How the Stumbling Arises: Knowledge Puffs Up, Love Builds Up (1 Corinthians 8:1–6)

‘It is necessary to say first what the Apostle is referring to; then his speech will be clear to us. Whoever sees someone accused and does not learn beforehand the nature of the accusation cannot understand what is said. In what then does the Apostle accuse the Corinthians here?—In a great transgression that caused many evils. In what exactly? Many of them, knowing that “whatever enters the mouth does not defile a man, but what comes out” (Matt. 15:17–18), and that idols, that is, wood and stones, can neither harm nor benefit, used such perfect knowledge imprudently, to the detriment of others and themselves. They entered into temples, partook of meals there, and thus produced destructive effects. For those who still feared idols, who had not learned to despise them and therefore took part in those meals, seeing that even the more perfect do the same, received great harm from this; for they partook of what was offered not with the same disposition as the perfect, but as to food offered to idols, by which idolatry was maintained; and at the same time the perfect themselves fell into a not insignificant sin, being defiled by demonic meals. This was the fault of the Corinthians’ (holy Chrysostom).

Thus those who ate food offered to idols committed two sins: they caused the weak to stumble and they themselves became defiled, though they did not intend to do either. ‘The blessed Apostle, wishing to correct them, does not at once use words of rebuke, for what was happening among them was the result more of lack of understanding than of corruption, and therefore one needed to employ at first exhortation rather than strong and angry rebuke’ (holy Chrysostom).

1) First the Apostle speaks against the first sin—the stumbling of the weak (1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor. 9).

2) Then—against the second sin—the defilement from food offered to idols (1 Cor. 10:1–11:1).

1. On the stumbling of the weak (1 Cor. 8 and 1 Cor. 9)

Speaking against eating food offered to idols from the perspective that this causes the weak to stumble, the Apostle a) first reveals how this stumbling occurs (1 Cor. 8); and b) then urges abstaining from this (1 Cor. 9).

j) How the stumbling occurs (1 Cor. 8)

And in revealing how the stumbling occurs, the Apostle already urges abstaining from eating food offered to idols. To do this, he undermines the basis on which those who ate it relied—the intellectual view of the matter. aa) By reason, he says, it turns out that eating food offered to idols is nothing (1 Cor. 8:1–6); but, acting by reason, one must still consider not to produce thereby a harmful influence on others. bb) Your freedom in this regard does indeed harm the weak, and you would do better if you did not act this way. Acting this way, you sin (1 Cor. 8:7–13).

1 Cor. 8:1. Now as touching things offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifies.

The first words: “as touching things offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge”, are probably taken from a letter written to the Corinthians. Repeating them, the Apostle makes a remark that extends to the end of the third verse. In the fourth verse he repeats them again: “as touching the eating of those things offered to idols”, and then sets forth what the knowledge of Christians about this subject is and should be, to the end of verse 6. From the seventh verse begins the second half of the chapter, in which is set forth how imprudent action according to reason causes the weak to stumble and perish.

“As touching things offered to idols”, that is, as to eating food offered to idols, as is evident from the beginning of the fourth verse. Sacrifices offered to idols were not all burned; part of them were—the rest went partly to the priests and partly was returned to those who brought them, from which they arranged a meal, either there at the temples or at home. Christians who were more educated, knowing that an idol is nothing and therefore cannot convey either harm or sin to food, approached this meal without fear when they were invited either by kinship or acquaintance or for some other reason; but the simpler Christians were scandalized by this. The leaders of the church, probably, asked: we know that eating food offered to idols is nothing; but behold, some are scandalized—what are we to do?—What to do, the Apostle explains below; but now he takes only the first words from their letter: we know, and rebukes the pride of knowledge and its inability to act beneficially for others.

‘We know that we all have knowledge.’ The Corinthians speak of themselves that they understand very well what idol sacrifices mean. The Apostle says nothing against this, leaves to them this advantage. Later he will say that not all have understanding (v. 7); but now he concedes, saying as it were: so be it. Theodoret remarks that the Apostle testified here to their understanding with some mockery, as is evident from the rebuke that follows: ‘there is nothing.’ And holy Chrysostom says: ‘Leaving aside the weak, as he always does, he first addresses his speech to the strong and at first brings down their pride. He does not reject knowledge, but strikes at the pride arising from it, by representing knowledge as not only incomplete but also very imperfect, and not only imperfect but also harmful if it is not joined with something else.’

‘Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifies.’ The particle ‘ubo’ is not in the original; there is no particle there at all. This gives freedom to connect this utterance with the preceding one, as anyone might judge. Let, he says, you have knowledge; but then mere knowledge is an unreliable guide to life. It arouses pride, and from pride comes division. Only love builds—οικοδομει—constructs from all Christians one whole and orderly building—a house to the living God. Therefore, if knowledge is without love, it is more harmful than useful. Holy Chrysostom explains it thus: ‘If knowledge is not joined with love, then it produces pride. Knowledge has need of love. Whoever loves, as he who fulfills the greatest of all commandments, though he may have some shortcomings, with the help of love can quickly acquire knowledge; but he who has knowledge without love, not only will acquire nothing, but often loses even what he has. Knowledge drives love away from an inattentive man, begetting in him pride and arrogance. Pride produces division, but love unites. I do not forbid you, he says, to have perfect knowledge, but I command you to have it together with love; otherwise it is not only useless but harmful. Why are you proud of knowledge? If you do not have love, it will harm you, for what is worse than pride? But if you have love, then knowledge will be reliable, for whoever knows more than his neighbor and loves him, will not boast, but will also impart the same to him. Therefore, having said: “knowledge puffeth up,” he added: “but charity edifies.” He did not say: humbles, but expressed something far greater and more useful. Just as knowledge not only puffs up but produces division, so love has the opposite effects’ (holy Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 8:2. And if any man think that he knows any thing, he knows not yet as he ought to know.

There he said only: it is good that you know, but see whether you have love together with knowledge, for if it is alone, expect no good from it. Consequently, the rebuke remains only conditional, though he knew they had already sinned against love. But here he rebukes directly. From the very fact, he says, that you said: ‘we know’—all know, all have knowledge—from this very fact I conclude that your knowledge is poor. Whoever thinks that he knows something thereby reveals that he does not know it as he should. For even the simplest objects have many sides that cannot be explained, and the more one knows, the more one encounters mysteries, hidden things, misunderstandings. We have examples before us: tell us how we see, how we hear, how we speak? Therefore, whoever truly knows and delves into the realm of knowledge will never say: I know, we all know this. If this is so in simple matters, how much more in spiritual matters. This rebuke is very strong; but the Apostle softens it, expressing his thought in a general proposition. ‘By this the Apostle showed that the Corinthians not only lacked love, but were also deprived of knowledge, which ascribing to themselves, they thought highly of themselves. Yet he expresses the accusation indefinitely, because he wishes to heal rather than strike’ (Theodoret). ‘And see how he brought down their pride. He did not say: you do not have proper knowledge of the matters proposed, but of all things in general; he did not say: you, but: anyone, whether Peter or Paul or whosoever. By these words he excellently both comforted and humbled them’ (holy Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 8:3. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

From the words, if anyone thinks to himself that he knows something, it directly follows that he knows nothing as he should—it does not follow that whoever does not think this knows something as he should. On the contrary, from this it follows that nobody knows anything as he should, and only because this proposition is true is the first one also true. From this, naturally, a question arises: so what is to be done? Where should one seek knowledge? If naturally this question arises, then one would naturally expect the Apostle to resolve it immediately after. And he does say: ‘whoever loves God is known by Him.’ The speech indeed concerns knowledge, but in a form altogether different from what might be expected. If he had said: whoever loves God knows what he should know and knows as he should—then this would fully meet the expectation and satisfy it. But he says: whoever loves God is known by Him, εγνωσται υπ αυτου. In Russian, it has been translated: he is given knowledge from Him; but it is evident that this does not answer the original. The Slavonic translation is correct. So what does it mean—‘to be known by God’? Inasmuch as God knows all, then when it is said that someone is known by God, one must understand here some particularity of knowledge, as when someone sees all but looks at something in particular. The Prophet says: “the Lord knows the way of the righteous”. This means that He looks upon it with special attention and guards it, takes particular care of it, as is evident from what follows: “but the way of the ungodly shall perish”, being abandoned as if without the Lord’s attention. So does God know the one who loves Him; He knows it in that He takes particular care of him, or, what is the same, loves him. It turns out: whoever loves God is known by Him, that is, is under His special care, as His own, is loved by Him. If the one who loves God lives in God, then God, for whom the one who loves Him is precious, also dwells in this latter. The one who loves God abides in God, and God abides in him. Is this not what the Apostle wanted to say? We are accustomed to value knowledge too highly, and think that the Apostle, having rebuked our knowledge, should point us to the paths toward it; but with the Apostle, all care is for life, not for knowledge. Therefore, having rebuked knowledge, did he not mean to say this: knowledge alone, without love, puffs up; and it is not even his in perfection. Someone asks: but how are we to act, where shall we get knowledge?—I will tell you this: give up all your cares about knowledge; love God, and you will be loved by Him—that is all. There is your goal! There is no further to go, nothing more to desire. The blessed Theodoret writes: ‘We have need of much knowledge, and in this present life to acquire perfect knowledge is something impossible. Therefore let us love God, so that we may be deemed worthy of His care for us. This is what the Apostle expressed in the words: “he who loves God is known by Him”, that is, is deemed worthy of His care. Thus also the blessed Moses said to God Almighty Himself: “You have said to me; You have found grace before me, and I know you above all” (Ex. 33:12–17).’ The blessed Theophylact leads by the same path also to knowledge: ‘This is what the Apostle says here: whoever loves his neighbor certainly also loves God. But he who loves God is known by Him, that is, becomes known to Him, His own—a member of His household. Having thus become known so closely to God, he receives from Him knowledge, although even then he has it not perfectly. So that, although you may have knowledge, be not proud, for it is imperfect, and this imperfection is not yours but God’s gift. See how the Apostle humbles their pride!’

1 Cor. 8:4. Therefore, as concerning the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Having repeated the first words from the Corinthians’ letter on this matter and made remarks upon them, apparently the Apostle continues reading their letter in this and the following two verses—verses 5 and 6; and from verse 7 he begins his remarks again. Taking up this supposition, we shall see more clearly the structure and flow of speech in this chapter. From the fact that the words of verses 4–6 will be counted as the words of the Corinthians, they do not lose their dogmatic importance; for from whom did the Corinthians take them, if not from the holy Paul? Therefore, though the Corinthians cite them, they are not the product of their mind, but are God-revealed apostolic word. Moreover, when the Apostle cites them here, he confirms them by his assent, for he makes no remark upon them, but approving them in their full force, notes further that not all understand the matter so exactly and clearly, and then tells what came from this. To such perfection did the holy Paul bring his disciples that they could assimilate and utter such exalted truths! Or perhaps from the Corinthians’ letter were taken again only the first words up to—‘we know,’ and then the Apostle in his own words already explains the thought contained in ‘we know.’

‘As concerning the eating of things offered to idols we know’—he repeats the same, only adds: ‘as concerning the eating,’ to show that the confusion concerned precisely this, not what idols and food offered to idols are.—‘We know that an idol is nothing.’ Theodoret puts into the Apostle’s mouth such a word: ‘You are accustomed to speak thus, because you learned to speak it from me, namely, that idols are inanimate, insensate, and that the Creator and Master of all things is the one God.’ ‘An idol is nothing in the world.’ ‘But surely there are no idols? Surely there are no images?—There are; but they have no power, and they are not gods, but stones and demons’ (holy Chrysostom). ‘In the world,’ that is, among things that actually exist in nature and are necessary in the chain of beings. They are a contrivance of human imagination and have no significance. Concerning statues and images, some thought that they themselves were gods; and others believed that the images served only as dwellings for gods, while the gods were separate beings. The Apostle calls both an idol, and, combining both in one word, says that an idol is nothing. An idol properly means—a phantom, a fantasy, something imagined, but not actually existing. They imagine that the statue is a god, but it is not a god; they imagine that someone dwells in it, but there is no one there. All of this is fantasy. God is one, and besides this one God there is no other.

1 Cor. 8:5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,).

‘Though there be,’ not in fact ‘are,’ but ‘are called,’ are named thus, are called: gods, but in fact they are not. Gods ‘in heaven,’—or imaginary, fanciful beings, or the sun, moon, stars.—‘On earth’ gods—earthly creatures or men who have become renowned by something and are held to be gods.—‘As there be gods many, and lords many.’ Again ‘are’ not in fact, but are held to be such. By this it is said as if: for behold, see how many gods and lords are worshipped everywhere. Gods and lords—not higher and lower gods, but mean one and the same thing: to whom is not divine honor paid?—And all of this is fantasy. Holy Chrysostom says: ‘Since he said that an idol is nothing and there is no other God—and yet there were idols and so-called gods—then, lest they think that he rejects what is evident, he adds: “though there be gods, so called”—though there are gods, not simply gods, but so-called, that is, not actually existing, but only so named. ‘Whether in heaven or in earth.’ In heaven he means the sun, moon, and other luminaries, for the Gentiles also worshipped them; and on earth demons and all deified men.’—Theodoret writes: ‘The Greeks claim the existence of many gods, whom they also name lords, but they do not exist at all, are known only by names. According to Greek mythology, some gods were called heavenly, such as: Zeus, Apollo, Hera, Athena, and others earthly, such as: springs, rivers, so-called nymphs, Heracles, Dionysus, Asclepius, and thousands of others.’

1 Cor. 8:6. But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

‘But to us,’—not in the thought that they have many while we have one, attaching any significance to those many, but rather: according to us, according to our true faith, “there is but one God”; only and alone there is one God. ‘The Greeks, enveloped in the mist of ignorance, go astray, acknowledging many, and moreover non-existent gods, but we know the one God the Father and the one Lord Jesus Christ’ (Theodoret).

“One God the Father, of whom are all things,—and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” One God, one Lord. Inasmuch as God and Lord are names of the Divine nature, the Apostle thereby affirms the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. To the Father he says: ‘of whom are all things’—εξ ου—not from His essence, but from His creative power,—that is, from Him. To the Son he says: ‘by whom are all things,’—δι ου, through Whom, not as through an instrument, but as through a self-acting, almighty power, as in the Gospel of John: “all things were made by him” (1 Cor. 1:3)—that is, from Him. And ‘of whom’ and ‘through whom’ mean one and the same thing: from Him. By this is affirmed the co-activity of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Whatever the Father creates, the Son at the same time creates as well. Regarding us, he says,—in relation to the Father: ‘and we in him,’—εισ αυτον, into Him, that is, we are destined to be in communion with Him, in Him is our goal and supreme good. And in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ: and ‘we through him,’—δι αυτου,—that is, through Him we come to God, are reconciled with Him after our fall and attain our final destiny. This is what holy Chrysostom says on this important passage: ‘The very names themselves (that is, God and Lord), used by the Apostle, should not be understood as if the name ‘Lord’ belonged exclusively to the Son, and the name ‘God’ to the Father. In Scripture one is often used instead of the other, for example when it is said: “the Lord said to my Lord” (Ps. 109:1); and again: “therefore God, even your God, has anointed you” (Ps. 44:8); and again: “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God” (Rom. 9:5). And in many other places these names are used one instead of the other. If each of them belonged exclusively to one Person, if the Son were not God, and God as the Father is, but were only the Son, then Paul, having said: “but to us there is one God,” would have uselessly added the word: “the Father,” to denote an unbegotten essence, for it would have been 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); consequently, the name God does not belong to the Son. But look, the same is said of the Son; and the Son is called ‘one Lord’; yet we do not say that therefore the name Lord belongs to Him alone. Therefore, whatever significance the word one has in relation to the Son, it has the same in relation to the Father; just as the fact that the Son is called the one Lord does not prevent the Father from being Lord, and being Lord just as the Son is; so the fact that the Father is called the one God does not prevent the Son from being God, and being God just as the Father is.’ These are the words of Theodoret: ‘Here the wisdom of the Apostle is worthy of admiration. For in what was said above, showing that the name ‘God’ is equal in force to the name ‘Lord’ (in the words: “gods many and lords many”), now the Apostle divided these names and assigned 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 joined together. For it is said: “I am the Lord your God” (Ex. 20:2); and “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4); and: “O Lord my God, you are very great” (Ps. 103:1), and much the like. Therefore, the true God is without doubt also Lord; and the true Lord is without doubt also God. Moreover, there is no other God the Father, for there is one God the Father, and there is no other Lord Jesus Christ, for there is one Lord Jesus Christ.—And the words: ‘and we in him’ mean: to Him we should turn, look toward Him, praise Him unceasingly. But the words: ‘and we through him’ convey not creation, but salvation, because by Him all things were created, but we, believers, obtained by Him salvation.’ But holy Chrysostom relates both expressions: ‘we in him’ and: ‘we through him’ equally to salvation, as he relates ‘of whom are all things’ and ‘by whom are all things’ to creation: ‘By the words: “of whom are all things” he points to creation and the bringing forth from non-being into being; and by the words: “and we in him” he points to faith and our union with Him, as he also says above: “of him are you in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:30). We are from God in two ways: by our being and by our faith, which is also a kind of creation.—The same must be understood also of Christ, for through Him mankind has been brought both from non-being into being and from error to truth,—which the Apostle expressed in the words: “by whom are all things and we by him”.’