Беседа 20

About the eating of idol sacrifices. - Human splendor is insignificant. 1 Corinthians 8:1. We know about food sacrificed to idols because we all have knowledge; but knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 1. It is necessary to 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 in... that defiles a person, but what goes out” (Matthew 15:17–18), and that idols, i.e. trees, stones, demons, 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 caused great death. Those who were still afraid of idols, did not learn to despise them and took part in this kind of supper, seeing that the most perfect were doing the same, received great harm from it (since they touched what was offered not with the same disposition as the perfect ones, but as something sacrificed to idols, which supported idolatry); at the same time, the perfect ones themselves fell into an important sin, taking advantage of demonic meals. This was the fault (of the Corinthians)! The blessed (apostle), wanting to correct this, does not suddenly use words of reproof; what was happening among them was the result of unreason rather than corruption, and therefore it was necessary first to use exhortation rather than strong and angry reproof. And look with what prudence he immediately begins the exhortation. “We know about food sacrificed to idols, because we all have knowledge.” Leaving the weak, as he always does, he first turns his speech to the strong. He does the same thing in Romans when he says: “Why do you condemn your brother?” (Rom.14:10). Such a person can more conveniently accept the suggestion. He does the same here: first he destroys their pride, noting that perfect knowledge, which they considered their special advantage, belongs to everyone in general. “We know,” he says, “because we all have knowledge.” If he ignored their arrogance and began to prove in advance that their behavior causes harm to others, he would not do so much good as harm. An ambitious soul, being proud of something, although this is associated with harm to others, does not humble itself while vanity controls it. Therefore, Paul reveals the matter in advance in itself, as he previously did with worldly wisdom, when he decisively rejected it. But there he could rightly do so, because everything in it was worthy of complete condemnation and it was very easy to prove that it was not only unnecessary, but also contrary to preaching. But here it was impossible to do the same, because the subject of speech was knowledge and, moreover, perfect knowledge. It was not safe to reject this knowledge, and on the other hand, there was no other way to overthrow the pride that came from here. What is he doing? It shows in advance that that (knowledge) belongs to everyone in general, and thereby humbles their pride, because those who possess something great and beautiful, having alone, become more exalted, and when they discover that others have the same thing, they are no longer so exalted. Therefore, firstly, he generalizes what the Corinthians appropriated to themselves alone; and having generalized, he does not imagine himself as a participant in knowledge, so that they do not become even more proud, because just as he who has something alone is exalted, so is he who has one or two partners from noble people exalted. Therefore, he does not point to himself, but to everyone; does not say: and I have knowledge, but: “we know, because we all have knowledge.” Thus, with this first argument he greatly struck their pride, and with the second even more so. What kind? Because knowledge itself is not only not complete, but also very imperfect, and not only not perfect, but also harmful if something else is not combined with it. Having said: “because we all have knowledge,” he adds: “but knowledge puffs up, but love edifies”; if knowledge is not combined with love, then it produces pride. But, you say, love without knowledge does not bring any benefit. That's not what he's talking about; leaving this as known to everyone, he proves that knowledge has a great need of 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, like Cornelius and many others; and whoever has knowledge without love will not only gain nothing, but often lose what he has, falling into pride. Thus, knowledge does not produce love, but, on the contrary, removes it from an inattentive person, giving rise to pride and arrogance in him. Pride produces divisions; and love connects and leads to knowledge. This is expressed (by the apostle) when he says: “But whoever loves God has been given knowledge from Him” (1 Cor. 8:3). 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 even harmful. 2. Do you see how he already starts talking about love? Since all evil did not come from perfect knowledge, but from a lack of love and condescension towards others; since this gave rise to their divisions, arrogance and everything else that he accused them of before and after, he constantly tries to instill in them (love as) a source of good. What, he says, are you proud of knowing? If you don’t have love, it will harm you, because what’s worse than pride? If you have love, then knowledge will be reliable; when you know your neighbor better and love him, you will not become arrogant, but you will tell him the same. Therefore, having said: “knowledge puffs up,” he adds: “but love edifies.” He didn’t say: humbles, but expressed something much more important and useful; knowledge not only puffs up, but also produces division - therefore he opposed one to the other. Next he presents a third (argument) that could reconcile them. Which one? The fact that our knowledge, even if it was united with love, however, even then is imperfect: “whoever thinks,” he continues, “that he knows something, does not yet know anything as he should know” (1 Cor. 8:2). A strong argument! I’m not even saying, he suggests, that knowledge belongs to everyone in general; I’m not saying that by hating your neighbor and being arrogant, you cause great harm to yourself; even if you alone possessed knowledge, even if you were not proud, even if you loved your brother - and in this case your knowledge is imperfect, because you still do not know anything as you should know. If we do not have exact knowledge of anything, then how have some reached such madness that they say that they know God with complete accuracy? Even if we had exact knowledge about everything else, we cannot have such knowledge (about God), because it is impossible to express how great the distance is between Him and everything else. And see how he brought down their pride. He did not say: you do not have proper knowledge about the proposed (subjects), but about everything in general; He did not say: you, but: everyone, whether Peter, Paul, or whoever. With this he excellently consoled and humbled them. “But whoever loves God has been given knowledge from Him 31” - he did not say: he knew Him, but: he was known by Him (1 Cor. 8:3), because we did not know God, but He knew us. That is why Christ says: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). And Paul elsewhere: “Then I will know, even as I am known” (1 Cor. 13:12). Notice how many arguments he brought down their pride: firstly, he showed that they are not the only ones who know what they know: “we all,” he says, “have knowledge,” secondly, that knowledge without love is harmful: “reason,” he says, “is puffed up”; thirdly, that even what is united with love is not complete and perfect: “whoever thinks,” he says, “that he knows something, still does not know anything as he should know”; moreover, they have this (knowledge) not from themselves, but from God, who gave them, because he did not say: he knew God, but: he was known by Him; and also, this (knowledge) depends on love, which they do not have as much as they need: “but whoever,” he says, “loves God, has been given knowledge from Him.” Having thus humbled their pride, he begins to expound the doctrine and says: “So regarding eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but One” (1 Cor. 8:4). Look at the difficulty he was in. He wants to prove two things, and that one must abstain from such a meal, and that it cannot harm those who partake of it; these items are not entirely consistent with each other. Hearing that (idol sacrifices) do not cause harm, (the Corinthians) could use them as if they were indifferent; and hearing a prohibition against touching them, they could suspect that these things were prohibited because they could cause harm. Therefore, having refuted the concept of idols, he puts the temptation of the brethren as the first reason for abstinence. “So regarding the consumption,” he says, “we know that an idol is nothing in the world.” Again he generalizes this knowledge, does not assimilate it to him alone, but attributes it to the entire universe. Not only among you, he says, but throughout the whole earth this teaching is known. Which? “That an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but the One.” But are there no idols? Are there no idols? Eat; but they have no power, and are not gods, but stones and demons. He now addresses people of two kinds, more rude and more loving to reason; some see nothing but stones in idols, while others believe that certain forces live in them, which they call gods. The first he says: “an idol is nothing in the world”; and the last: “there is no other God but the One.” 3. Do you see how he presents this teaching not simply, but adaptably to the pagans? And everywhere you need to look whether he says something independently, or in relation to someone. This can greatly contribute to our accurate knowledge of the teaching and the understanding of what is said. “For although there are so-called gods, either in heaven or on earth, for there are many gods and many lords, yet we have one God the Father, from whom are all things, and we are for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we through Him” (1 Cor. 8:5-6). Since he said that an idol is nothing and there is no other God, and yet there were idols and so-called gods, so that they would not think that he was rejecting the obvious, he added: “for although there are so-called gods”: although there are (gods), not just (gods), but so-called ones, i.e. not really existing, but only so-called. "Either in heaven or on earth." In the sky he means the sun, the moon and the rest of the choir of luminaries, because the pagans worshiped them too; and on earth - demons and all deified people. “But we have one God the Father.” Previously, he did not use the word: Father, when he said: “there is no other God but One”; And now, when he decisively rejected them (pagan gods), he adds this word. Then he gives the most important proof of deity, namely: “from whom are all things.” From this it is clear that these (idols) are not gods: “the gods,” says (Scripture), “who did not create heaven and earth, will disappear” (Jer. 10:11). Then he offers another equally important (proof): “and we are for Him.” With the words: “from whom are all things” he indicates creation and bringing from non-existence into being; and with the words: “and we are for Him” indicates faith and union with Him, as he said above: “from Him you also are in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30). We are from Him in two ways: by being and by faith, which is also a creation, as he says elsewhere: “that out of the two he might create in himself one new man” (Eph. 2:15). “And there is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” What has been said must again be understood about Christ; through Him the human race was brought both from non-existence into being, and from error to truth, so that the expression: “by whom” 32 does not mean - without Christ; we were created by Him through Christ. The very names used by the apostle should not be understood as if they belonged exclusively - the name Lord is to the Son, and the name God is to the Father. Scripture often uses one instead of the other, for example, when it says: “The Lord said to my Lord” (Ps. 109:1); and again: “Therefore, O God, Your God has anointed You” (Ps. 44:8); and again: “from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over 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 God as the Father, but would only be the Son, then Paul, having said: “but we have one God,” would in vain have added the word: Father, to signify the Unbegotten, because 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. If you were to say that God is called one, and therefore the name of God is not characteristic of the Son, then 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, what meaning does the word have: one in relation to the Son, the same in relation to the Father; just as the fact that the Son is called 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. If someone asks: why did (the apostle) not mention the Spirit? - then we will answer: because he spoke to the idolaters and refuted their teaching about the multitude of gods and the multitude of lords. That is why He called the Father God and the Son Lord. If he did not decide here to call the Father together with the Son Lord, so that they would not think that he recognizes two Lords, and equally call the Son God along with the Father, so that they would not think that he recognizes two Gods, then is it surprising that he did not mention the Spirit? Here he meant the pagans and argued that we do not recognize polytheism; That’s why he often repeats the word: “one”: “there is no,” he says, “other God than the One,” and: “we have one God and one Lord.” From this it is clear that, out of condescension for the weakness of his listeners, he used such a way of speech and because of this did not mention the Spirit. And if it were not so, then in other places one should not have mentioned the Spirit and placed Him on an equal footing with the Father and the Son. If (the Spirit) were not equal to the Father and the Son, then it would especially not be necessary to put Him on an equal footing (with Them) in baptism, in which the dignity of the Divinity is primarily revealed and such gifts are communicated that are characteristic of God alone. 4. Thus I have shown the reason why it is silent here (about the Spirit). If not so, then tell me: why is He placed on an equal footing (with the Father and the Son) in baptism? You cannot give any other reason than that They are equally honest. Therefore (and Paul), when there is no such need, see how he puts them together, saying: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:13). And again: “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and the services are different, but the Lord is the same; and there are diversities of actions, but the same God” (1 Cor. 12:4–6). But here he is speaking to the pagans, and, moreover, to the weakest of the pagans, and therefore for now he remains silent (about the Spirit). The prophets do the same in relation to the Son: they nowhere clearly mention Him because of the weakness of their listeners. “But not everyone has knowledge,” continues (the apostle) (1 Cor. 8:7). What knowledge? About God or about idol sacrifices? Here he points either to the pagans, who recognized many gods and lords and did not know the true God, or to the weakest of the brethren, 33 who did not yet clearly understand that they should not be afraid of idols and that “an idol is nothing in the world.” With these words he slightly consoles and encourages them, since everything should not have been expressed here, especially since he intended later to admonish them with great force. “Some to this day, with a conscience that recognizes idols, eat things sacrificed to idols as sacrifices to idols, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” Even to this day, he says, they are afraid of idols. Do not point out to me the present state in which you are, 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, suffered from evil spirits have many evils, and as soon as they converted to Christianity, they had to fear and tremble at the machinations of the devil. And he means them when he says: “some even to this day with a conscience that recognizes idols,” he does not name them directly, so as not to offend them, and is not completely silent, but mentions them vaguely: “some,” he says, “even to this day, with a conscience that recognizes idols, eat things sacrificed to idols as sacrifices to idols,” i.e. with the same thoughts with which we ate before. “And their conscience, being weak, is defiled,” because it still cannot consider these victims as nothing and completely despise them, but still remains in doubt. As if someone, touching a dead person, considered it a defilement for himself, according to the Jewish way of thinking, and then seeing that others were touching him with a clear conscience, and not touching with the same thought, would be desecrated, so it was then with them (the Corinthians). “Some to this day have a conscience that recognizes idols.” It was not in vain that he said: even to this day, but to show that without condescension (toward others) no benefit is obtained, and that they should be admonished not in this way, but in another way, for example, by word and teaching. “And their conscience, being weak, is defiled.” Until now he has not yet spoken about the essence of the matter, but only pays every possible attention to the conscience of the eater, fearing that, while correcting the weak, he would not offend the strong and make him also weak; spares both equally; He doesn’t even allow them to think anything like that, but he reveals his thought at length so that no bewilderment arises. “Food does not bring us closer to God: for whether we eat, we gain nothing; if we eat, we lose nothing” (1 Cor. 8:8). Do you see how he again destroys their pride? Having said that not only they, but also “we all have knowledge,” that no one “still knows anything as he should know,” and that “knowledge puffs up,” then, comforting them with the words that “not everyone has knowledge” and that others are defiled through weakness, and (warning) so that they would not say: what does it matter to us that not everyone has such knowledge? - Why doesn’t such and such have knowledge? – why is he weak? - so that they do not object in this sense, (the apostle) does not directly move on to the conclusion that one must abstain (from idolatry sacrifices) so as not to harm one’s neighbor, but, having only previously pointed this out, he suggests something more important. What is it? That which, at least (intemperance) did not harm anyone and did not tempt one’s neighbor, should not be done in this case, because it would be a useless task. He who knows that something, although it causes harm to another, is beneficial 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’s why he says in advance: “food does not bring us closer to God.” Do you see how he degrades what apparently came from perfect knowledge? “For if we eat, we gain nothing,” i.e. we deserve God’s favor, as if by doing something good and great; “If we don’t eat, we don’t lose anything,” i.e. We don't take any damage. 5. Thus, hitherto he proved that (eating idols' sacrifices) is unnecessary and insignificant, since what does not bring benefit when it is present, and does not harm when it is not, is unnecessary. Next he shows all the harm that comes from this, and in advance the harm for the brethren. “Beware, however,” he says, “that this freedom of yours does not serve as a temptation to the weak” (1 Cor. 8:9). He didn’t say: your power is a stumbling block, he didn’t express it positively, so that they wouldn’t become more shameless, but how? Beware, he says, arousing in them fear, shame and determination not to do this. He did not say: this is your knowledge, or: your perfection, which would mean more praise, but: freedom, which more expressed their shamelessness, insolence and pride. He did not say: to the brethren, but: to the weak of the brethren, increasing their guilt by the fact that they do not spare even the weak, and, moreover, the brethren. You do not correct or raise your brother, so be it; but why do you put an obstacle in his way and bring him to the point of falling, when he should have given him a hand? You don't want to help him; at least don’t overthrow him. If he is vicious, then he needs correction; and if he is weak, then he needs healing. Meanwhile, he is not only weak, but also your brother. “For if someone sees that you, having knowledge, are sitting at the table in the church, then his conscience, as a weak one, will not incline him too to eat something sacrificed to idols?” (1 Cor. 8:10). Having said: “Be careful... lest this power cause you to stumble” (1 Cor. 8:9), he explains how and in what way this happens. Constantly points out weakness, so that they do not think that the harm comes from the nature of the matter itself, and so that demons do not seem scary. Now, he says, (your brother) is close to completely abandoning idols; but when he sees that you willingly go to them, he takes this as a guide for himself and does the same himself. Thus, temptation comes not only from his weakness, but also from your imprudence; you make him even more weak. “And by eating 34 of you the weak brother for whom Christ died will perish” (1 Cor. 8:11). 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 don’t even want to show him leniency. With these words (the apostle) reminds the perfect one of what he himself was before, and that Christ died for him. He does not say: for whom you should have died, but much more strongly: “for whom Christ died.” 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. He did not say: from your perfection, or: from your knowledge, but: from your food. So, here are four faults, and very important ones, namely: your brother, weak, so dear to Christ that He even died for him, and, moreover, because of food, is exposed to destruction. “And by sinning in this way against your brothers and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” (1 Cor. 8:12). Do you see how gradually and little by little he proved that their guilt was the most serious crime? And here again he mentions the weakness of them (the seduced), turning everywhere on their own heads (the seducers) what they cited in their justification. He did not say: tempting, but: hurting 35 in order to show their cruelty with such an expressive word. In fact, who could be crueler than a person who beats a sick person? And temptation is heavier than any blow; he often even caused death. But why do those who seduce sin against Christ? Firstly, because what concerns His servants He assimilates to Himself; secondly, those who are beaten constitute His body and His members; thirdly, they (those who beat), through their pride, destroy the work that He accomplished by His death. “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat” (1 Cor. 8:13). He acts like an excellent mentor, proving by his own example what he teaches. Doesn't say whether it will be fair or unfair, but be that as it may. I’m not talking, he continues, about idolatry sacrifices, which are impermissible for another reason; but if (my brother) is tempted by something that depends on my power and is permitted, I will abstain from this too, not one or two days, but throughout my entire life. “I will not eat meat forever.” He did not further say: let me not destroy my brother, but only: let me not tempt him. Truly, it is extremely insane to consider those for whom Christ cares so much that he deigned to die for them to be so despicable that he would not even abstain from food for them. This not only applies to them (the Corinthians), but it is also appropriate to say to us, who neglect the salvation of our neighbors and utter the same satanic words. After all, to say: what does it matter to me that so-and-so is tempted 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. So, when we beat, rob, extort, and treat free people as if they were slaves, then who can’t this seduce? Do not say that so and so is a shoemaker, another is a dyer, another is a coppersmith; but think about the fact that he is a believer and a brother. We are disciples of fishermen, tax collectors, tabernacle workers, disciples of the One who was brought up in a carpenter’s house and deigned to choose his betrothed Bride as His Mother, reclined in a manger wrapped in swaddling clothes, had no place to lay his head, walked until he was tired on the way, and received food from others. 6. Imagine all this and do not consider human splendor for anything. Recognize as your brother both the maker of the tabernacle and the one who rides a chariot, has many servants and is honored in the marketplace, even the former more than the latter. After all, it is fairer to call the one in whom more similarities are visible brother. Who is more like fishermen? Is it the one who earns his livelihood by daily labor, has neither a servant nor his own home, and needs everything, or is it the one who is surrounded by such splendor and acts contrary to the commandments of God? Do not despise the one who is more brother, who stands closer to the apostolic image. But, you will say, he is not like this voluntarily, but out of necessity; he lives this way not of his own free will. Where is this (known) from? Haven’t you heard: “Do not judge, lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1)? And to make sure that he is not like this against his will, go and offer him thousands of talents of gold, and you will see that he will reject them. If he did not receive wealth from his ancestors and, when he can get it, does not seek it and is not attached to property, then it is very clear that he despises wealth. So John Zebedee was the son of a very poor man; but it does not follow from this that his poverty was involuntary. Therefore, when you see a woodcutter or blacksmith covered in soot, do not despise him for this, but show him respect for this. Peter also girded himself, took a net in his hands and caught fish, even after the resurrection of the Lord. And what am I saying about Peter? Paul himself, after performing so many journeys and so many miracles, lived in the workshop of the skin maker and sewed leather; he was honored by angels and trembled by demons, but he was not ashamed to say: “These hands have served my needs and the needs of those who were with me” (Acts 20:34). And what am I saying: I wasn’t ashamed? He even boasted about it. Who, you say, is now equal in virtue to Paul? I know that no one; but because of this, the present poor should not be despised. Even if one of them was the very last, but only a believer, he is worthy of respect for Christ. So, if a military leader and a simple warrior, both close to the king, came to you, and you opened your house for both of them, which of them would you show more respect for the king? Obviously, in the person of a warrior, since a military leader, even without closeness to the king, has a lot that can prompt you to honor him; and a simple warrior has nothing else but closeness to the king. That is why God commanded us to invite to suppers and feasts those who are lame, crippled, and unable to repay us on their part (Luke 14:13), because such good deeds are primarily and in the proper sense performed for God. If you host a great and noble person, then your donation is not pure alms, but often vanity is mixed in with it, the hope of receiving something and becoming famous through him before others. I could point to many who do good to the most famous of the saints in order to through them gain greater trust in the eyes of their superiors and thereby bring their circumstances and family affairs into a better state, and even ask the saints for many similar mercies, which reduces the price of their benefits performed for such a purpose. But why talk about saints? In general, whoever seeks rewards from God for his labors here and does good for the present, reduces his reward; and whoever expects all the crowns there is much more worthy of reward, like Lazarus, who received all the blessings there, - like the three youths who, preparing to be cast into the cave, said: “Our God, whom we serve, is able to save us... But if this does not happen, then let it be known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods and will not worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Dan.3:17-18), - like Abraham, who took his son up to the mountain and wanted to slay him, doing this not for any reward, but making it his greatest and only reward to obey the Master. Let us also imitate them. If we do everything with such a disposition, we will receive abundant benefits as a reward and will be rewarded with brilliant crowns, which may we all be worthy of, by the grace and love of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen. These conversations were delivered by the saint in Antioch around 390. The paragraphs in the text were arranged by us – Editorial staff of “ABC of Faith” Gr. ουτος εγνωσται υπ ’ αυτου “he is known by Him,” as in glory. “I was known quickly from Him” – I.I. Gr. “δι ’ ου “ – can mean both “through which” and “without which” – I.I. Here in the original “from the pagans”: obviously a typo. – I.I. In the Bible: “knowledge” – I.I., (βρώσει) Gr. τυπτοντες from τυπτω to beat, to wound – I.I. You might be interested in: