. I’m not even talking, he seems to suggest, about idolatry sacrifices, which are impermissible for another reason; but if my brother is tempted by something that is within my power and permitted, I will abstain from this too, not one or two days, but for the rest of my life. - “The imam will not eat meat forever.” He did not further say: let me not destroy, but even only: “let me not seduce my brother.” Truly, extremely insanely, those for whom Christ cares so much that he deigned to die for them are considered so despicable that he does not even abstain from food for them. This not only applies to the Corinthians, but, one might say, to us, who neglect the salvation of our neighbors and utter the same satanic words. For to say: what does it matter to me if someone is offended and so-and-so perishes? – this is truly satanic cruelty and inhumanity. - Then the temptation occurred at least from the weakness of those who were tempted, but with us it is not so; we commit such sins that tempt even the strong” (St. Chrysostom). b) Conviction to abstain from temptation (1 Cor. 9) The Apostle proved that the unreasonable use of freedom in relation to eating things sacrificed to idols is tempting for the weak, and therefore should be avoided. Now he begins to convince them to act this way. He takes his conviction from his example. Look, he seems to be saying how I act: I have the right to use the contents of the faithful whom I convert, but I do not do this, so as not to give reason to think that I am preaching for selfish reasons, and thereby not turn the weak away from the Gospel. I work myself, endure hunger and need, and do not burden anyone with myself. So do you too. You see that your behavior is tempting, change it. This does not require any sacrifice for you; not the same for me. – The ninth chapter is devoted to explaining this. It appears to be a retreat, but it should not be looked at that way. Here are the words of St. Chrysostom about this: “The Apostle has not yet done what is expressed in the words: “If he tempts my brother with evil, I will not eat meat forever,” the Apostle has not yet done this, but only expressed his readiness to do this if need demands. Therefore, lest anyone say: you only boast, show wisdom in words and promise, which is easy for me and for everyone else, but if you speak from the heart, then show in practice what you refused, so as not to tempt your brother, he finds it necessary to explain this and show how he abstained even from what was permitted, so as not to tempt someone, while no law forces him to do so. It is not only surprising - although this in itself is surprising - that he abstained from what was allowed, so as not to seduce, but also that he abstained with great difficulty and amidst dangers. Christ, he says, commanded the preachers of the Gospel to receive support from those taught, but I did not do this either, but decided, if necessary, to suffer from hunger and undergo the most severe death, just so as not to take anything from those taught. And he presents them as witnesses of this, for whom he worked, suffered hunger, received food from others and was in a shy position, so as not to tempt them, although they would be tempted in vain, because this would be a legal matter; he spared them so much! If he himself acted above the law, so as not to give rise to temptation, and abstained from what was permissible for the edification of others, then what are they worthy of, not abstaining from idolatry sacrifices, while many perish from it, and, moreover, then, as without temptation, they should have abstained, because this is a demonic meal. This is the main content of the following verses (that is, the ninth chapter). But the Apostle did not express his thought suddenly, but began from afar.” This beginning from afar consists in the fact that, dealing with scientists, Saint Paul considered it necessary to prove to them comprehensively that he, as an Apostle, definitely had the right to receive maintenance from the believers he converted. And thus the following flow of speech was formed: aa) I am an Apostle (1 Cor. 9:1-3); bb) as an Apostle, he could use content from believers (1 Cor. 9:4–14); cv) but I did not exercise this right (1 Cor. 9:15–18); gg) and not only did not take advantage of this, but also refused many other things in favor of those being converted (1 Cor. 9:19-23). – The last verses (1 Cor. 9:24–27) contain an application of what has been stated. aa) I am an Apostle (1 Cor. 9, 1–3) 1 Corinthians 9:1–2. Is there no Apostle? Is there no freedom? Haven't you seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Isn’t it my work in the Lord? Even if I am not an Apostle to others, I am also to you; You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. “Is there an Apostle?” Question after question comes - and with movement, perhaps intentionally, to arouse attention. This was also due to the unexpectedness of the questions themselves, because at first it was not clear where they were going. – His goal is to restore to the attention of the Corinthians the idea that he is a real Apostle. “Is there an Apostle?” Am I not a real Apostle, ordained from above? (Theodorite). I did not begin the work of preaching on my own, and I was not sent by any other person. The Lord Himself appointed him to this ministry, like all the other Apostles. Therefore, “is there no freedom?” Do I not have the authority to act fully as an Apostle, like everyone else? “I am not under the authority of another and am not in the rank of disciple, but the whole universe has been entrusted to me” (Theodoret). “Have I no power over myself? “Who has the power to stop me or prohibit me?” (Saint Chrysostom). - “Have you seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” “Since Saint Paul was called after the Ascension of the Savior, and the Apostles were all in great glory, because they were considered worthy to see the Lord Himself, then out of necessity he added this too” (Theodoret), so that no one could think that he was in any way inferior to others in his apostleship. What others had, I have the same. They saw the Lord, and I saw Him too. He Himself appeared to me (1 Cor. 5:8), and He Himself sent me to preach to all languages. With this series of questions he restored the idea that he was a real Apostle. Now, for his purpose, he needs to make them remember how he apostolated to them. Hence the question: “Are you not my work in the Lord?” - “Isn’t it the work,” that is, the apostolic, aren’t you the work of my apostleship? – This means their conversion to faith and the creation of the Church from them, in its full composition. About the “Lord,” or with the help of the Lord, or for the glory of the Lord, or the work of the Lord, you are in the mood for salvation in the Lord. This should have brought to their memory everything about how Saint Paul came to them and how he acted for a year and a half, and how he behaved among them. - “Even if I am not an Apostle to others, I am also to you.” Others who have not seen me may still doubt whether I am an Apostle, but this should be obvious to you. You felt the apostolic power in me. “The apostle expressed this briefly, but said a lot in a little - about the labors in teaching the doctrine, about exploits and all kinds of suffering for it, and about the wonderful actions of grace, of which the Corinthians were true witnesses, as self-visionists” (Theodoret). - “You are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” - “A seal, that is, proof. Whoever wants to be convinced, he says, of my apostleship, I point to you. For I have done everything that belongs to an Apostle among you and have omitted nothing. With you I showed signs, and taught by word, and was exposed to dangers, and led an impeccable life. In his second epistle he testifies more fully to this: “The signs of the apostles were wrought in you in all patience, in signs and wonders and powers. What is there that has been lost more than other churches” (2 Cor. 12:12-13)? (Saint Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 9:3. My answer to those who oppose me is this. And here is my answer to those who would object to my apostleship and argue. What I said should convince everyone that I am a real Apostle. “For those who want to know why I am an Apostle, or are trying to prove that I am not an Apostle, your conversion serves as my proof and justification” (St. Chrysostom). bb) As an Apostle, I can benefit from content from believers (1 Cor. 9:4–14) The Apostle convinces us of this with various arguments. The first argument is taken from the example of the other Apostles, 1 Cor. 9:4-6. 1 Corinthians 9:4–6. Food is not the imams power to eat and drink? Food is it not the imams who have the power to lead their sister and wife, like the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who are not imams who do not have the power to do so? “Food is not the authority of the imams to eat and drink?” “But despite the fact that I have power, I abstain. Did he really not eat or drink? Indeed, he often did not eat or drink. “In hunger,” he says, “and thirst... and nakedness” (2 Cor. 11:27). But here he means not that, but what? “We do not eat or drink at the expense of the disciples, although we have the right to take from them” (St. Chrysostom). “The apostle means: “eat and drink” from the gospel. I intend to show by this that, having the right, according to the Master’s law, to receive the necessary food from the disciples, he continued to work and labor to earn the necessary food, for the benefit of the disciples” (Theodoret). “Isn’t it food that the imams of power take their sister and wife?” By “sister wife” one cannot mean a spouse; in this case it was enough to say: “wife.” By adding “sister,” the Apostle made it clear that he did not mean a spouse here, but a woman of the believers. And in this case it would be enough to say “sister”; but so that no one would think that this was a sister according to the flesh, he added “wife.” And the Greek word γυνη actually means woman, not wife. Who is “sister wife”? - “Just as faithful wives followed the Lord, supplying the disciples with the necessary food (Luke 8:3), so some of the Apostles were followed by wives who showed ardent faith in themselves, were attached to their teaching, and contributed to the divine preaching” (Theodoret). These are respectable women both in condition and age. “Rich women from among those who believed followed some of the Apostles, providing them with the necessary needs of life, so that they, being free from worries about this, would be diligent in preaching alone” (Ecumenius). "Jaco and the other Apostles". Not all of the apostles were married - maybe two or three. Others were celibate; and those, when they went out to preach, or even when they were still called by the Lord, left everything of marriage and life, as the Apostle Peter testified before the Lord: “We have forsaken all things.” The word “lead” must be understood in this sense: they allowed them to follow them, they did not forbid them to provide for themselves. From the outside, someone looking at them can definitely think and say that they are being led. “And the brethren of the Lord” - of course, either Joseph’s children from his first wife, or cousins. The Evangelist John said about them that they had not yet believed the Lord when He was on earth, which must be understood this way: they did not yet fully believe, and not all, but some. Then they all believed and diligently devoted themselves to the work of preaching the Gospel. "Cephas" - Apostle Peter. “Do you see the wisdom of St. Paul? He delivers the Supreme Apostle after; the strongest evidence is placed at the end, for pointing to others doing this would not be as striking as pointing to the first Apostle. However, he does not point to him alone, but to everyone, and as if he is saying: whether you look at the lower ones or the higher ones, they all serve as an example. The brothers of the Lord, who left their former unbelief, were also worthy of glory, although they were equal to the Apostles (out of 12); That’s why he places them in the middle, placing the main ones before and after them” (St. Chrysostom). “Or is it only I and Barnabas who are not imams who do not have the power to do so?” - “Do not do” - that is, do not earn food for yourself through the labor of your hands. He says, as it were: “The Lord has allowed all those who preach the gospel to live from the gospel; And are we the only ones deprived of this right?” (Theodorite). “If we have everything else in common with them, then why shouldn’t this also be common? Both they and we are Apostles, and are free, and have seen Christ, and have done what follows the Apostles: therefore, we also have the right to live without labor and receive support from the disciples” (St. Chrysostom). – Why will Barnabas be remembered when Silas and Timothy were in Corinth with Saint Paul? – Probably the Corinthians knew that Saint Barnabas, even after separation from Saint Paul, acted like him in the matter of maintaining himself. Saint Chrysostom remarks only at this: “Do you see how the soul of Saint Paul is humble and pure from all envy, how he does not keep silent about those who participated in his labors?” The Apostle takes the second argument from “everyday customs” (Theodoret). 1 Corinthians 9:7. Who fights with their dues when? Or who plants grapes and does not eat of its fruit? Or who feeds a flock and does not eat the milk of the flock? “Having brought the strongest evidence - the example of the Apostles - that one can do this (not eat with the labor of one’s hands), he now turns to comparisons and generally accepted customs and says: “Who makes war with his dues?” Look how appropriate the comparisons he makes are to the real subject, and how he mentions in advance a matter associated with dangers - military service, weapons and war. This is what apostleship is, and even much more difficult. For the Apostles had a war not only with people, but with demons and their leader. The meaning of his words is as follows: if external (pagan) bosses, cruel and unjust, do not demand from soldiers that they go to war and be exposed to dangers, and meanwhile support themselves; then is it possible that Christ demanded this (from the Apostles)? He is not content with just a comparison, for a simple, rude person is more likely to be convinced when he sees that the commandments of God agree with generally accepted customs; but he brings something else and says: “Who plants grapes and does not eat of its fruit?” To the first he expressed dangers, and to the others - labor, jealousy and zeal. Then he adds a third comparison: “Who,” he says, “feeds the flock and does not eat the milk of the flock?” This means the great care that a teacher tends to have for his students. The apostles were warriors, farmers, and shepherds, who dealt not with the earth, not with dumb animals, not with sensual enemies, but with rational souls and with demonic militias. Notice how the Apostle maintains proportionality everywhere, trying to say only what is useful, and not what is unnecessary. He didn’t say: what warrior serves and doesn’t get rich? but: “who fights with his dues when?” Didn’t he say: “Whoever plants grapes does not bring out gold, or does not gather all the fruit?” but: “I shall not eat of its fruit”? He did not say: who, while tending a flock, does not sell the lambs? But how? - “And the flock does not eat the milk?” Not from lambs, but “from milk”; expresses that the teacher should be content with little consolation and only necessary food. And it is not just this that the Apostle inspires with such comparisons, but also shows what a priest should be like. He must have the courage of a warrior, the diligence of a farmer and the care of a shepherd - and with all this, he should not desire anything other than what is necessary” (St. Chrysostom). The Apostle takes the third argument from the representative meaning of the decree of the Law of Moses about not stopping the mouth of an ox while threshing - 9–10. “Having proven both by the example of the Apostles and by comparisons from ordinary life that a teacher is not forbidden to take, St. Paul proceeds to the third proof and says” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 9:8. I say this is food for a person? Doesn’t this also speak the law? “Hitherto he had quoted nothing from the Scriptures, but referred to generally accepted customs; therefore, do not think, he says, that I am based on this alone and affirm the commandment on human opinion; I can prove that this is what God wants and can bring forth an ancient law that commands the same thing. Here he continues his speech with a question, as happens in a conversation about something completely known, and says: “Do I say this food according to man?” That is, am I based only on human customs? “Does not this also speak the law?” (Saint Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 9:9. In the Law of Moses it is written: Thou shalt not block the mouth of the threshing ox. Food for God's sake? (Deut. 25:4). In the East they thresh with oxen. They scatter wheat or barley on the threshing floor in untied sheaves and lead oxen along them, a pair, two or three. With their feet they will crush everything into small particles. Then they will answer, and they will receive grain. The law forbade tying the mouths of these threshing oxen. This can be applied to all workers. St. Paul applies this to the Apostles working in preaching, giving the idea that if the disciples did not support the Apostles, it would be like a cruel owner stopping the mouth of threshing oxen, which the law prohibits. The legality of guidance is based on the fact that the old law in all its parts prefigured spiritual objects that were to appear in the grace-filled kingdom of Christ. All decrees are exactly such that in them spiritual life is clearly depicted, as in a mirror. Saint Chrysostom says to this: “Why does the Apostle mention this (not blocking the walls of the threshing oxen) when he has the example of the Jewish priests? To further prove your point. Then, so that no one objects, why do we care what is said about oxen, he explains this in detail and says: “God provides food for the wills?” Doesn't God really care about the oxen? They care, but not so much as to enact a special law about them (it must be understood: about them alone, without application). If God did not have something more important in mind, if he did not want to teach the Jews love of humanity by the example of the dumb and at the same time remind them of their teachers, then he would not have taken such care of the oxen as to prescribe the law about not blocking their mouths. (In prescribing the latter, I meant the first.) From here it is clear how great the work of a teacher is and should be, and something else. What is it? – The fact that what is said in the Old Testament regarding the care of animals primarily refers to the edification of people, as well as everything else, for example, what was said about different clothes, about vineyards, about seeds, about not sowing the ground with different seeds, about leprosy, and, one might say, about everything else. Since the listeners were rude people, he spoke to them in such a way as to bring them to understanding little by little. However, the Apostle does not prove what is clear and obvious in itself. For having said: “food is God willing,” he continues: 1 Cor.9:10. Or does he say all sorts of things for our sake? For the sake of us, you wrote, as if you should shout about hope, and thresh with the hope of your hope to receive communion. Or, he says, under the image of oxen, is this what the law says about us? Or “everything about us”? - “Everything” is inserted in order to predict the answer in the question, which is resolutely affirmative and does not allow any objections (St. Chrysostom). Then he still adds: yes, this is written about us - there is no doubt that it is about us. What is written? - Not what follows: “as you should eat orai orati” and so on, but what is said ahead: “let not block the mouth of the threshing ox.” Here, after “it is written,” a pro-educational interpretation of that law is attached, only again not in a simple word, but in a metaphor (St. Chrysostom). Instead of saying: yes, this is written about us, in that thought, so that we cultivate your souls and sow the seeds of truth in them, and then in every possible way guide you so that you bear fruit, without worrying about your content - just as a cultivator of the earth cultivates it in the hope that it will give him fruit, and a thresher threshes in the full confidence that he will taste the bread - instead of so fully describing his thought, the Apostle takes one The last comparison also makes him, letting the readers themselves understand that by these images he means preachers of the word. “In the words: “there must be an orai about hope,” the Apostle said the same thing: the teacher must receive retribution for his labors” (St. Chrysostom). By placing in the word both “oaring” - the beginning of the work, and “threshing”, almost the end of it - he showed the continuity of the work of the Apostles over believers, that is, that they do not act in such a way that he sows the word and does everything. No; but they continue to watch over them and work to knock out all the good things from them and win away all the bad things from them. “From sowing he moves on to threshing and thereby inspires how great the labors of teachers are, who both plow and thresh” (St. Chrysostom). The last words: “and thresh,” and so on, can be read like this: and the one who threshes threshes in the hope of sharing his hope, that is, what he has been hoping for since he began to yell and sow; the matter is coming to an end, the time is near when he will taste the fruit of his labors. “Thus, the law about not stopping the mouth of the threshing ox means nothing more than that working teachers should receive remuneration” (St. Chrysostom). “This is the fourth proof that it is necessary to provide food for teachers” (St. Chrysostom). An argument from the essence of preaching. 1 Corinthians 9:11. If we sow spiritual seeds to you, is it great if we reap your bodily ones? “The Apostle gives a new, most fundamental reason why they have the right to take precisely the one that they not only work, but also themselves deliver to the disciples much more important things” (St. Chrysostom). We, he says, sow spiritual things; how great is it if we reap bodily things? “Having given much more, do we sin if we take much less?” (Theodorite). “Do you see a reason more just and more thorough than the previous ones? There, he says, are real seeds, and real fruit; but here it is not so, but the seed is spiritual, and the reward is material. So that those who deliver something to teachers do not think too much about themselves, he shows that they receive more than they give. Farmers reap what they sow; but we sow spiritual things in your souls, and reap material things, for such is the food delivered to us” (St. Chrysostom). Those who partake of spiritual blessings from faith are themselves ready to give everything to those who brought them into the communion of these blessings. For the faith of Christ is not a mere theory, but a matter of renewal of the soul, which is immediately felt. The one who feels it realizes that he has been honored with a blessing that has no price on earth. How can such a person not be ready to share everything with his enlightener?! 1 Cor.9:12. If they partake of your power, don’t we? But we do not create anything in this region, but we endure everything, so that we do not stop the gospel of Christ. Strengthens the meaning of the previous occasion for the Corinthians, recalling what they do for others, or how others enjoy a similar right to receive from them or take from them. He wants to say that if we wanted to use our right with you, then you could not say anything against it, not only on the merits of the case, but also on what happens to you with others. Who are these others? The Apostle does not define them in any way; but no matter who they were, no one could deliver more than what the Apostles deliver. Even if these others did not deliver something bad, then the Apostle could say: “Are we not much more?” If these were some kind of troublemakers, then there is no more measure for this. Saint Chrysostom here means some false teachers, about whom Saint Paul wrote in his second epistle: they devour you, take you away, magnify you, and beat you in the face (2 Cor. 11:20). However, there is no need to strictly determine who these others are. For their strength did not lie in quality, but in the fact that they enjoyed content and some benefits from the Corinthians, while they could not compare with the Apostles. The words: “your power” mean: power over you, or over yours, or your rights over yours; “take communion” - use it. “Power” is the right, as above: “either we don’t have the power to take our sister-wife, or the imams don’t have the power to do it?” Saint Chrysostom sees in this an indication of the insolence, violence and greed of those who used power. “They control you, show power over you, treat you like slaves, not only take from you, but also with great insistence and insolence. It is obvious that he is hinting at some evil people and seducers. But be that as it may, everything came out of this circumstance: you yourself decided and have a rule to provide content. Isn't it better for us? Wouldn’t you rather have delivered it to us if we wanted it?” “But I did not create anything in this region.” “That is, we didn’t take it. Look, after so many proofs that it was not unlawful for them to take, he finally told them: we do not take, so that they would not think that he abstains from this as if it were forbidden. It’s not, he says, that I don’t take it because it’s not permissible; this is permissible, as I have proven with many arguments: by the example of the Apostles, by everyday examples, such as a warrior, a farmer, a shepherd, by the Law of Moses, by the very essence of the matter, since “we are spiritual sowers to you,” and finally by the fact that you yourself do this in relation to others. Permissible; but we “did not do anything in this area”, we ourselves abstained from this of our own free will, not as something forbidden. Subsequently, he expressed this more clearly in the words: “This is not written, so that it may be so for me” (1 Cor. 9:15); and here he says: “I have not created anything in this region.” And moreover, what is even more important, no one can say that we were not co-creators because we lived in abundance; no, being in need, we did not succumb to need. He says the same thing in his second epistle: “and he came to you and was in poverty, not having cold for any” (2 Cor. 11, 8); also in this epistle: “we hunger, and we thirst, and we are naked, and we suffer” (1 Cor. 1 Cor. 4:11). And here again he hints at the same thing with the words: “but we endure everything.” For the expression “we endure everything” means hunger, need, and all other disasters. However, all this, he says, did not force us to break the law that we decreed for ourselves. Why? - “Let not the cessation” (εγκοπην – suppression) “let us not give to the gospel of Christ.” The Corinthians were weak; Therefore, he says, so as not to tempt you by accepting retribution from you, we decided to do more than what was commanded, rather than put any obstacle to the gospel, that is, to teaching you. He did not say: destruction, but: “cessation” (suppression, barrier), and not just cessation, but “some cessation,” that is, so as not to cause the slightest slowdown or stop in the spread of the word” (St. Chrysostom). The fifth argument from the law on the Old Testament priesthood is 1 Cor. 8:13. 1 Corinthians 9:13. Do you not know that those who make sacred food eat from the sanctuary? and those who serve the altar share with the altar? “The Apostle tries very carefully to prove that taking (content from those being taught) is not prohibited. Having said a lot about this before, he is not content with that, but again turns to the law and presents from it an example closer than the previous one. For it is not the same thing to present oxen as an example or to give a clear law about priests” (St. Chrysostom). “Those who make sacred things serve the altar.” By this the Apostle means either without distinction all those serving in the church, Levites, priests and bishops, or by “those who do the sacred” he means bishops and priests, and by “those who serve the altar” the Levites (St. Chrysostom). The words: “they eat from the sanctuary, they share with the altar,” mean that the priesthood of that time consisted of maintaining the sanctuary and the altar. Those who brought, whatever they brought, brought it to the sanctuary and the altar; and the sanctuary and the altar were given away to the servants. Not all of what was sacrificed went to the altar, but only part of it. The Lord commanded that these portions remaining from the sacrifices be divided among the servants. This is how they were kept. The Apostle wants to inspire: if this is so in the old law, which was a shadow of the new, shouldn’t it be much more so in the new? But he directly makes this application, deriving a special decree about this from the Lord. The sixth argument from the express command of the Lord is 1 Cor. 8:14. 1 Cor.9:14. Thus the Lord commanded those who preach the gospel to live from the gospel. When did the Lord command? - When, sending the Apostles to preach, he ordered them to take nothing with them, no clothes (spare), no food, no money, and where they receive them, live there on their support, saying: “Abide in the same house, eating and drinking as they have; for he is worthy who labors his own reward” (Luke 10:7; Matt. 10:10). “Lest anyone say: Why do you remind us of the Old Testament? Do you not know that now is the time of the most perfect commandments? – The apostle offers what is most important: “so the Lord commanded.” And here he does not say: to eat from people, but, just as about the priests, he said: “from the sanctuary and altar,” so here: “from the gospel”; and as there: “eat”, so here: “live”, and I will not buy, produce or enrich myself” (St. Chrysostom). ““To live” is the same as receiving the necessary food” (Theodoret). When the Lord still sent the Apostles to preach with Him, He inspired those who received them to receive them, and to support them. Likewise, after they went throughout the universe, He, just as He disposed to listen to their preaching, also instilled in them not to let them die of hunger. It turned out that the Apostles were supported by the Lord. People were only tools. And in the Old Testament, the Lord decreed that those who offered the remains of the sacrifices should not take them, but leave them to the sanctuary, and the servants would take them away from the sanctuary, receiving support from the house of God, as if from the hands of the Lord Himself. This brought the gospel to the Apostles. Thus the holy Apostle made it clear to Corinthian scholarship in every way that there should not be a single hair's breadth of doubt that he, as an Apostle, had the right to be supported by the Corinthians. cv) But I did not use this right (1 Cor. 9:15–18) 1 Corinthians 9:15. I have not created a single thing from these. This is not written, but it will be about me; It would be better for me to die than for anyone to destroy my praise. Now for you, he says, it is obvious that I could use the content from you; but I did not voluntarily use anything from you, I did not make any demands from you, to which the apostolic works among you authorized me. “He says this not once or twice, but several times. Above he said: “I will not create anything in this region”; later he will say: “I shall not do anything in my region” (1 Cor. 9:18) and here: “I have not done a single thing from these.” -What does it mean: “not one of these?” – I didn’t use so many examples. Many things gave me the right: the examples of a warrior, a farmer, a shepherd and the Apostles, the decrees of the law, our actions in relation to you and yours in relation to others, the example of priests, the command of Christ - and, however, nothing forced me to break my law and take from you” (St. Chrysostom). “This is not writing, but it will be about me.” I wrote this to you now not so that you would forward to me everything I need. Let no one think like this: “If you have not done this before, do you want to do so in the future? “No,” he says, “and in the future everything will be the same.” I decide it would be better to die of hunger than to lose such crowns: “It would be better for me to die than for anyone to waste my praise.” “I didn’t say that anyone would break my law, but I would say praise.” Lest anyone say that although he does this (on his own), it is not with joy, but with sighing and sorrow, he calls it praise, wanting to show with what great joy and with what great zeal he does this. For he was so far from sorrow that he even boasted and decided to die rather than lose this praise. She was more pleasant to him than life itself!” (Saint Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 9:16. Even if I preach the gospel, I have no praise: I have need. Woe is it for me if I do not preach the gospel. If I preach the gospel, I do not deserve special praise because “there is a need for me.” This is my duty. “I do this as a slave, serving a master; not a single slave thinks highly of himself when he only does what his master orders” (Theodoret). ““There is a need for me” - we must understand not as if he did it against his will - yes, he will not - but in such a way that he has a duty, and in contrast to freedom - to take or not to take (I must evangelize, whether I want or not, it is my duty; and evangelizing on my own support is a matter of freedom - when I want, then I do so; here there is a place for praise for the free choice of what is not commanded). Therefore, Christ said to the disciples: “When you have done all that is commanded you, say, as if you were unworthy servants, you must create them” (Luke 17:10)” (St. Chrysostom). punishment" (Theodoret). "A pitiful end awaits me. The consciousness of this instills fear; fear compels me to preach the gospel. That is why I say that “needs lie ahead”” (Theophylact). 1 Corinthians 9:17. If I do this by will, I am a bribe to the imam; Even if against my will, the building is betrayed by me. “Involuntarily”, correspondingly “needs are due to me”, means - out of duty, because it is commanded, and by will means beyond duty, out of free will I add something of myself to the work of preaching, in addition to what is commanded - to the evangelists from the gospel of life. “The Apostle uses the words: “willingly” and “unwillingly” in the sense: commanded and not commanded” (St. Chrysostom). So, he says, if I do this, that is, I preach the gospel according to my own will, not because the duty lies with me, but because I myself desired and chose; then I have a bribe - “bribe”, that is, praise, in the course of speech - there is something special to reward me with. But this cannot be said about me. And how could I dare to do such a thing myself? So, this work has been entrusted to me, the duty of preaching has been entrusted to me, and I am not doing this by will. If it’s not my will, then, working in preaching, I don’t do anything special - “the building has been handed over to me,” I carry out what is entrusted (Theophylact). “I did not say: “If I am unwilling,” I have no reward; but “the building was betrayed by me,” expressing that in this case there is a reward, but the kind that the one who fulfills the command receives, and not the kind that the one who shows his own zeal and does more than what was commanded receives” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 9:18. What kind of bribe do we have? Let me preach the gospel without compensation and spread the gospel of Christ, so that I don’t do it in my area in the gospel. “What are you saying, tell me? If you preach the gospel, then there is no praise for you; But if you teach the gospel for free, then there is? – Therefore, the latter is more important than the former? - Not at all; but in some other respect the latter has an advantage, namely in the fact that the former is a commandment, and the latter is a matter of my will. For whatever is done beyond the commandment deserves a great reward; but what is according to the commandment is not so. In this respect, the latter is greater than the former, and not in the essence of the matter. For what can compare with preaching? It likens (the evangelists) to Angels. And yet, since for them it is an obligation and duty, and gratuitous preaching is a matter of voluntary zeal, then in this respect the latter is greater than the former” (St. Chrysostom). A reward for preaching the gospel freely. The gospel of Christ, or about Christ, I believe, is fulfilling my duty; but at the same time I do not use the right that belongs to me - I do not “do in my area,” according to the right given by the Lord to me, as an Apostle, “in the gospel,” that right, so that in the gospel the evangelists may live from the gospel. “You see how he uses the word “region” everywhere in order to show that those who take (content) do not deserve blame” (St. Chrysostom). Blessed Theodoret applies what was said in this section to the main subject of the chapter: I sacrifice my right so as not to interfere with the Gospel; give up the right of your knowledge and do not eat something sacrificed to idols, so as not to tempt the brother for whom Christ died, and not again plunge into destruction the one whom my preaching saved. “The Master gave me the right,” says the Apostle, to receive the necessary food from his disciples, but I do not use this right, but I work, working myself, to reap the fruit of this labor. The Apostle spread about all this, trying to force the Corinthians, who used knowledge poorly, fearlessly ate things sacrificed to idols, and thereby gave the weak a reason to suffer harm, to force them to renounce their evil right. Therefore, he showed that, having received the right both from the law and from God of all kinds, and seeing that the Apostles were using this right, and seeing the basis for it in the very nature of the matter, he did not heed any of this, having in mind only the success of the preaching and the benefit of those who hear.” d) And not only did he not use this right, but he also refused many other things in favor of those being converted (1 Cor. 9:19-23) 1 Corinthians 9:19. Barefoot is free from everyone, I have enslaved everyone to myself, so that I may gain many. “Free,” he says, “from everyone,” not things, but people, and “enslaved to everyone,” not things, but people. Because it's all about faces. The enslavement consisted in the fact that he subordinated his character, his customs and desires to the morals of others in order, thus getting closer to them, to find access to their hearts and, placing the seed of the word there, to acquire them to the Lord. Saint Chrysostom says: “Here the Apostle represents another superiority. And not taking is a great thing; but what he wants to say is much more important. What is it? “Not only,” he says, “didn’t I take it, and not only didn’t I use my right, but I also subjected myself to slavery, and varied and all-round slavery, for not only in money, but, what is much more important than money, in many and varied matters, I did exactly the same thing; enslaved himself, while he was not subordinate to anyone and had no need, for this means the expression: “he is free from everyone,” and he enslaved not just someone, but the entire universe, which is why he adds: “I enslaved myself to everyone.” I was obliged to preach and proclaim what was entrusted to me, and to invent and invent thousands of ways to do this - this depended on my zeal: I was obliged to hand over the silver, but I also used all measures to reclaim it back, fulfilling more than commanded. For he did everything out of zeal, zeal and love for Christ, and had an insatiable desire for human salvation, therefore, from an excess of zeal, he transgressed the limits and in everything reached above heaven itself. Having spoken about his enslavement, he further talks about its different types. Which ones?” 1 Cor.9:20. I became a Jew, as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; I am given the law as I am under the law, and I will gain what is under the law. All Jewish rites prescribed for Jews in the law, through faith in the Lord, lose their binding force and enter the category of indifferent things that can be used freely, depending on the circumstances, keeping in mind only the pleasing of God. This is how Saint Paul acted in order to further the Gospel. When he was among the Jews, he acted in everything external like a Jew, without attaching any religious significance to everything he did in his conscience. If he had appeared among them, distinguishing himself from them in things that had no moral value, and yet loved by the Jews, he would have pushed them away from him, and thereby stopped his word from entering their ears. The Gospel would therefore lose followers. Therefore, he says, “I became a Jew, as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews.” Where and when? “He was like this everywhere and always, both in Jerusalem and in other places, when he moved among the Jews. This includes, for example, the circumcision of Timothy in Laiconia, going to the synagogues on Saturdays, as in Philippi, and hearing the law and prayers there, and other similar things. Saint Chrysostom says: “How was it? – He circumcised in order to destroy circumcision. Therefore, he did not say: “I was a Jew,” but “like a Jew,” since this was with a prudent purpose. -What are you saying? The preacher of the universe, who ascended to the very heavens and sowed such grace, could he suddenly descend like that? - Yes; for this too is an ascent. Look not only at the fact that he descends, but also at the fact that, as he descends, he restores the one who lies below and raises him up with him.” “I am given the law by those who are under the law, so I will gain those who are under the law.” These words can be taken as a repetition of the previous one. There he pointed to the Jew in general, and here he indicated from which side he was looking at him, namely from the side of his zeal for the law. Or here he means other people who bowed to the law, besides the Jews, that is, full proselytes, and partly incomplete, or those of those who believed in the Lord who, having faith in Him, considered it necessary to adhere to the law in everything and did. And such had to be acquired, for they were far from Christ in spirit. There is no great need to seek precision in the meaning of these words, for the power of speech does not lie in them. Saint Chrysostom says: “These words are either an explanation of what was said before, or they mean something else. He calls Jews those who were such from ancient times and from the very beginning (by race and blood), and those under the law - proselytes, or those who accepted the faith, but still adhered to the law, for they were not Jews, but were under the law. - When was the Apostle under the law (in relation to these)? - When I cut my hair, when I made a sacrifice. (The Apostle James advised St. Paul to fulfill something according to the Jewish law, for the sake of those who believed, but were zealous for the law. (Acts 21: 18-26). He did this not because he changed his way of thinking - that would be a vicious thing - but out of love and condescension towards others, in order to convert real Jews, he himself was, “like a Jew,” not really, but only apparently, not actually being so, but only doing so without true disposition. For could he sincerely do this when he tried to convert others, when he did everything to free others from such humiliation? 1 Corinthians 9:21. The lawless are like the lawless, not the lawless to God, but the lawyer to Christ, that I may gain the lawless. The Apostle calls “lawless” those who were not under the law of Moses in any respect. These are pagans. Appearing among them, he lived in outer life like them; He did not shy away from their food, nor did he shy away from their other customs: he was like everyone else. This cannot include customs, professions of faith that mean, for example, sacrifices to idols and the like. But by acting this way, he says, I was clear in my conscience before God, for I acted in the confidence that it was pleasing to Him Himself: “I was not a transgressor to God. But he was a lawyer for Christ,” that is, by faith in the Lord he directed everything to His glory, he bore His good yoke and, bearing His law in his heart, the law of faith and love for all people for whose sake Christ died and wants them to be saved, he showed himself free from the law of Moses. So, outwardly I am a lawless man, but inwardly I am the most faithful lawyer to God and the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Chrysostom says: “Coming to those who were outside the law, the Apostle acted in many ways according to their customs. In Athens, he spoke in Athenian, regarding the inscription that was on the church. But lest anyone think that his actions occurred from a change in his way of thinking, he adds: “not a lawless man to God, but a lawyer to Christ,” that is, not only not being a lawless man, but submitting to a law, not ordinary, but much higher than the old one, the law of the Spirit and grace. Then, having assured of the immutability of his way of thinking, he again presents the benefits of such condescension: “let me gain the wicked,” just as everywhere else, he shows the reason for his condescension.” – Theodoret writes: “All kinds of his economy can be seen not only in his writings, but also in the acts of the Apostles. For he spoke differently in the Jewish synagogues, and taught differently in the Areopagus, using medicine appropriate to each disease against it.” Among the applications that Saint Paul used, it is fair to include the image of speech, not only language, but also forms for conducting conversations. 1 Cor.9:22. I was weak as if I were weak, but I will gain the weak; I'll save everyone, but I'll save everyone. By the weak we can mean those who are not yet Christians, but who listen to the word but cannot understand it. The Apostle says that he condescended to the weakness of the minds of such people and, lowering himself to the level of their minds, used everything to lead them to the knowledge of what it is about Christ. But we can also understand by them Christians who are weak either in faith or in life, as he writes to the Romans: “We must bear the strengths of the weak” (Rom. 15:1). The mode of action of the Apostle in Corinth - that he supported himself - what else did it mean if not condescension to the infirmities of the weak? – Saint Chrysostom understands them here. “Here he speaks of the Corinthians, for whom he speaks everything else. What was said before was much more important, but this is closer to them, which is why he put it after everything. He does the same thing in the letter to the Romans, when he admonishes them regarding food, and in many other places.” “I would be everything to everyone, but I will save everyone.” As in relation to whom it was necessary to act, so I acted, not considering anything humiliating for myself, and nowhere did I make my will and my desires and tastes a law. I had one law - to save everyone in every possible way. My desire is to save everyone. It is impossible to succeed, but I have no doubt in every possible way that “I will save someone,” I will use everything possible, and I will save everyone possible. And of course I will save you. The image of expression shows confidence that this is and will be so. “Do you see his superiority? For everyone, he says, I was everything, not hoping to save everyone, but in order to save at least a few. My zeal and service were such as is characteristic of one who saves everyone, although I did not hope to convert everyone; a great thing and showing fiery jealousy! And the sower sows everywhere and, although not all the seed remains intact, does his job. Pointing out the small number of those being saved by adding the word: “every one,” he consoles those who grieve about this, for, although it is impossible for all the seed to remain intact, it is also impossible for it all to perish. Although some, I will save you. He inspires by this that a diligent worker will certainly achieve success.” 1 Corinthians 9:23. I do this for the sake of the gospel, so that I will be an accomplice to it. The Gospel is the Gospel of the kingdom of Christ. A participant in the gospel is a participant in the dispensation of the kingdom of Christ, the kingdom of those who are saved, through the dispensation of salvation for those called to faith by the gospel. The participation in the kingdom in itself is great, and the participation in the dispensation of the kingdom is incomparably higher. The Lord told the apostles that they would sit down with Him to judge. It is not clear to us what it is; but it goes without saying that this is something great. But the Apostle, out of humility, expressed himself in such a way that it was as if he was only hoping to be saved along with others. Saint Chrysostom says: “In order to promote (salvation) on our part and be a participant in the crowns that are kept for believers.” Theodoret writes: “The goal of the Gospel is the salvation of people. For this reason, the Lord ate with the tax collectors, and allowed a sinner wife to mourn at His feet, teaching this that he came for the salvation of people.” Imitating the Lord, Saint Paul also acted in order to more successfully arrange the salvation of all. And he doesn’t expect great rewards, but only cares about being saved himself: “Let me be, he says, only an accomplice of those who believe in the gospel.” “Do you see his humility, how in receiving awards he places himself alongside others, although he surpassed everyone else in his work? There is no doubt that he is most worthy of honors, but he does not ascribe them to himself first of all, but only wants to be an accomplice of others in the crowns prepared for them. He does not say this in the sense that he was doing everything for some reward, but in order to win over and convince the Corinthians with such hopes to do everything for the brethren. Do you see his prudence? Do you see his excessive zeal, how he did more than what was commanded and did not take, when he could have taken? Do you see the greatest condescension, how he, being under the law of Christ and observing the highest law, was for those without the law as without law, for the Jews as a Jew, being in both respects more perfect and above all? Do the same: do not think that you are falling if, being high, you do something humiliating for your brother. This does not mean falling, but condescending; for he who falls lies down and can hardly get up, but he who condescends will rise with great gain, just as Paul condescended alone and rose with the whole world. He was not being a hypocrite; for if he were a hypocrite, he would not seek the benefit of those being saved. A hypocrite seeks the destruction of others and is a hypocrite in order to take, not in order to give. He is not like that; but like a doctor, like a teacher, like a father, they condescend - the first to the sick, the second to the student and the third to the son for their benefit, and not for harm; so is Paul” (Saint Chrysostom). dd) Appendix to the Corinthians stated (1 Cor. 9:24–27) St. Paul in the 8th chapter argued that one should not eat something sacrificed to idols, so as not to tempt the weak brethren, despite the fact that for those who understand the matter, there is nothing here that stains the faith. The concept of the wise men, that just as an idol is nothing, so the thing sacrificed to idols did not accept anything unclean from it, gave them the right to fearlessly eat from pagan victims. Saint Paul, without rejecting this right, inspires them that they must renounce this right so as not to tempt their brother; and in order to persuade them to do so, he presented to them a lengthy depiction of how he himself, having the right to use the contents of those converted to the faith, did not use this right, and it was from them themselves, so as not to put obstacles to the Gospel, and how in many other respects he conceded what was his in favor of those converted. You just had to say: you see how I give up everything for the benefit of my brothers, so you also give up what your knowledge supposedly authorizes you to do, stop eating things sacrificed to idols, so as not to tempt your weak brothers. Otherwise, your salvation is doubtful. The brother perishes because of your knowledge, the brother for whom Christ died. You are sinning against Christ. This type of action does not have a good ending. These thoughts are expressed by the Apostle in verses 24-27. He represents everyone’s life, with all its features, the field raced on the lists. Just as on the lists everyone runs so that, having reached the mark, they can receive a crown, so we flow in order to receive a true crown from the Lord. These lists were the custom of the Corinthians themselves. The Apostle says to them: Do you see how things are going on the lists? So take it into account and “teach this way, that you may understand” (1 Cor. 9:24). As he said this to smart people, he does not extend it in application, letting them understand what he wants from them, that is, for them to stop eating things sacrificed to idols, for this, tempting their brother, prevents them from achieving what they should expect. Assuming, however, that perhaps they would deviate from proper guidance, he hinted to them about this, saying: “Strive to abstain from all” (1 Cor. 9:25). This increase said this: do you understand where this leads?! - So please do so. And in order to take away from them any pretext for making reservations, he again presented himself as an example (1 Cor. 9:26-27). This is how Saint Chrysostom and our other interpreters understand the meaning of these texts. 1 Corinthians 9:24. Don’t you know that those who flow into disgrace all flow into disgrace, but only one receives honor? Take this, and you will comprehend it. Disgracefully, the Corinthians themselves had different types of competitions: they wrestled, fought with fists, threw stones, jumped over ditches and pillars, and among them, they ran races, both on their feet and on horses. For the latter, a certain race was assigned, and whoever ran first received the due reward, and everyone who volunteered for this competition ran. - The apostle points out to the Corinthians: see how you are in disgrace - everyone who has undertaken to flee is fleeing, but only one receives the honor. - Why? - Because he prepared better than others, that he gave up everything that could interfere with his running, that he spared no effort and effort when he ran. Do the same, he says, and you too: “Test this way, that ye may comprehend.” Whatever techniques and efforts this one used, use the same for all of you. Remove everything that interferes with your running, and spare no effort. Do you know what’s stopping you from running? – That which destroys your brother and makes you guilty before Christ. So, refrain. Saint Chrysostom says: “That only one accepts honor is not said in the sense that only one of us can be saved - yes, it will not be - but that we must apply great diligence. For just as there, out of many who enter the field, not all are crowned, but only one achieves this, and therefore it is not enough to just go out to the feat, anoint yourself and fight, so here it is not enough to just believe and strive somehow. No; If we do not strive in such a way as to show ourselves impeccable to the end and achieve the reward, we will not receive any benefit. Even though you, he says, considered yourself perfect in knowledge, you have not yet achieved everything; He hints at this to them with the words: “Tet yourselves, that you may comprehend,” from which it follows that they have not yet achieved it.” 1 Corinthians 9:25. Everyone strives and abstains from everyone: and they, too, may receive a crown of corruption, but we are incorruptible. “Look at the labors of those who labor physically. They do not eat everything that they would like, but they eat the food that the one who teaches them feats offers” (Theodorit). “What does it mean: “from everyone”? - That is, it is not that he abstains from one thing and sins in another, but he abstains from gluttony, and from voluptuousness, and from drunkenness, and from all passions in general. This happens, he says, even during external feats, for those who strive (in spectacles) must neither get drunk during the feat, nor commit adultery, so as not to weaken their strength, nor do anything else; but, abstaining completely from everything, they focused only on their feat. If this happens where a crown is given to one, then all the more should it be here, where there is more generosity, for here not only one will be crowned, and the rewards themselves are much higher than feats” (St. Chrysostom). “So, find out what you still lack, and understand the way by which you can achieve the crown. The Apostle reduced everything in one word: “he will abstain from everything” “(Theophylact). And “they may receive a crown that has been corrupted, but we are incorruptible.” The desire to receive good excites energy and brings into tension the acting forces. The Apostle says: see how they are busy and growing stronger; because of what? - To receive a crown, which tomorrow will no longer be worthless. Compare with this what is promised to us, and judge how much more tension and labor and care we should have. Our crown is more excellent than that, not only because it is incorruptible when it is corruptible, but also because ours is beyond price in terms of its height and quality. And there is no price for this either, but due to its insignificance. The Apostle does not add guidance to this: it came out by itself, both then and now. For us, we can say: a hardened mind does not see the price of spiritual goods, and does not imagine their superiority to consciousness, which is why zeal for acquiring them has weakened everywhere. We live as if there is nothing except the earth and earthly things. 1 Corinthians 9:26. Because I am flowing, not as if it were unknown; This is how I strive, not like the air. In his example, Saint Paul shows how important it is in spiritual life to understand for yourself what the proper feat will be crowned with, and then direct everything in your life so that it leads directly to achieving what you want. As it happens in the economy, a prudent owner, having started an enterprise and come up with reliable means to bring it to an end, then conducts the business with full confidence that he will achieve what he intended, and not paying attention to the connections or rumors of outsiders; this also happens in spiritual life. He who understands the end well and has figured out how to achieve it, follows the path of this life with full confidence that he will achieve the desired good, the kindness of which exceeds all description. At the same time, outsiders can often tell him: the air is beating (the water is pushing). And he knows for sure that he is not flowing towards the unknown. “I look, he says, at the blessings I hope for, because the crown is not unknown to me” (Theodoret). Saint Chrysostom takes this as applied to the fault of the Corinthians and says: “What does it mean, “not as unknown”? “I mean,” he says, a well-known goal; I strive not in vain and not in vain, like you. For what good does it profit you if you enter the churches of idols and, as it were, show off your perfection? - None. I don't think so; but whatever I do, I do for the salvation of my neighbors; if I show perfection, it is for them; Whether it’s condescension, it’s for them; Is it superiority by not taking anything - this is so that they will not be tempted; humiliating himself more than anyone else, cutting his hair and taking a bath, so that they do not stumble. This is what it means: “not as if it were unknown.” And tell me, why do you eat in churches? You can't think of any good reason; food does not bring you closer to God; if you eat, you gain nothing; If you don’t eat, you don’t lose anything; therefore, you are walking in vain and without a goal; this means: “unknown.” This is how I strive, not like the air.” These words also express that he is not acting in vain and not without purpose. I have an enemy, whom I say I defeat, that is, the devil; but you don’t hit him, but waste your strength in vain.” Blessed Theodoret expresses this thought more clearly: “I do not work in vain, beating the air, but I strike at invisible opponents. The Apostle took this image of speech from the training wrestlers. For they usually, when practicing, move their arms instead of the opponent against the air.” 1 Corinthians 9:27. But I mortify my body and enslave it, so that by preaching to others, I myself will not be enslaved. I have, he said, a definite goal, clearly recognized by me, I have taken measures and means that will truly lead to this goal, and I strive in the confidence that I will achieve what I want. Feats are varied: there are spiritual feats and there are physical ones. – He sets out the latter because he set an example in himself for correcting indulgences to the body, and because when the body is mortified and enslaved, then the soul will be correct. Saint Chrysostom says: “Here he suggests that they are devoted to gluttony, do not curb this passion and, under the pretext of perfection, satisfy it; to which he said with regret above: “meat for the belly and belly for the belly.” From satiety both fornication and idolatry are born, and therefore it rightly affects this disease in many places. And here he curbs it with his example. I endure everything, but in addition I take upon myself the great work of living abstinently. For although it is difficult to overcome the passion and lust of the womb, I curb it, do not indulge in this passion, but try in every possible way so as not to get carried away by it. Do not think that I succeed in this without difficulty; no, for me this is a feat, abstinence and a struggle with nature, which constantly rebels and strives for freedom, but I do not give in, but tame and subdue it with great effort. He says this so that no one becomes discouraged in their deeds of virtue due to the difficulty of the matter, which is why he expresses himself this way: “I kill and enslave.” He did not say: I destroy, or torment, because the flesh is not an enemy, but “I kill (υπωπιαζω, black out the eyes, strike until they turn blue) and enslave,” which is characteristic of a master, and not an enemy, a teacher, and not a villain, a nurturer, and not an adversary. “Let me not preach to others, but I myself will not be turned off.” Indulging the body is the path to inclusivity. There is a measure beyond which, when the body is indulged in food, sleep and all rest, spiritual life begins to freeze, jealousy weakens, sobriety fades, cooling embraces the soul. Whatever passion is aroused, it is not surprising that a fall will follow. That's inaccessibility! - To prevent this from happening, Saint Paul gives a lesson - to mortify and enslave the body. “If Paul, the teacher of so many, feared this, and feared it after he had spread the sermon, become an evangelist and appeared as the representative of the universe, what should we say? “Do not think,” he says, that it is enough for your salvation that you believe; If for me, who preached, taught, converted thousands of people, this is not enough for salvation, when I myself do not behave impeccably, then how much more so for you” (St. Chrysostom). 2. Those who eat things sacrificed to idols become unclean (Chapter 10) The main idea, that those who partake of the demonic meal of the meal sacrificed to idols, are therefore not innocent and should fear the wrath of God, is revealed by the Apostle in the middle of the chapter (verses 15-22). But ahead of this he puts: a) examples of God’s judgments on the Israelites, chosen like Christians, and who sinned against God, with other sins, and idolatry (verses 1-14). And then c) he adds rules on how to deal with food, so as not to sin by eating something sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 10:23–33). a) Examples of God’s judgments (1 Cor. 10: 1–13) The Apostle put these examples in front in order to prepare obedience to his instruction to abstain from sacrifices to idols, as the deeds of the wicked. He says, as it were: this is how strictly God treated those who were guilty of idolatry, so that, having then said: and you become partakers of idolatry through eating something sacrificed to idols, he would infer: move away from this. Or are you annoying God? Are you stronger than Him? (verses 14–24). But lest anyone think that one thing is the Israelis, and we are something else, he first of all draws aa) a parallel between the Israelis and Christians: you are baptized, and they were baptized in the cloud and in the sea; you eat the Body and Blood of the Lord, and eat spiritual meat and drink spiritual beer (1 Cor. 10:1-4). bb) But God did not spare those when they sinned; He will not spare you either: for these were all “images to us” (1 Cor. 10:5-13). The conclusion from here is obvious: flee from idolatry (1 Cor. 10:14). aa) Parallel between Israel and Christians (1 Cor. 10, 1–4) 1 Corinthians 10:1–2. I don’t want you not to be led, brethren, as our fathers were all under a cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all of Moses was baptized in the cloud and in the sea. When he started talking about the lists, he said: “Don’t you know?” and here he says: “I don’t want to lead you,” I want you to know the same thing: you know, or know. “Our Fathers,” not yours; puts himself on the side of the Israelis, in contrast to the pagans, in order to give the idea that just as then the Israelis were chosen from all nations, so now Christians are chosen from all nations, not excluding the Israelis. “Everything was under the cloud and through the sea.” Famous story. It is not yet clear what the speech is about, but the unexpected turn of phrase only arouses attention. “And all of Moses was baptized in the cloud and in the sea.” This is what we are talking about: to show in the procession under the cloud and passing through the sea a prototype of baptism. Saint Paul does not put one line against another, but with one word “baptized” he makes clear everything that he wanted to say. “What happened to them,” he says, is an image of what is happening with us. For the sea was likened to a font, the cloud of grace to the Spirit, Moses to the priest, the rod to the cross, Israel who crossed the sea to those being baptized, and the pursuing Egyptians represented the image of demons; Pharaoh himself served as an image of the devil” (Theodoret). How were you baptized into Moses? - Not actually in Moses, but in the One Whom he prefigured. Saint Chrysostom says: “Since the Apostle wants to bring the prototype closer to the truth, he also calls the prototype by the name of truth.” That is, he says: In Moses, and by this we must mean not him, but the Lord; as he says below, they drank from the spiritual stone, “the stone is Christ.” To be baptized into someone means to give a commitment to be someone, to belong to someone wholeheartedly. Although it is said about the Israelites that during the passage through the Red Sea they believed in Moses, the servant of God (Ex. 14:31), but the basis of confidence is not in him, but in God, who showed such intercession through him. Why was the baptism of the Israelites in the cloud and the sea into God and the Lord through him. 1 Corinthians 10:3–4. And everything is also spiritually poisonous; and all of them also drink spiritual beer, drinking from the spiritual stone that follows: the stone is Christ. “Spiritual goodness” is manna, miraculously sent; “spiritual beer” is water from a stone, miraculously emitted. Both are called spiritual because they were not delivered in a natural way, but by the miraculous power of God, as in the Epistle to the Galatians Isaac is called the spiritual son of Abraham, and Ishmael the carnal one, for the reason that he was born under the special action of the power of God, and this one is natural (Gal. 4:29). Manna represented the body of the Lord, and water from the stone represented the blood of the Lord, from whose rib blood and water flowed (Theodorite). “Above he pointed to the type of baptism, and here to the type of the sacred meal. As you eat the Body of the Lord, so the Israelites ate manna; just as you drink His Blood, so they drank water from the stone. Although it was sensual, it was given spiritually, not according to the laws of nature, but by grace (that is, by the power of God). He did not add anything about food (manna) (to the explanation), because it (obviously) was different from ordinary food not only in the method of receipt, but also in its essence; and about drinking, in which only the method of obtaining was miraculous and required explanation, after the words: “I also eat spiritual beer,” he added: “I drink from the spiritual stone that follows,” and also: “The stone is Christ.” It was not the stone that naturally emitted water, otherwise it would have emitted it before, but all this was done by some other, spiritual stone, that is, Christ, Who constantly accompanied them and performed all the miracles; That’s why he says: “the next one.” Do you see the wisdom of Paul, how he explains that Christ is the giver of both, and thus brings the type closer to the truth? He gave, he says, those gifts to the Israelites, He also offers this meal; He brought them through the sea, He will also lead you through the water of baptism; He delivered manna and water to them, and He offers you Body and Blood. Such are His Gifts” (St. Chrysostom). Although we will not quite clearly understand, there is no need to tell the difference between the prototype and the truth. The general idea is clear that the Israelites received gifts from God, which in the highest sense correspond to the Gifts given to Christians. For the Apostle's purpose this is sufficient. “Why is he saying this? In order to show that, just as the Israelites were not benefited by such great gifts, so the Corinthians would not be benefited by baptism and participation in spiritual sacraments, if their lives were not consistent with such grace; That’s why he points to the prototypes of baptism and sacraments” (St. Chrysostom). bb) Application to Christians of what was in Israel (1 Cor. 10:5-13) “Let us see, did God spare the Israelites when they turned out to be unworthy of His gifts? No; therefore the Apostle adds” (St. Chrysostom): 1 Corinthians 10:5. But God was not pleased with the multitude of them: for they were defeated in the desert. “Not in the greatest number” God did not favor many. “For, except for Caleb and Joshua, all those included in the list were destroyed” (Theodoret). Or: God did not notice that there were many of them, He destroyed them all, some with fire, some with snakes, some with diseases, all lay down in the desert, except for two. “They were a great multitude, but their numbers did not help them at all. All good deeds were a sign of God’s love, but this did not help them because they themselves did not show deeds of love. Look how many blessings God showed the Israelites: he freed them from Egypt and the slavery there, led them through the sea, sent down manna from heaven, brought out new and wonderful springs of water from the earth, constantly accompanied them, working miracles and protecting them everywhere; and however, when they turned out to be unworthy of such gifts, he did not spare them, but destroyed them all. “They were slain in the wilderness,” says the Apostle, expressing both the fact that they were suddenly slain and the punishments that afflicted them were sent by God. And, moreover, He did not send all this down on them in the Promised Land, but outside and very far from it, punishing them with severe punishment: by not allowing them to see the Promised Land, and by punishing them severely. But how do you say this applies to us? - It applies to you exactly. Therefore the Apostle continues” (Saint Chrysostom): 1 Corinthians 10:6. These were the images for us, so that we would not be the lust of the evil, as they also desired. “As their gifts were types, so their punishments were types; just as baptism and the sacramental meal were foreshadowed, so it was foreshadowed by subsequent events that those unworthy of the gift would be punished, so that by such examples we would learn to be abstinent. Just as in good deeds types preceded and truth followed, so it will be in punishments. Do you see how he suggests that we will not only be punished, but much more than the Israelis? For if there were prototypes there, and here the truth, then the punishments should be much greater, just like the gifts” (St. Chrysostom). “For we should not be the lust of evil,” of course, or in general evil lust, the source of all sin (Theophylact), as Saint James says: “lust, when conceived, gives birth to sin” (James 1:15); or, in relation to the words: “as they also lust,” especially gluttony and voluptuousness. For the Israelites are depicted as especially lustful for food (Ecumenius). So the Prophet David says: “I desired desire in the desert... And He gave them their petition, sending satiety into their souls” (Ps. 105:14-15). And in the book of Numbers it is written: “The children of Israel lusted after lust, and sat down weeping, and said, Who will feed us meat?” (Numbers 11:4). And the place where such smitten lusts were buried was called “the graves of lust” (1 Cor. 34). The latter is closer to the Apostle's goal. Here the Apostle secretly indicates the reason that attracted the Corinthian wise men to meals made from idolatrous sacrifices. They themselves said: we know that an idol is nothing, and, therefore, they justified their behavior with higher views; and the Apostle, presenting this image from the history of the Israelites, gives them a hint to enter into themselves and see whether higher views truly reconcile you with sacrificial meat, and not gluttony. Saint Chrysostom says: “He also represents the reason why they flocked to meals: this is voluptuousness.” That this is exactly the case is evident from the fact that after this the Apostle speaks about idolaters. In Corinth, Christians had already abandoned idolatry, and only some wise men were defiled by touching idolatry through participation in demonic meals. “Having said: “for we should not be a lust of evil,” and continuing: “neither be idolaters,” indicates the reason for such wickedness in voluptuousness” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:7. Neither be idolaters as they are not, as it is written: When men sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. This was after the fusion of the calf and sacrifice to it (Ex. 32:6). Having eaten and drunk, they stood up and began to sing songs and, forming choirs, dance around and have fun in every possible way. The Apostle’s goal is to use historical events to connect food and drink with idolatry and thereby inspire the Corinthians: look, they have moved from idolatry to gluttony (as has always happened among the pagans), lest you ascend from gluttony to the worship of idols in the opposite way. But at the same time he hints to them that they are already touched by idolatry. For to whom else could it be applied: “Be neither idolaters”? “Do you hear how he calls the Corinthians idolaters? However, here he only hints, and then proves it” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:8. Let us fornicate below, as others have committed fornication from them, and fall in one day twenty-three thousand. And how did they get away with it? – On the advice of Balaam (Num. 31:8-16), the Midianites sent women into the army of the Israelites, who, carried away by them, made sacrifices to Beelphegor, ate and drank from the victims, and fornicated with their wives (Num. 25). This attracted the wrath of God, and 23 or 24 thousand Israelites fell in one day. Setting out this example, Saint Paul also adds one more feature to the fears of eating food sacrificed to idols, to the danger of falling into idolatry - the danger of falling into fornication. For they notice that in other cases unclean deeds were also connected with priestly feasts. The Apostle’s attention is always focused on one thing - eating something sacrificed to idols, and he uses examples to describe to the Corinthians what an abyss opens up under this seemingly insignificant matter, which seemed so plausible to their wise men with independent views. 1 Corinthians 10:9. Let us not tempt Christ, as we were tempted by others, and perished by serpents. The circumstance of the defeat of the Israelites by snakes is determined by the incident to which the Apostle points. From Mount Hor the Israelites headed to the Red Sea, bypassing the land of Edom, and, becoming faint-hearted, began to murmur against God and Moses, saying: Why did you bring us out of Egypt into the desert, where there is neither bread nor water, to kill us here? For this, God was angry and sent a serpent against them (Num. 21:5-6). Saint David, depicting everything with which the Israelites angered God in the desert, in Psalm 77, called the fact that the Israelites desired better food a temptation of God: “having tempted God... and deciding: food, will God be able to prepare a meal in the desert?” (1 Cor. 10:18–19). Saint Paul transferred this expression: “by temptation,” from the circumstances about which the prophet speaks, to the case when the Israelis, in cowardice, complained about the scarcity of food, although there was actually a murmur. So, here too the matter is about food, and besides, the speech of the complainer is also there: “Can God eat?” only with greater doubt. With the words: “we will not tempt Christ,” the Apostle hints that the Corinthians were somehow guilty of this, but how exactly cannot be accurately indicated from the epistle. Ecumenius writes that they, tempting Christ, demanded signs. Perhaps there was such an incident during the original sermon. With such extraordinary faith, signs were necessary, and the Apostles were armed with them. But this demand was so natural that it completely cannot be attributed to the temptation of the Lord. Saint Chrysostom says that “The Apostle here points out another crime, accusing the Corinthians of grumbling at temptation and saying: when will there be blessings, when will there be rewards?” – It is very likely that in these two verses: “We will not tempt, do not complain” the Apostle hints at the cowardice of the Corinthians, against which he lowers and inspires (1 Cor. 10:13). But you don’t have to look for precision, for the Apostle’s purpose in giving these examples is only to inspire that it is impossible to live without fear, relying on the fact that you are called and baptized; and this can be seen from the examples clear in the appendix. Others also suggest this idea: to tempt the Lord means to plunge oneself into danger, with an inquisitive thought: I’ll see if God will deliver me. Those who ate the food sacrificed to idols exposed themselves to various moral temptations. Maybe they had a thought: the Lord will deliver, or: let’s see if Christ will deliver us when trouble approaches. The Apostle says to them: “We will not tempt Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:10. Do not grumble, as no one grumbles from them, and you perish from the all-destroyer. It is difficult to determine what circumstance these words indicate. For the murmurings of the Israelites in the wilderness were countless. Little or little difficulty - now there is a murmur, and a strong one. One could use the words: “perished by the all-destroyer” to define a special case; but there is no such circumstance where any special all-destroyer would be given out. They generally perished from God’s punishment; Now, from nowhere, mortality attacked, now the serpents struck, now the fire burned, now the earth opened up and devoured. Ecumenius, having listed various cases of Israel's murmurings, dwells on the one described in the 11th chapter of Numbers: “And the people murmured and wickedly before the Lord. And when they heard the Lord, they were angry with anger, and fire kindled in them from the Lord, and you took a certain portion of the army” (Num. 11:1). This fire, he says, is called by the Apostle the destroyer (ολοθρευτου), as a kind of punitive power of God - this was at the beginning of the wandering. Others understand here the indignation of Korah, Dathan and Abiron, who were devoured by the earth (Num. 16, 41 et seq.)). Others are murmurs due to the spying of the earth, for which God determined that everyone who came out of Egypt over 29 years of age would die in the wilderness, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. It is not clear which guess to give preference to; It is also not visible what such a suggestion could refer to among the Corinthians. Let us better use the general thought that St. Chrysostom deduces from here, who in both verses (1 Cor. 10:9-10) seems to see one lesson: inspiration for the complacent patience of everything found. “Don’t complain,” he says. One must not only suffer for Christ, but also endure everything that happens courageously and with complete pleasure; this is the crown of everything; and if this does not happen, then punishment will befall those who grumble. The apostles rejoiced when they were scourged; Paul boasted of his sufferings.” Blessed Theodoret brings all the five cases mentioned (1 Cor. 10:6-10) under one review and says: “The Apostle presented each of the events mentioned as being similar to what the Corinthians sinned in. And, firstly, he pointed to evil lust, from which most evils are born; then to idolatry and gluttony, from which the first arose, because the Corinthians, enslaved to gluttony, held feasts in idol churches. He also mentioned fornication and showed the number of those killed for it, thereby sowing the fear of punishment in the mind of the one who committed fornication. Those who were worthy of lesser gifts also grumbled, because not all were worthy (this goes to Dathan and Abiron with Korah). And they tempted the Lord, speaking with different tongues, using this gift in the Church more out of curiosity than out of need (of those gathered).” 1 Corinthians 10:11. This whole image was received by him: it was written for our teaching, in which we reached the ends of the ages. “This whole image is consuming silently.” All this really happened to them, but it was not for them alone that the Lord revealed His judgments against them, but as an example for us, so that, seeing this, we would take into account that for those whom God has chosen for Himself and provided with gifts of grace, sins cannot remain unpunished. In what sense this “image” is explained by the words: “it was written for our teaching.” Read or listen, reason and learn. There will be no mercy for anyone, neither lusts who live only for their own pleasure with oblivion of God and the future life, nor idolaters who rely their hopes on people or things other than God, nor those living in carnal sins, nor those tempting God, who either arrogantly plunge themselves into danger, or fearlessly insult God, saying: what will God do? nor the murmurers, to whom God grants everything, whatever they want, and very little happens not to their liking, rise up to heaven. The Apostle took only the most important courts; but having said: “all,” he made it clear that the wandering of the Israelites through the desert, after leaving Egypt and crossing the Red Sea, in all its parts can represent for us a lesson in life, from baptism to entering the Promised Land, to crossing the gates of death into another life. “In them the ends of the ages have reached,” word for word from the Greek: in which (that is, us) the ends of the centuries rested. Like a road that goes on and on, and finally rests on something, a wall or a mountain, so that there is nowhere to go further; so, he says, the previous centuries went on and on with their events, and rested on us, on which everything that was depicted in them should be realized. We are the goal of previous events; it is fulfilled on us that there is only The apostle wanted to frighten them and drive away from them any attempt to reject the judgments of God, thinking: maybe all this will somehow pass us, the last times are near; end with our present life, and our future ones will continue forever. Our gifts are greater, and our punishments are greater” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:12. Moreover, dare to stand, and be careful, and not fall. In the examples given, it was suggested: see that you are not carried away from feasting to idolatry, and from both to fornication, or to tempting God and murmuring. High-minded smart people might say or think to this: oh no! We understand the matter clearly and stand firm. The Apostle admonishes them: but let him who thinks he stands be careful not to fall. “Again brings down the pride of those who exalted themselves in knowledge. Relying on yourself does not mean standing as you should stand; such a person will soon fall. Pride, and then carelessness and voluptuousness are the sources of evil. Therefore, if you are standing, be careful not to fall. To stand here (in this life) does not mean to stand firm until we have rid ourselves of the waves of this life and reached a quiet haven. So, do not be proud that you stand, but be careful lest you fall. For if Paul (1 Cor. 9:27), who was stronger than anyone, feared, then we should fear much more” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:13. Temptation does not reach you even like a human; God is faithful, He will not leave you to be tempted more than you can, but He will create an abundance with temptation, so that you are able to bear it. What kind of temptation is this? – Not internal, as can be seen from the whole speech, but external: sorrow, disaster, hardship from unbelievers. They were under this temptation and bore it; for he says, “reached.” – And the Apostle Paul, speaking about his stay among them, writes that he was with them in “much fear and trembling” (1 Cor. 2:3), of course sharing with them their misfortunes. Perhaps, having begun then, they did not stop, and the believers were still under them when the epistle was written. Isn’t it for this reason that in the future, giving instructive examples, he also cited those in which God punished Him for tempting Him and murmuring? Were these temptations not connected with the eating of sacrifices to idols? Alienation from them led to suspicion, and then, upon investigation of where it came from, persecution. Clever people, hiding behind knowledge, sat down fearlessly to idol meals and thereby avoided all troubles; while others could not decide on this, and for this they were subjected to insults, ridicule, and oppression. The Apostle was the first to give strong admonitions and will continue to give; Here he speaks a few words to the second: do not be faint-hearted, do not complain. “The temptation did not befall you as only human,” that is, “small, brief, moderate. You have not yet seen a danger that would threaten you with death, a temptation that could destroy you. He says the same to the Jews: “It is not for shelter that you fight against sin” (Heb. 12:4)” (St. Chrysostom). But such a word, instead of consolation, could instill greater fear. Even if a small human temptation has befallen us, it is still difficult, and who knows, tomorrow it will become even heavier. Preventing such thoughts, which could lead to despondency, the Apostle encourages them and encourages them, saying: “God is faithful, He will not leave you to be tempted more than you can.” Perhaps, as it were, he says what you are afraid of, but rest assured that God will not allow you to fall into temptations that exceed your strength. Surrender yourself to His will and do not confuse yourself with gloomy thoughts, but rather be inspired by complacency, believing in the immutability of the promises of Him who said: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matthew 11:28). God is faithful! Everything is from Him, and everything is in His hands. He knows how to balance the burden with the strength of the one on whom he places it. When a person plunges himself into temptation, it is not surprising that he attacks something that is beyond his strength, and he falls under it. And God will never tempt you “more than you can, but with temptation He will also create abundance, so that you are able to bear it.” Even though the temptation sent or allowed by God may seem unbearable, but He will either quickly deliver you from it, so that as soon as you show firmness, the test will also pass - He will “create” together with “temptation an excess” or, if you need to continue it, He will give you the strength to endure everything, and you will bear it as if not noticing (Photius in Ecumenium). “God gives both patience and quick release, so that temptation becomes bearable” (St. Chrysostom). Saint Chrysostom gives this guidance: “So, there are temptations that cannot be endured? - Eat. Which ones? – One might say, everything; for the ability to endure them depends on God’s help, which we acquire through our own disposition. We cannot endure not only temptations that exceed our strength, but also human ones without help from above; We cannot endure even moderate temptations on our own strength, but even in this case we need God’s help in order to overcome them, and before we overcome them, to endure them.” 1 Corinthians 10:14. Moreover, my beloved brethren, flee from idolatry. He was speaking primarily to this conclusion from the beginning of the chapter. The Israelites, who were typologically baptized and ate spiritual bread and drank spiritual wine, when they touched idolatry, perished. See that you, truly baptized and eating the true Body and Blood of the Lord, do not in any way touch idolatry. For God will not spare you either, and he will not spare you even more than those. Flee idolatry! Eating from idols' sacrifices is called idolatry. This is not direct idolatry, but participation in it, desecration by it. Previously, he had not touched on this aspect, agreeing that knowledge and higher views made them inviolable from the filth of idolatry. Now he attributes this to their work, and says: run, meaning, run away from such meals. He aroused fear for participation in idolatry already by the previous judgments of God. It remains for him to explain that by eating from idols’ sacrifices, they are participating in idolatry. This is what we are talking about. Theodoret writes: “The Apostle gradually strengthens the accusation, and shows that indifferent eating of something sacrificed to idols does not differ in the least from serving idols.” Saint Chrysostom says: “Why does it encourage one to quickly abandon sin; for he did not just say: leave behind, but: run; calls their practice idolatry, so that they will leave it, not only because it causes harm to their neighbors, but also because it is in itself very harmful.” b) Those who eat the table of demons sacrificed to idols partake of the demonic meal, and therefore are not innocent of idolatry (1 Cor. 10:15-22) The Apostle’s train of thought is this: judge for yourself: when we partake of the Holy Mysteries, we partake of the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ; Also among the Jews, those who eat from the sacrifices are partakers of the altar; And those who eat from idols’ sacrifices, do you think, are not fellow members of anyone?! Idols are definitely nothing; but there are demons who are served through sacrifices to idols. If so, then those who eat food sacrificed to idols are associates of demons. This is where you end up with your wisdom! That’s why I don’t want you to be associated with demons. You cannot receive Holy Communion and participate in the demonic meal. Stop it. You irritate God's jealousy with this. When the Lord is angry, who can stand? 1 Corinthians 10:15. As I say to the wise; you judge, as I say. The previous verse can be considered both the end of the previous section and the beginning of the present one. It says: “flee idolatry”; The meaning of the word is this: stop participating in the church meals, because through this you become involved in idolatry. Now proceeding to prove this, or even to prove much more, namely, that through this they become associates of demons - and this is terrible - the Apostle chooses the Corinthians themselves as judges over themselves. He says, as it were: I will offer you only data, and you will draw the conclusion yourself. Saint Chrysostom says: “Since he said a lot and strengthened the reproof, calling their case idolatry, then, so that it would not seem that he was speaking too harshly and reproachfully, he gives it to their judgment and, praising it, makes them judges: “as wise,” he says, “I say.” You must be completely confident that you are right in order to make the accused himself the judge of the case. This greatly encourages the listeners when someone talks to them not as a ruler or legislator, but as an adviser awaiting their own judgment. With the Jews, who were foolish and childishly cowardly, God did not talk like that and did not everywhere reveal to them the reasons for His commands, but only commanded; but here, since we have been awarded great freedom and are able to participate in freedom, the Apostle talks as with friends and says: I do not demand other judges, you yourself will pronounce judgment, I appoint you as judges.” 1 Corinthians 10:16. The cup of blessing, now we bless, is it not the fellowship of the blood of Christ? The bread we break is not fellowship of the body of Christ? The Apostle proposes two types of communication through the visible with the invisible for the reasoning of the wise Corinthians. The first is the highest, the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ under the guise of bread and wine. In the Church a bloodless sacrifice is made. Then all those present in the church partake of this sacrifice, and by communing they enter into the communion of the Blood of Christ and the Body of Christ. For bread and wine through blessing are mysteriously transformed into the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is what we have and what you know, he says. The power of the word is that we enter into the fellowship of the body and blood of the Lord; but both dogmatic truths about the sacrament of the Eucharist are immediately affirmed: the first, that in this sacrament a sacrifice is made, and the second, that bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of the Lord. The first is in the course of speech, for we are talking about sacred sacrifices; the second - according to the power of eating, for drinking wine is the communion of blood, and eating bread is the communion of the body; both not mentally, but really. “Having been honored with the sacred Mysteries, do we not enter into communion with the Master Himself, do we not say that this is His body and His blood?” (Theodorite). “The Apostle called it the cup of blessing (or Eucharist, thanksgiving) because, holding it in our hands, we glorify God, we are surprised and amazed at His ineffable gift, blessing Him that He shed His blood to deliver us from error, and not only shed it, but also gave it to all of us” (St. Chrysostom). The words: “even we bless” indicate a sacred blessing, through which the blood of Christ and the bread of the body of Christ become mysteriously by the power of Christ. As a result of this, partaking of the cup, “is not the fellowship of the blood of Christ?” “He expressed himself very correctly and fearfully; the meaning of his words is the following: what is in the cup is the very thing that flowed from the side of the Lord; That is why we partake” (St. Chrysostom). As a result of this, eating from the bread, “which we break, is not the fellowship of the body of Christ?” Both questions contain the strongest statement of the questioned. “Why didn’t you say: communion? – Because I wanted to express something more, to show perfect unity. For by communing, we not only become participants and accomplices, but we are united with Christ. Just as the body of Christ is united with Christ, so through this bread we are united with Him” (St. Chrysostom). “In the Old Testament, when people were imperfect, He deigned to accept the same blood that the pagans brought to idols, in order to turn them away from idols, which also proved His ineffable love; and now He taught a more terrible and perfect ritual, changing the sacrifice, commanding that instead of slaughtering the dumb, He Himself should be offered” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:17. As there is one bread, one body we are many, we all partake of one bread. That exactly the reception of the Mysteries of Christ is the communion of His body and blood, although this is both obvious and undoubted for all Christians, the Apostle considered it necessary to explain, or to prove, presenting a clear case in confirmation of this, that all those who partake, of whom there are many, constitute one body, and the body of Christ. How could this be if those who partake of the Mysteries of Christ did not partake of His body and blood? Thus, it is obvious that since by partaking of the one bread, we become one body; this means that by partaking of bread, we partake of the body of Christ. Saint Chrysostom says: “Having said: “communion of the body,” he wants to express an even closer connection and says: “as there is one bread, there is one body of many.” What do I say: “communication”? - he continues, - we constitute His very body. For what is this bread? – Body of Christ. What do those who receive communion do? – The Body of Christ, not many bodies, but one body. Just as bread, being composed of many grains, becomes one, so that although there are grains in it, they are not visible, and their difference is imperceptible, due to their union, so we are united with each other and with Christ. For we feed not one on one thing, and another on another, but all on one and the same body. Therefore, the Apostle adds: “For we all partake of one bread.” Christ united you with Himself, so far removed from Him. Look, what kind of life are you rewarded with? For He not only gave His body, but instead of the former flesh, which by its nature came from the earth, was killed by sin and deprived of life, He introduced, so to speak, a different composition and a different leaven. “His flesh, which, although the same by nature, is alien to sin and full of life, and gave it to everyone, so that by feeding on it and putting aside the former dead flesh, we would prepare ourselves through this meal for immortal life.” 1 Corinthians 10:18. You see Israel according to the flesh: are not the eating sacrifices of the community of the altar? The second example of Israel's fellowship according to the flesh. “The same is proven again from the Old Testament. The greatness of what was said far exceeded the understanding of the listeners, therefore he convinces them with previous ordinary examples” (St. Chrysostom). The meaning of the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ was not unknown to the Corinthians, but the concept certainly exceeded it not only for them, but for everyone. The meaning of the Old Testament sacrifices is clearer. Why does the Apostle say, as it were: “Learn at least from the simplest examples that those who partake of the sacrifices become participants in the sacrifice” (St. Chrysostom). “Israel according to the flesh” he called those who continued to follow the Mosaic Law and who descended according to the flesh from Abraham and Jacob, who was first called Israel, in contrast to the spiritual Israel - Christians who see God and are gathered through the gospel of faith from all nations. Israel's law on sacrifices was such that of what was brought to the altar, only a portion was placed on the altar and burned, and the rest was eaten by the priests. This is how God laid down the law, saying that those who serve the altar must eat from the altar. Why did he not assign an inheritance to the tribe of Levi, assigned to perform services in the church, but said: I am your part, that is, the earth feeds those tribes, and I will feed you. Thus, the priests and Levites ate from the table of God. The table was an altar. The divine part was consumed by fire, and the priestly part was consumed by the priests themselves, with the blessing of God, receiving it from the altar, as if from the table of God. That is why the Apostle called them “companions of the altar,” that is, the Lord’s table. Through this they did not enter into significant communication with God, although they were God’s, but only with the altar. This is not the case with spiritual Israel: here the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ is offered, and those who partake of this sacrifice are fellow members not of the altar, but of Christ Himself. St. Chrysostom says: “There those who eat from the sacrifice become associates only of the altar, but with us it is not so; and how? “Eating from our sacrifice is “communion of the body of Christ,” for we become partakers not of the altar, but of Christ Himself.” 1 Corinthians 10:19. What the hell am I saying? What is an idol, or what is something sacrificed to an idol? From the two examples given, it was obvious that those who partake of the sacrifices become partners in the sacrifice in the sense and in the power in which it is performed. Having read this, the Corinthians could have become perplexed and felt the urge to turn to the Apostle with a question: from what has been said it is clear that when we eat something sacrificed to idols, we become community members of something. What is this for? An idol is nothing, and what is sacrificed to an idol does not accept anything, having been offered to something that is nothing. This is what the Apostle himself taught. Who are we friends with? - Anticipating them, the Apostle qualified his speech: I do not say that there is anything to an idol, or that there is anything sacrificed to idols. No, an idol is nothing, and what was sacrificed to an idol remains that. There is another person with whom the victim and those who devour it and eat it enter into communication, and this person is ungodly. In moral and religious terms, there are two areas: God's and satanic, demonic, - opposite, like light and darkness, like truth and falsehood, like good and evil, like life and death. He who is in God’s is not in the demon’s, and he who is in the demon’s is not in God’s. Whoever does anything to God is a stranger to demons, and whoever is not to God is on the demonic side. Now take into account, do the pagans eat what they eat for God? - Obviously not. But if not to God, then to demons. The idol remains nothing; but the demon is not nothing, but is an ungodly creature, the enemy of God and ours. He taught these sacrifices, he accepts them, and those who accept them and eat from them please him. A meal from idol sacrifices is a real demonic meal, despite the fact that the idol is nothing and the sacrificial meat remains what it was. So here's my thought! 1 Corinthians 10:20. But even when the pagans eat, they eat demons, not God; I don’t want to be a demon with you and your friends. The flow of speech is this: I’m not saying that an idol is something or something sacrificed to idols. No; but that the pagans eat what they eat to demons. And, therefore, those who eat from these sacrifices will communicate with demons. But I don’t want you to be associates of demons. “I say this and turn you away from idols not because they could cause any harm or have any power; they are nothing; but I want you to despise them. If he wants, you say, for us to despise them, then why does he turn us away from them with such effort? - Because their sacrifices are not offered to your Lord. “Whatever the pagans eat, they eat demons, not God.” Do not turn to what is contrary to God. Through this you enter into contact with the enemies of God. That's why I'm turning you away from this! The purpose of those making sacrifices and the properties of the persons accepting them (that is, demons) make what is offered unclean. “I don’t want you and your friends to be a demon.” Do you see the love of a caring father? Do you see how his very words express great goodwill? I don’t want, he says, for you to have any communication with evil spirits” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:21. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; You cannot partake of the Lord's table and the table of demons. This is already an authoritative statute. “He said: “Judge for yourself,” as if offering advice; and when he outlined to them the whole course of reasoning and deduced from it, to what danger those who partake of idols’ sacrifices reach, that they even go over to the side of the enemies of God and their own, he no longer gives room for their reasoning, but writes a definition: do not dare to touch these demonic sacrifices any more: you cannot drink that demonic cup and partake of that demonic meal. You have your own cup, the cup of the Lord, and your own table, the Lord's table. When you receive communion, do not desire others. The Apostle spoke this strict law, so that any of the most stubborn, seeing that he was saying everything as before as if in the form of advice: “As I say to the wise, judge for yourselves,” would not disobey and consider himself entitled not to do what came out of that reasoning. Why does he say: “you can’t... you can’t.” These expressions alone are sufficient for admonition” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:22. Or are we annoying the Lord? Is food stronger than His? “That is, do we really dare to tempt Him and irritate Him, going over to the side of our opponents and standing alongside His enemies? Here he recalls the Old Testament events and the iniquities of his ancestors, therefore he uses the same expression that Moses once used, on behalf of God, denouncing the Jews for idolatry. Tia, he said, “having irritated me not about God, angered me in my idols” (Deut. 32:21). “Is food stronger than Him?” Do you see how strongly, how terribly it strikes them, shaking their very nerves, driving their judgments to the point of absurdity and thus destroying their pride? Starting with the least, he reached the most important; the latter could have been accepted much more likely after the soul of the listeners had been softened by the previous arguments” (St. Chrysostom). Reasoning is good, but it has little effect on the determinations of the will if the fear of God is not the basis of moral life. Where there is the fear of God, weak reasoning is strong, and where there is no fear, even strong reasoning will do nothing. To protect against moral weakness, the Apostle raises the fear of God, and, moreover, in its formidable form, as the fear of punishment and defeat. No feeling has such a strong effect on the tension of forces as the feeling of self-preservation. The Apostle irritates him here. Having reached the point of fear that God might strike them for eating something sacrificed to idols, they were able to abstain from this more quickly and decisively, relying on this fear. In the words: “or do we irritate God?” – we irritate – not anger, but jealousy, παραζηλουμεν. God is called a zealous God, as a zealot for His glory, for the glory of His Divinity. “My glory,” he says, “I will not give to anyone else, who is lower than my virtues and idolized.” The Apostle understands the irritation of this jealousy. And that with God it is never idle, there is so much evidence of this in the history of the Israelites! – Here’s the question: “is food stronger than He?” The zeal of God will stir up and grind you to dust. So beware and, having pacified your higher views, do not touch the idolatrous victims any more. c) How to deal with food so as not to sin by eating something sacrificed to idols? (1 Cor. 10:23–33) It was impossible to avoid such a question and write rules in response to it, due to the external circumstances of that time. They not only ate things sacrificed to idols at churches, but also offered them at meals in houses and sold them in markets. Thus, it was possible either to buy something sacrificed to idols in the market and eat it, or to come to a pagan for a meal and touch it. How can this be? The apostle answers: eat everything until someone tells you: “This is what was sacrificed to idols.” When you hear this, do not eat, lest you tempt someone, a Jew, a Greek, or a weak brother. Take food with thanksgiving, and use it for the glory of God and the spiritual edification of others, 1 Corinthians 10:23. All is good, but not all is good; All are to fly, but not all are edifying. After the terrible threat, speech flowed calmly. The Apostle begins it with what gave rise to the whole discussion about sacrifices to idols - with freedom regarding the consumption of all kinds of harmless food. Relying on this beginning, the wise men sat down to meals in idol churches. The Apostle does not reject it, but affirms: “all are flying, all are flying.” Perfect, he says, true. But the use of this right of freedom cannot be without restrictions. I put two restrictions on this: benefit to myself and edification to others. If eating something is not beneficial to oneself and does not edify one’s neighbor, then one must abstain from it. The Apostle puts these thoughts at the beginning, because they are then guided by them in the presentation of the following rules. Saint Chrysostom says: “Do you see the great wisdom of the Apostle? Since one of them could say: I am perfect, I have power over myself, I taste what is offered with full knowledge of the matter, then he says: let’s assume that you are perfect and have power over yourself, but look not at this, but at whether your behavior does not cause any harm or some kind of disorder. He expressed both in the words: “not all are for good, not all are edifying,” meaning the first about himself, and the other about his brother, for the word: “not for good,” indicates his own destruction, and the word: “do not edify” - the temptation of his brother.” Saint Chrysostom calls self-harm the destruction of oneself, probably because through eating something sacrificed to idols one becomes associates with demons, and this is obvious harm. Ecumenius and Theophylact see the harm of this in the fact that, having become accustomed to eating things sacrificed to idols, he will again become accustomed to idols and may fall away from the Church, also to his own destruction. But one can understand both benefit and edification only in relation to brothers, as the following text gives reason to think, where nothing is said about oneself, but all attention is commanded to be directed to the benefit of one’s neighbor. This is how Blessed Theodoret reasons: “It is permissible for you, according to the knowledge that you ascribe to yourself, to do everything; but it is not good for you to harm others. What you do does not edify them. Let us assume that you are perfect, but you also need to take care of the weak. For the Apostle added this.” 1 Corinthians 10:24. No one else seeks his own, but everyone seeks his neighbor. “Look not only at what you eat with a clear conscience, but especially at whether it edifies your neighbor. In many places Saint Paul presents this rule as essential. But he doesn’t just order not to seek his own benefit, but only when it is harmful to his brother. In this case, one should prefer what is useful to one’s neighbor over one’s own benefit, and choose this and leave that” (Theophylact). The fundamental law of Christian activity is: love God above all else, and love your neighbor as yourself. There is nothing to write about self-love; it can only be limited. Love for God is most importantly a heartfelt, inner, secret action. In manifest life, the only thing that is active is love for one’s neighbors, kindled within by love for God. We must love God above all things; but you cannot show active love for God in anything other than through deeds of love for your neighbors. Therefore, “let everyone seek his neighbor” is an abbreviation of the entire moral law. But at the same time, one must keep in one’s soul a strictly additional main thought, so that this search for “the hedgehog of one’s neighbor” comes from love for God. For there are humanists who seem to be overcome with love for humanity, yet not only have no love for God, but also no faith in Him. Empty individuals! With these two verses the Apostle reminded the Corinthians: therefore, from now on, do not dare to eat things sacrificed to idols openly in churches. But there remained other cases in which, even without knowing it, one could taste something sacrificed to idols. They are now defined by Saint Paul. 1 Corinthians 10:25–26. Eat everything that is sold in the marketplace, without hesitation, for your conscience; The earth is the Lord's, and its fulfillment. “Since the Apostle completely forbade the eating of meats sacrificed to idols - and at that time the cities were full of such meats, and probably some, out of respect for the apostolic law, would not have bought them at all, and others, out of gluttony, would have neglected the law - then, out of necessity and regarding this, he legalizes what should have been. The essence of the law is this: buy everything in the market place, without asking whether it is sacrificed to idols or not, and then eat it without fear” (Theodoret). The priests, not having time to consume everything sacrificed themselves, sent the excess to the market, or maybe someone bought it from them and sold it. In this way, things sacrificed to idols could also reach Christians. The Apostle says: what you buy in the market, eat it without judgment, μηδεν ανακινοντες. There seems to be no thought here about testing and investigating whether something was sacrificed to idols; and then one thing, to eat it without any hesitation, as simple, pure and untainted food, in simplicity of thought. Our Slavic translation accurately expresses the Apostle’s thought: “doubting nothing.” The word: “for conscience” δια την συνειδησιν, means: according to the conscientious conviction that every creation of God is good and worthless. With this bright conscience, with this bright conviction, eat everything that is sold on the market. That’s why he added to the basis of such an order: “For the earth is the Lord’s and its fulfillment.” Everything is the Lord's, and the Lord's is blessed. There is no need to think about it: eat everything as God’s blessed gift. Saint Chrysostom says: “The Apostle does not even allow them to doubt, that is, to investigate and investigate whether it is sacrificed to idols or not, but simply commands them to eat everything that is in the marketplace, without asking what is offered. What is sacrificed to idols is not evil by nature, but produces defilement at the will of the eater. That is why he says: there is nothing to doubt. “The earth and its fulfillment are the Lord’s,” and not the demons. If the earth is the Lord's, and the fruits and dumb animals, then there is nothing unclean; “Anything becomes unclean because of a person’s malicious intent and disobedience.” Here are a few more phrases of Blessed Photius, whose lengthy opinion is given by Ecumenius. “Eat the market food, without a divided thought, μηδεν δισταζοντες, with a clear, unwavering conscience. Without thinking, eat the market food, with a clear conscience, without hesitation, and not requiring any other certification other than the conviction that the land is the Lord's. If the earth is the Lord’s and what is on it, what else is there to think about?” 1 Corinthians 10:27. If someone calls you from the infidels, and you want to go, eat everything that is offered to you, without hesitation, for your conscience. Another case is when one of the pagans calls for dinner, and they had the custom of taking parts from the sacrifices and bringing them home. How can we be here? - And here is the same rule: “eat everything that is offered to you, without hesitation, for your conscience,” that is, according to the same conviction that every creation of God is good, not allowing even the thought that there was anything sacrificed to idols, “without hesitation,” in the simplicity of thought. The Apostle does not forbid or command the pagans to go to dinner, but leaves it to the freedom of the invitee. Theodoret notes: “Because it would be impossible to catch the infidels by stopping the message.” “And he delivers those who eat from any suspicion (of anything sacrificed to idols), - explains Saint Chrysostom, - so that excessive caution does not seem to be a matter of fear and apprehension, for whoever investigates does so out of fear, and whoever abstains after he has learned the matter, he abstains out of reluctance, contempt, aversion" (to idolatry and everything that touches it). The Apostle wants that, holding in a strong conscience the firm conviction that there is one king over all, the Lord, and that all His creations are, everyone should eat with this bright faith, with thanksgiving to the Giver of good things. 1 Corinthians 10:28. If someone says to you: This is sacrificed to idols, do not eat for it the one who told it, and your conscience; The earth is the Lord's, and its fulfillment. Not all foods are supposed to be sacrificed to idols, but some are. So, if someone, when their turn comes, says: “This is sacrificed to idols,” then do not eat. Who is this one who told? As the Apostle does not define it, it would be more direct not to touch upon this question. Whoever it is. But since a preliminary solution to this question, even by assumption, makes it easier to make the flow of all subsequent speech understandable, then they began to solve it. It seems to others that it is best to understand by him a weak Christian who says this to a strong one; while others think that it would be better to understand some pagan who says this with the evil intention of tempting a Christian and seeing how he will act. But the Apostle writes a rule not for one case, but for everything; in all cases, it could be that sometimes this would be said by a weak Christian, sometimes by a pagan. So, let us suppose: whether a weak Christian or a tempting pagan says: “This is sacrificed to idols,” do not eat, says the Apostle. Do not eat “for the one who told it,” that is, sparing him. The mercy of a weak Christian is obvious. The fact is that if the strong one began to eat after this notification, then the weak one could no longer refuse to eat, and having started eating, he would eat it as something of religious significance, and thereby would defile his conscience; by refusing to eat, he will give him the courage to abstain himself, and thereby save him from staining his conscience. But what is the mercy of the pagan? If a pagan talks about this to a Christian, then it is obvious from the thought that he should not eat it. This is how his pagan conscience developed. If a Christian, despite this, began to eat, then the pagan might think: what is it, Christians boast of the height of faith and moral teaching, and yet just show them a tasty morsel, and they are ready to live in peace with our gods again. For him, something sacrificed to idols is something sacred (in some lists there is ιεροθυτον), eating of which anoints with the blessing of the gods. The same, in his opinion, will pass on to the Christian. How is this possible, he will think? And from an unfavorable thought about a Christian he will move on to an unfavorable thought about Christianity. Consequently, to eat, after the above notice, will mean to humiliate oneself as a Christian, to humiliate in one’s person all Christians and Christianity itself. Therefore, further, one’s dignity as a Christian, the honor of Christians and Christianity itself requires not to eat certain food, as soon as they say that it is sacrificed to idols. And this must be done for the sake of the one who told it and others like him, and for the sake of the story itself. What are your thoughts on doing this? - To show contempt for everything idolatrous. Not because what is sacrificed to idols is anything, but because, since it is idolatrous, it is disgusting. Out of contempt for idolatry, I despise this sacrifice to idols. Thus Saint Chrysostom: “The Apostle commands us to abstain from idolatry sacrifices, not as having power, but as worthy of disgust. Avoid, he says, something sacrificed to idols, not because it can cause harm; it has no power; but because it is despicable. However, on the grounds that it has no power, do not eat it indifferently, for it is the meal of enemies and the wicked.” Thus, this abstinence in the face of the pagans will be an admonishing sermon about the dignity of Christianity and the contemptibility of idolatry. “For him who told” will mean in this case: so as not to block the door to the sunrise to a clear knowledge of the heights of Christianity, and through that the door of faith. For eating would have confused all his concepts and darkened the bright face of the faith of Christ. "And conscience." Whose conscience? – The Apostle explains below: the conscience is not one’s own, but another’s. In the previous two cases (1 Cor. 10:25, 27) conscience was understood to be one’s own, but here it is another’s. Whose is it? - The closest thing is the one who told. Whether a pagan says: “This is something sacrificed to idols,” or a weak Christian, not eating this sacrifice to idols will be healing for the conscience of both.” “The earth is the Lord’s, and its fulfillment.” This must be connected with the flow of speech: I mean not your conscience, but the conscience of another; For your conscience, the conviction remains unchanged that in the kingdom of the Lord everything is good and nothing is worthless. “Not because,” he says, “I forbid, as if this is an alien thing, for it is the Lord’s land, but “for the sake of conscience,” that is, so as not to do harm. Therefore, it is necessary to scout? - No, he says, I don’t mean your conscience, but another, for I previously said: “for the one who told” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:29. I speak not of my own conscience, but of another; Why is my freedom judged by another conscience? Act this way, sparing the conscience of others, and not changing your convictions. When another said: “this is sacrificed to idols,” - from this word your conviction that every creature is God’s good, therefore, this sacrificed to idols, good, without accepting any desecration in itself, should not change, should not move to the thought that before you a thing alien to God is not His creation. Be firm in this, but refrain from eating for the benefit of others. Do not obey the opinion of those who speak, do so, but follow a completely different principle - the will of God, which commands to love your neighbor and care about his good, about the spiritual even more than about the physical. They say this because they consider something sacrificed to idols, but you abstain not because of this, but to show them that, having abandoned idolatry, you do not want to come into contact with it in any way, you abhor it and turn away from it. “My freedom is judged by a different conscience.” He sets out the reason why his word should be understood as the conscience of another, and not his own. He says, as it were: the conscience of another is not a law for me. I must follow my own conviction, not someone else’s. According to my conviction, I have complete freedom regarding all kinds of food, others judge differently. My conscience and my freedom are not bound by this judgment. And I could eat without embarrassment, despite the indication that what was offered was sacrificed to idols; but I do not abstain because of this word: it does not bind me, I am still free with it. I am bound by another law, my own conscience, and not someone else’s. Saint Chrysostom develops another thought - the one that if I eat in my freedom, then the pagans, not understanding why I do this, will begin to condemn this freedom. I don’t want to allow this to happen, for condemnation of my freedom is condemnation of Christian freedom in general. I don't want to be the cause of this. He says: “He calls freedom - not being obliged to observe and not being subject to prohibitions (regarding food). And the meaning of his words is this: God created me free (or recreated me in Christ for freedom) and placed me above all harm, but the pagan does not know how to judge my wisdom, nor understand the generosity of my Master, but will condemn me and say to himself: the teaching of Christians is a fable; They shun idols, avoid demons, but do not refuse what is brought to them: their gluttony is great. What, you say, is the harm for us from the fact that he will judge so unfairly? But isn’t it much better not to give him any reason to condemn him at all? (Judgment from one person proceeds to condemnation of faith.) If you abstain, he will not say that either. - How can he not tell? Seeing that, without intelligence, I use everything both in the marketplace and at the feast, how will he not say and condemn me that I use everything indifferently? - Definitely not, for you are using it not as something sacrificed to idols, but as something pure; By not scouting, you show that you are not afraid of what is being proposed. Therefore, whether you enter the house of a pagan or come to the marketplace, I do not allow you to spy, lest you be restless and cowardly and incur unnecessary worries on yourself.” 1 Corinthians 10:30. If I partake of grace, why do I accept blasphemy, for which do I give thanks? This place is a bit dark. By grace we must understand the grace of faith, which enlightened our concepts and made us understand that we can freely eat all food as a gift from God. That’s what I do: I eat everything and thank God. But if I eat indiscriminately in any case, then others, not understanding the matter, will condemn me for that, and through me, my faith. I don't want to let this happen. - This is the meaning of the words: “I accept blasphemy” - I don’t want to allow blasphemy to fall on me. Ecumenius writes: “By the grace of God, which has made my soul so exalted that I am convinced that I am not defiled by anything like that, I partake of this grace with boldness. But if, he says, you are like that, if by the grace of God you have come to the knowledge that an idol is nothing and that there is no harm in eating something sacrificed to idols, then why do you allow yourself to be slandered, and through you, faith, and even God - and, moreover, because of the very thing for which you should give thanks, having received a perfect understanding of things. The apostle in his own person addresses the admonition to the Corinthians.” Saint Chrysostom says (“I give thanks to him”): “What, tell me, do you accept with gratitude? - God's gifts. His grace is such that it makes my soul pure and places it above all uncleanness. Just as the sun, touching with its rays all kinds of impurities, keeps them (its rays) pure, so, or even more, we, turning among the world, can remain pure if we want, and even more so the greater our strength. Why, you say, should I abstain? – Not because otherwise you can become unclean, but for your brother, in order not to have communication with demons, and in order not to be condemned by an infidel. Here it is not the quality of food, but disobedience and communication with demons that makes me unclean, and defilement depends on will. What do the words mean: “I accept blasphemy for which I give thanks”? “I,” he says, “thank God that He has exalted me so much and placed me so much above Jewish humiliation (for they have: “touch not”, etc.), that nothing can harm me; and the pagans, not knowing my wisdom, will suspect the opposite and say: Christians desire ours; They are hypocrites, they blaspheme demons and turn away from them, but flock to their meals; What could be more unreasonable than this? This means that they did not accept this teaching for the sake of truth, but out of ambition and voluptuousness. – Therefore, isn’t it crazy to give reasons for blasphemy for the very benefits for which gratitude is given? But, you say, the pagan will say this even when he sees that I am not scouting. No, for not everything is filled with sacrifices to idols to have such a suspicion; Moreover, you do not eat it as something sacrificed to idols. So, do not scout in vain; on the other hand, do not take food when they tell you that it was sacrificed to idols. Christ, having given you grace, exalted you so much and placed you above all harm, not in order to give rise to bad rumors about you, and not in order to offend others so much by the very advantages for which you give thanks that they might blaspheme.” 1 Corinthians 10:31. Whether you eat, or drink, or do anything else, do everything for the glory of God. The Apostle covers all considerations with one universal rule: “Do you see how he moved from a particular subject in teaching to a general one and taught us an excellent rule - to glorify God in everything?” (Saint Chrysostom). From this it is clear that, according to the Apostle, from the indiscriminate eating of things sacrificed to idols, a certain shadow fell on faith itself and the Lord God. Why did the Apostle lay down this general law, that we are obliged not only to consume food and drink, but also to do everything else for the glory of God, not allowing ourselves anything through which, even by the slightest hair, anyone could think something unpraiseworthy about our holy faith and about God. The Apostle puts it all together beautifully—sitting, walking, talking, regretting, and instructing—in order to set one goal for himself in everything—God’s glory. This is what the Lord commanded: “Let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16). So it is said here too” (Theodoret). “So,” he says, “do everything in order to give incentives to glorify God, making it clear that the way they acted then served to disgrace God and to blaspheme against Him and His holy faith” (Ecumenius). “Whoever eats and drinks is for the glory of God, when he eats and drinks not to tempt others, not as a glutton and a sensualist, but as someone who wants to maintain the body so that it is capable of doing every virtue; and simply, anyone does every deed for the glory of God when he does not harm anyone else by temptation, or himself in any way, and when he does nothing out of man-pleasing or out of some other passionate thought” (Theophylact). 1 Corinthians 10:32. Be a Jew and a Greek and the church of God without offense. “That is, do not give anyone any reason to be tempted (do not eat). Otherwise, your brother will be tempted, and the Jew will hate and condemn you even more, and the pagan will laugh at you as a glutton and a hypocrite. We must not seduce not only our brothers, but, if possible, even outsiders. For if we are light, leaven, luminaries and salt, then we must enlighten, and not darken, strengthen, and not weaken, attract the infidels to ourselves, and not drive them away. Why do you drive away those whom you should attract? Truly, the pagans are tempted when they see that we return to these things, because they do not know our way of thinking and the fact that our soul has become above all sensual defilement; the Jews and the weak of the brethren will experience the same thing. Do you see how many reasons he gave why one should abstain from idolatry sacrifices? Then, when he said: “Be without stumbling,” he placed on them responsibility for the temptation of Jews and pagans, and expressed something grave” (St. Chrysostom). 1 Corinthians 10:33. Just as I please everyone in everything, not seeking my own benefit, but many, so that they may be saved. “To seek what is useful for everyone - this is the rule of the most perfect Christianity, this is its exact purpose, this is the height of perfection” (St. Chrysostom). “It is common for people to please and flatterers, but this is not what the Apostle says about himself. Flatterers do not seek someone else's benefit, but seek their own, or better yet, they do not seek their own, because they harm themselves more than others. But the divine Apostle did not seek his own, but had in mind the salvation of others, through them increasing indestructible wealth” (Theodoret). How Saint Paul was “all things to all, that he might save some,” he has already spoken about this. Now he only reminds of this, making the image of his actions a law for everyone. This is the third principle in guiding the organization of our life, or even the fourth: first, to do everything according to a clear and firm conscience, according to a true consciousness of the conformity of the matter with the will of God; second, to do everything for the glory of God, not only having in mind, as a goal, the glory of God, but so that the glory of God comes out of our action itself; third, so as not to seduce anyone not only intentionally, but also unintentionally; fourth, to direct everything towards the salvation of our neighbors, both in word and in deed. To what extent the Apostle was ready to sacrifice everything for the salvation of others, we can judge by his prayer, in which he expressed his readiness to even be excommunicated, if only his brethren would be saved (Rom. 9:3). This disposition, more than anything else, gave him the courage to say: 1 Corinthians 11:1. Be imitators of me, just as you are of Christ. “This is not a word of conceit, but a desire to in every possible way win over the cause that he inspired. If, he says, I imitated Christ, who despised His life in order to give us life, how much more can you imitate me? For I am not so much higher than you as Christ is higher than me, infinitely superior to everyone” (Theophylact). Or, limiting the gaze of the mind to objects flowing only in speech, the Apostle says, as it were: “Compete with these measures of mine in the matter of housebuilding, because I imitate the Master, who spoke differently with the Jews, and differently with the Apostles, and proposed other things to the perfect, and another to the imperfect” (Theodoret). Saint Chrysostom says: “You cannot imitate Christ in anything so much as by caring for your neighbors. Abstinence from idol sacrifices in itself is a useful thing, but I, says the Apostle, did a lot that was not useful, for example, circumcision and made sacrifices; such actions, if we consider them in themselves, can even destroy those who commit them and deprive them of salvation, but I subjected myself to this for the benefit resulting from it. So Paul, being above everyone in perfection, became below everyone in condescension! Do you see the superiority of his zeal and the greatness of his soul? Imitate him too.” You might be interested in: