:
1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 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. 7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Previous
Next
[AD 202] Irenaeus on 1 Corinthians 8:1
It is therefore better and more profitable to belong to the simple and unlettered class, and by means of love to attain to nearness to God, than, by imagining ourselves learned and skilful, to be found

Source: Against Heresies Book II
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:1
But the "supposition of knowledge inflates "and fills with pride; "but charity edifieth "which deals not in supposition, but in truth. Whence it is said, "If any man loves, he is known.".
But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the apostle, "puffeth up.".
And there are those who say that the knowledge about things sacrificed to idols is not promulgated among all, "lest our liberty prove a stumbling-block to the weak. For by thy knowledge he that is weak is destroyed. "

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book II
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:1
Love builds up. It moves in the realm of truth, not of opinion.

Source: STROMATEIS 1.54.4
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on 1 Corinthians 8:1
Paul means that knowledge is a great thing and very useful to the person who has it, as long as it is tempered by love.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:1
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.

It is necessary first to say what the meaning of this passage is: for so shall we readily comprehend the Apostle's discourse. For he that sees a charge brought against any one, except he first perceive the nature of the offense will not understand what is said. What then is it of which he was then accusing the Corinthians? A heavy charge and the cause of many evils. Well, what is it? Many among them, having learned that [Matthew 15:11] "not the things which enter in defile the man, but the things which proceed out," and that idols of wood and stone, and demons, have no power to hurt or help, had made an immoderate use of their perfect knowledge of this to the harm both of others and of themselves. They had both gone in where idols were and had partaken of the tables there, and were producing thereby great and ruinous evil. For, on the one hand, those who still retained the fear of idols and knew not how to contemn them, took part in those meals, because they saw the more perfect sort doing this; and hence they got the greatest injury: since they did not touch what was set before them with the same mind as the others, but as things offered in sacrifice to idols; and the thing was becoming a way to idolatry. On the other hand, these very persons who pretended to be more perfect were injured in no common way, partaking in the tables of demons.

This then was the subject of complaint. Now this blessed man being about to correct it, did not immediately begin to speak vehemently; for that which was done came more of folly than of wickedness: wherefore in the first instance there was need rather of exhortation than of severe rebuke and wrath. Now herein observe his good sense, how he immediately begins to admonish.

"Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge." Leaving alone the weak, which he always does, he discourses with the strong first. And this is what he did also in the Epistle to the Romans, saying, [Romans 14:10] "But you, why do you judge your brother?" for this is the sort of person that is able to receive rebuke also with readiness. Exactly the same then he does here also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:1
Paul rebukes those who think they are wiser than the rest by saying that everybody possesses knowledge—the self-appointed wise people are nothing special in this respect. If anyone has knowledge but lacks love, not only will he gain nothing more, but also he will be cast down from what he already has. Knowledge is not productive of love, but rather it prevents the unwary from acquiring it by puffing him up and elating him. Arrogance causes divisions, but love draws people together and leads to true knowledge.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.2
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:1
Paul means that knowledge only does good in company with love. Otherwise it merely puffs a man into pride.

Source: City of God 9.20
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:2
" That they likewise (remember), what was written to the Corinthians, that they "were yet carnal," who "required to be fed with milk," being as yet "unable to bear strong meat; " who also "thought that they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to know." When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those (churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the apostle "rejoices and gives thanks to God," which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.

Source: The Prescription Against Heretics
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:2
" "Know ye not that we are to judge angels? " Again, of how open censure (does) the free expression (find utterance), how manifest the edge of the spiritual sword, (in words like these): "Ye are already enriched! ye are already satiated! ye are already reigning!" and, "If any thinks himself to know, he knoweth not yet how it behaves him to know I" Is he not even then "smiting some one's face," in saying, "For who maketh thee to differ? What, moreover, hast thou which thou hast not received? Why gloriest thou as if thou have not received? " Is he not withal "smiting them upon the mouth," (in saying): "But some, in (their) conscience, even until now eat (it) as if (it were) an idol-sacrifice.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 258] Cyprian on 1 Corinthians 8:2
That we must not rashly judge of another. In the Gospel according to Luke: "Judge not, that ye be not judged: condemn not, that ye be not condemned." Of this same subject to the Romans: "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand." And again: "Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man that judgest: for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest. But dost thou hope, who judgest those who do evil, and doest the same, that thou thyself shalt escape the judgment of God" Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.: "And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." And again: "If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet in what manner he ought to know."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on 1 Corinthians 8:2
Only when a person has love can he be said to know as he ought to know.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:2
"But if any man think that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." This is a mortal blow. "I dwell not," says he, on the knowledge being common to all. I say not that by hating your neighbor and by arrogance, you injure yourself most. But even though you have it by yourself alone, though you be modest, though you love your brother, even in this case you are imperfect in regard of knowledge. "For as yet you know nothing as you ought to know," Now if we possess as yet exact knowledge of nothing, how is it that some have rushed on to such a pitch of frenzy as to say that they know God with all exactness? Whereas, though we had an exact knowledge of all other things, not even so were it possible to possess this knowledge to such an extent. For how far He is apart from all things, it is impossible even to say.

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:2
Whatever knowledge we may have, it is still imperfect. How is it then that some people claim to have a full and precise knowledge of God? Where God is concerned, we cannot even say just how wrong our perception of him is.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.3
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on 1 Corinthians 8:2
Paul shows not only that they have no love but that they have no knowledge either.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 215
[AD 500] Desert Fathers on 1 Corinthians 8:2-3
Once some brothers came to visit Antony, and Joseph was with them. Antony, wanting to test them, began to speak about holy Scripture. He asked the younger monks first the meaning of text after text, and each of them answered as well as he could. To each he said, ‘You have not yet found the right answer.’ Then he said to Joseph, ‘What do you think is the meaning of this word?’ He replied, ‘I don’t know.’ Antony said, ‘Indeed Joseph alone has found the true way, for he said he did not know.’

Source: The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:3
"But if any man love God, the same," he does not say, "knows Him," but, "is known of Him." For we have not known Him, but He has known us. And therefore did Christ say, "You have not chosen Me, but I have chosen you." And Paul elsewhere, "Then shall I know fully, even as also I have been known."

Observe now, I pray, by what means he brings down their high-mindedness. First, he points out that not they alone knew the things which they knew; for "we all," he says, have knowledge. Next, that the thing itself was hurtful so long as it was without love; for "knowledge," says he, "puffs up." Thirdly, that even joined with love it is not complete nor perfect. "For if any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing as yet as he ought to know," so he speaks. In addition to this, that they have not even this from themselves, but by gift from God. For he said not, "has known God," but, "is known of Him." Again, that this very thing comes of love which they have not as they ought. For, "if any man," says he, "love God, the same is known of Him." Having then so much at large allayed their irritation, he begins to speak doctrinally, saying thus.

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:3
We do not know God, but he knows us. This is why Christ said: “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you” (Jn 15:16). This is the fruit of love and the death of pride.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.3
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:3
Paul says: “If one loves God, one is known by him.” He certainly did not say “one knows God,” a dangerous presumption, but “he is known by God.” Elsewhere he remarks, “But now you know God,” and then immediately corrects himself: “or rather you are known by God.”
[AD 100] Didache on 1 Corinthians 8:4
And concerning food, bear what you are able; but against that which is sacrificed to idols be exceedingly on your guard; for it is the service of dead gods.

Source: The Didache, Chapter 6
[AD 108] Ignatius of Antioch on 1 Corinthians 8:4
And those very apostles, who said "that there is one God"
[AD 202] Irenaeus on 1 Corinthians 8:4
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth; yet to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we through Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."

Source: Against Heresies Book III
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:4
Such, then, being the case, the Greeks ought by the Law and the Prophets to learn to worship one God only, the only Sovereign; then to be taught by the apostle, "but to us an idol is no, thing in the world"

Source: Clement of Alexandria Stromata Book VI
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:4
We have, I think, faithfully carried out our plan of showing in how many different ways the sin of idolatry clings to the shows, in respect of their origins, their titles, their equipments, their places of celebration, their arts; and we may hold it as a thing beyond all doubt, that for us who have twice renounced all idols, they are utterly unsuitable. "Not that an idol is anything," as the apostle says, but that the homage they render is to demons, who are the real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as they think) of gods.

Source: De Spectaculis
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:4
He introduces his discussion about meats offered to idols with a statement concerning idols (themselves): "We know that an idol is nothing in the world." Marcion, however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, "to us there is but one God, the Father.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 253] Origen of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:4
“An idol is nothing,” says the apostle. One who makes an idol makes what is not. But what is that which is not? A form which the eye does not see but which the mind imagines for itself.

Source: HOMILIES ON EXODUS 8.3
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on 1 Corinthians 8:4
Paul now develops his argument in detail in order to show that knowledge without love is both useless and harmful.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:4
4. "Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one." Look what a strait he has fallen into! For indeed his mind is to prove both; that one ought to abstain from this kind of banquet, and that it has no power to hurt those who partake of it: things which were not greatly in agreement with each other. For when they were told that they had no harm in them, they would naturally run to them as indifferent things. But when forbidden to touch them, they would suspect, on the contrary, that their having power to do hurt occasioned the prohibition. Wherefore, you see, he puts down their opinion about idols, and then states as a first reason for their abstaining the scandals which they place in the way of their brethren; in these words: "Now concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world." Again he makes it common property and does not allow this to be theirs alone, but extends the knowledge all over the world. For "not among you alone," says he, "but every where on earth this doctrine prevails." What then is it? "That no idol is anything in the world; that there is no God but one." What then? Are there no idols? No statues? Indeed there are; but they have no power: neither are they gods, but stones and demons. For he is now setting himself against both parties; both the grosser sort among them, and those who were accounted lovers of wisdom. Thus, seeing that the former know of no more than the mere stones, the others assert that certain powers reside in them , which they also call gods; to the former accordingly he says, that "no idol is anything in the world," to the other, that "there is no God but one."

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:4
Although man has made his own gods, he nevertheless became their captive once he was handed over to their fellowship by his act of worshiping them… For what are idols but things, as the Scripture says, which “have eyes and see not”? City of God
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:5
For the name of God, as being the natural designation of Deity, may be ascribed to all those beings for whom a divine nature is claimed,-as, for instance, even to idols. The apostle says: "For there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth." The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation; and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation.

Source: Against Marcion Book III
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:5
Assuredly also, when (the apostle) rules that marriage should be "only in the Lord," that no Christian should intermarry with a heathen, he maintains a law of the Creator, who everywhere prohibits marriage with strangers. But when he says, "although there be that are called gods, whether in l heaven or in earth," the meaning of his words is clear-not as if there were gods in reality, but as if there were some who are called gods, without being truly so.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:5
If, owing to the fault of human error, the word God has become a common name (since in the world there are said and believed to be "gods many" ), yet "the blessed God," (who is "the Father) of our Lord Jesus Christ," will be understood to be no other God than the Creator, who both blessed all things (that He had made), as you find in Genesis, and is Himself "blessed by all things," as Daniel tells us.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:5
For "although there be that are called gods" in name, "whether in heaven or in earth, yet to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things; " whence the greater reason why, in our view, that which is the property of God ought to be regarded as pertaining to God alone, and why (as I have already said) that should cease to be such a property, when it is shared by another being.

Source: Against Hermogenes
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:5-6
5. "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of Whom are all things, and we unto Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through Him." Since he had said, that "an idol is nothing" and that "there is no other God;" and yet there were idols and there were those that were called gods; that he might not seem to be contradicting plain facts, he goes on to say, "For though there be that are called gods, as indeed there are;" not absolutely, "there are;" but, "called," not in reality having this but in name: "be it in heaven or on earth:— in heaven," meaning the sun and the moon and the remainder of the choir of stars; for these too the Greeks worshipped: but upon the earth demons, and all those who had been made gods of men: — "yet to us there is One God, the Father." In the first instance having expressed it without the word "Father," and said, "there is no God but one," he now adds this also, when he had utterly cast out the others.

Next, he adduces what indeed is the greatest token of divinity; "of Whom are all things." For this implies also that those others are not gods. For it is said [Jeremiah 10:11], "Let the gods who made not the heaven and the earth perish." Then he subjoins what is not less than this, "and we unto Him." For when he says, "of Whom are all things," he means the creation and the bringing of things out of nothing into existence. But when he says, "and we unto Him," he speaks of the word of faith and mutual appropriation (οἰκειώσεως), as also he said before [1 Corinthians 1:30], "but of Him are you also in Christ Jesus." In two ways we are of Him, by being made when we were not, and by being made believers. For this also is a creation: a thing which he also declares elsewhere; [Ephesians 2:15] "that He might create in Himself of the two one new man."

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

6. Nor yet, if you observe, has he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture uses also often to interchange them; as when it says, [Psalm 110:1] "The Lord says unto My Lord;" and again, [Psalm 65:8] "Wherefore God Your God has appointed You;" and, [Romans 9:5] "Of Whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is God over all." And in many instances you may see these names changing their places. Besides, if they were allotted to each nature severally, and if the Son were not God, and God as the Father, yet continuing a Son: after saying, "but to us there is but One God," it would have been superfluous, his adding the word "Father," with a view to declare the Unbegotten. For the word of God was sufficient to explain this, if it were such as to denote Him only.

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

7. Now if any were to say, "Why did he make no mention of the Spirit?" our answer might be this: His argument was with idolaters, and the contention was about "gods many and lords many." And this is why, having called the Father, God, he calls the Son, Lord. If now he ventured not to call the Father Lord together with the Son, lest they might suspect him to be speaking of two Lords; nor yet the Son, God, with the Father, lest he might be supposed to speak of two Gods: why marvel at his not having mentioned the Spirit? His contest was, so far, with the Gentiles: his point, to signify that with us there is no plurality of Gods. Wherefore he keeps hold continually of this word, "One;" saying, "There is no God but One; and, to us there is One God, and One Lord." From which it is plain, that to spare the weakness of the hearers he used this mode of explanation, and for this reason made no mention at all of the Spirit. For if it be not this, neither ought he to make mention of the Spirit elsewhere, nor to join Him with the Father and the Son. For if He be rejected from the Father and Son, much more ought He not to be put in the same rank with them in the matter of Baptism; where most especially the dignity of the Godhead appears and gifts are bestowed which pertain to God alone to afford. Thus then I have assigned the cause why in this place He is passed over in silence. Now do thou if this be not the true reason, tell me, why He is ranked with Them in Baptism? But you can not give any other reason but His being of equal honor. At any rate, when he has no such constraint upon him, he puts Him in the same rank, saying thus: [2 Corinthians 13:14] "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all:" and again, [2 Corinthians 12:4] "There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit: and there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of workings but the same God." But because now his speech was with Greeks and the weaker sort of the converts from among Greeks, for this reason he husbands it (ταμιεύεται) so far. And this is what the prophets do in regard of the Son; no where making mention of Him plainly because of the infirmity of the hearers.

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 428] Theodore of Mopsuestia on 1 Corinthians 8:5
Paul says “so-called” here because he is showing that they do not really exist.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:6
But "he says, "through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ."
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:6
Marcion, however, does not say that the Creator is not God; so that the apostle can hardly be thought to have ranked the Creator amongst those who are called gods, without being so; since, even if they had been gods, "to us there is but one God, the Father." Now, from whom do all things come to us, but from Him to whom all things belong? And pray, what things are these? You have them in a preceding part of the epistle: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come.

Source: Against Marcion Book V
[AD 235] Hippolytus of Rome on 1 Corinthians 8:6
For in this he has said only what Christ testifies of Himself. For Christ gave this testimony, and said, "All things are delivered unto me of my Father; "

Source: Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on 1 Corinthians 8:6
Everything which exists has been created by the Father through the Son. It is impossible for God not to be Lord as well, and since the Lord is God, it is clear that Father and Son are one.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 386] Cyril of Jerusalem on 1 Corinthians 8:6
We say “one” to stop anyone dreaming that there could be another. We say “one” lest you should hear of his work under manifold names.

Source: Catechetical Lecture 10:3
[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on 1 Corinthians 8:6
When he says “through him,” did he deny that all things were made in him, through whom he says that all things are? These words, “in him” and “with him,” have this force, that by these is understood one and the same reality, not something contrary.… Scripture bears witness that these three phrases—“with him,” and “through him,” and “in him”—are one in Christ.

Source: THE HOLY SPIRIT 83
[AD 397] Ambrose of Milan on 1 Corinthians 8:6
It is written: “Go baptize the nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” “In the name,” he said, not “in the names.” So there is not one name for the Father, another name for the Son, and another name for the Holy Spirit, because there is one God, not several names, because there are not two gods, not three gods.

Source: THE HOLY SPIRIT 13.132
[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on 1 Corinthians 8:6
And [know ye, moreover], that He who was born of a woman was the Son of God, and He that was crucified was "the first-born of every creature," and God the Word, who also created all things. For says the apostle, "There is one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." And again, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; " and, "By Him were all things created that are in heaven, and on earth, visible and invisible; and He is before all things, and by Him all things consist."

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Tarsians
[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on 1 Corinthians 8:6
Being mindful of your love and of your zeal in Christ, which ye have manifested towards us, we thought it fitting to write to you, who display such a godly and spiritual love to the brethren, to put you in remembrance of your Christian course, "that ye all speak the same thing, being of one mind, thinking the same thing, and walking by the same rule of faith," as Paul admonished you. For if there is one God of the universe, the Father of Christ, "of whom are all things; " and one Lord Jesus Christ, our [Lord], "by whom are all things; " and also one Holy Spirit, who wrought in Moses, and in the prophets and apostles; and also one baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord; and also one elect Church; there ought likewise to be but one faith in respect to Christ. For "there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is through all, and in all."

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Philippians
[AD 400] Ignatius of Antioch on 1 Corinthians 8:6
There is then one God and Father, and not two or three; One who is; and there is no other besides Him, the only true [God]. For "the Lord thy God," saith [the Scripture], "is one Lord." And again, "Hath not one God created us? Have we not all one Father? And there is also one Son, God the Word. For "the only-begotten Son," saith [the Scripture], "who is in the bosom of the Father." And again, "One Lord Jesus Christ." And in another place, "What is His name, or what His Son's name, that we may know? " And there is also one Paraclete. For "there is also," saith [the Scripture], "one Spirit," since "we have been called in one hope of our calling." And again, "We have drunk of one Spirit," with what follows.

Source: Epistle of Pseudo-Ignatius to the Philippians
[AD 425] Severian of Gabala on 1 Corinthians 8:6
The Father is one, just as the Son is one. If the Son is called Lord, that does not make the Father any less Lord, just as when it is said that God the Father is one, the Son is no less God.

Source: PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:6
You have made not only what is created and formed but also whatever can be created and formed. Everything which is formed from the formless must first be formless before it can be a formed thing.

Source: Confessions 12.19
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:6
“From him” means from the Father. “Through him” means through the Son. “In him” means in the Holy Spirit. It is self-evident that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God.

Source: ON THE TRINITY 1.13
[AD 444] Cyril of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:6
Just as there is one God the Father from whom are all things, so there is one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things.

Source: LETTER 50.26
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on 1 Corinthians 8:6
Note once more the apostle’s wisdom. For having first demonstrated that the words Lord and God are synonymous, he then splits them up, calling the Father one and the Son the other.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 215
[AD 604] Gregory the Dialogist on 1 Corinthians 8:6
Establishes the oneness of the nature; and thus there is a (divinity that is the) property of the Father, according to the word, "There is one God the Father; ".
For Paul addresses the Father as one in respect of divinity, and speaks of the Son as one in respect of lordship: "There is one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him."
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:7
We must therefore abstain from these viands not for fear (because there is no power in them); but on account of our conscience, which is holy, and out of detestation of the demons to which they are dedicated, are we to loathe them; and further, on account of the instability of those who regard many things in a way that makes them prone to fall, "whose conscience, being weak, is defiled: for meat commendeth us not to God.".
; sins of deed, by the rapacious and carnivorous birds. The sow delights in dirt and dung; and we ought not to have "a conscience "that is "defiled."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:7
But, so sinning, by shocking the weak consciences of the brethren thoroughly, they will sin against Christ." By this time, indeed, (he mentions individuals) by name: "Or have we not a power of eating.

Source: On Modesty
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:7
"But not in all is knowledge," says he. What knowledge does he mean? About God, or about things offered in sacrifice to idols? For either he here glances at the Greeks who say that there are many gods and lords, and who know not Him that is truly God; or at the converts from among Greeks who were still rather infirm, such as did not yet know clearly that they ought not to fear idols and that "an idol is nothing in the world." But in saying this, he gently soothes and encourages the latter. For there was no need of mentioning all he had to reprove, particularly as he intended to visit them again with more severity.

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

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:7
When people were forbidden to touch idols they would suspect that it was because they had power to do them harm. Paul therefore makes his position clear. He says categorically that there is no such thing as an idol but that it is necessary to avoid them so as not to give cause for scandal to those who are weak in the faith.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.8
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:8
The natural use of food is then indifferent. "For neither if we eat are we the better "it is said, "nor if we eat not are we the worse.".
For it is not in the food of the belly, that we have heard good to be situated. But he has heard that "meat will not commend us"

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:8
Meantime they huff in our teeth the fact that Isaiah withal has authoritatively declared, "Not such a fast hath the Lord elected," that is, not abstinence from food, but the works of righteousness, which he there appends: and that the Lord Himself in the Gospel has given a compendious answer to every kind of scrupulousness in regard to food; "that not by such things as are introduced into the mouth is a man defiled, but by such as are produced out of the mouth; " while Himself withal was wont to eat and drink till He made Himself noted thus; "Behold, a gormandizer and a drinker: " (finally), that so, too, does the apostle teach that "food commendeth us not to God; since we neither abound if we eat, nor lack if we eat not."

Source: On Fasting
[AD 258] Cyprian on 1 Corinthians 8:8
That too great lust of food is not to be desired. In Isaiah: "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we shall die. This sin shall not be remitted to you even until ye die." Also in Exodus: "And the people sate down to eat and drink, and rose up to play." Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: "Meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat shall we abound, nor if we eat not shall we want." . And again: "When ye come together to eat, wait one for another. If any is hungry, let him eat at home, that ye may not come together for judgment." Also to the Romans: "The kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." In the Gospel according to John: "I have meat which ye know not of. My meat is, that I should do His will who sent me, and should finish His work."

Source: Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:8
9. "But meat does not commend us to God. For neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse." Do you see how again he takes down their high spirit? In that, after saying that "not only they but all of us have knowledge," and that "no one knows anything as he ought to know," and that "knowledge puffs up;" then having soothed them, and said that "this knowledge is not in all," and that "weakness is the cause of these being defiled," in order that they might not say, "And what is it to us, if knowledge be not in all? Why then has not such an one knowledge? Why is he weak?"— I say, in order that they might not rejoin in these terms, he did not proceed immediately to point out clearly that for fear of the other's harm one ought to abstain: but having first made but a sort of skirmish upon mention of him, he points out what is more than this. What then is this? That although no one were injured nor any perversion of another ensued, not even in this case were it right so to do. For the former topic by itself is laboring in vain. Since he that hears of another being hurt while himself has the gain, is not very apt to abstain; but then rather he does so, when he finds out that he himself is no way advantaged by the thing. Wherefore he sets this down first, saying, "But meat commends us not to God." See how cheap he holds that which was accounted to spring from perfect knowledge! "For neither if we eat are we the better," (that is, stand higher in God's estimation, as if we had done anything good or great:) "nor if we eat not are we the worse," that is, fall in any way short of others. So far then he has signified that the thing itself is superfluous, and as nothing. For that which being done profits not, and which being left undone injures not, must be superfluous.

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:8
Food by itself is neither here nor there. But as he goes on, Paul reveals all the harm which might arise from eating meat which had been sacrificed to idols.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.9-10
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:8
“Neither shall we have any abundance if we do eat, nor shall we suffer any loss if we do not eat.” That is to say: neither will the former make me rich, nor will the latter make me poor.

Source: Confessions 10.45
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:9
"For take heed," says he, "lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to the weak among the brethren." (τῶν ἀδελφῶν] not in rec. text.)

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:9
Paul is saying that if we are not prepared to correct our weaker brethren, then at least we should not trip them up.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.10
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:10
There are two sorts of food, one ministering to salvation, and the other which is fitting to those who perish.… We ought not to misuse the gifts of the Father, then, acting the part of spendthrifts like the rich son in the Gospel. Let us, rather, make use of them with detachment, keeping them under control. Surely we have been commanded to be the master and lord, not the slave, of food.

Source: CHRIST THE EDUCATOR 2.9
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:10
Give nothing and take nothing from an idol! If it be against the faith to recline at table in the temple of an idol, what would you call it if one wore the garb of an idol?

Source: THE CHAPLET 10
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:10
What schoolmaster, without a table of the seven idols, will yet frequent the Quinquatria? The very first payment of every pupil he consecrates both to the honour and to the name of Minerva; so that, even though he be not said "to eat of that which is sacrificed to idols" nominally (not being dedicated to any particular idol), he is shunned as an idolater.

Source: On Idolatry
[AD 220] Tertullian on 1 Corinthians 8:10
What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs? Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord's day, when he does not even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the apostle has forbidden him? And shall he diligently protect by night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms, leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ's side was pierced? Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter, who expects to be aroused by the angel's trump? And shall the Christian be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of fire? Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God's law, you may see by a slight survey.

Source: De Corona
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on 1 Corinthians 8:10
Paul is afraid that the weaker brother may be tempted to eat meat sacrificed to idols, not because he also possesses the knowledge that there is no such thing as an idol but because he might think that there is some spiritual power in such food, which he will acquire if he eats it.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:10
"For if a man see you who hast knowledge, sitting at meat in an idol's temple, will not his conscience if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols?"

After having said, "Take heed lest this your liberty become a stumbling-block," he explains how and in what manner it becomes so: and he continually employs the term "weakness," that the mischief may not be thought to arise from the nature of the thing, nor demons appear formidable. As thus: "At present," says he, "a man is on the point of withdrawing himself entirely from all idols; but when he sees you fond of loitering about them, he takes the circumstance for a recommendation and abides there himself also. So that not only his weakness, but also your ill-timed behavior, helps to further the plot against him; for it is you who make him weaker."

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:10
It is not only his weakness but also your ill-timed behavior which plots against him and makes him weaker.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.10
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:10
Let us expand this thought so as to say: “If someone sees you who have knowledge of piety passing the whole day in those senseless and harmful associations, will not the conscience of the weak man be emboldened to pursue such actions more earnestly?” That blessed apostle said this to keep in check those who were heedless, even after having knowledge of piety, who were exposing themselves to places of idolatry and causing scandal to the rest.

Source: BAPTISMAL INSTRUCTIONS 6.16
[AD 202] Irenaeus on 1 Corinthians 8:11
And again: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died; "

Source: Against Heresies Book III
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:11
"And through your meat he that is weak perishes, the brother for whose sake Christ died."

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:11
There are two things which deprive you of any excuse in this mischief. The first is that he is weak, the second is that he is your brother. I should add a third excuse also, one which is even worse than the others. What is this? That whereas Christ died for him, you cannot even lift a finger to help him in the slightest.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.10
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:11
If you love the weak person less because of the moral failing that makes him weak, consider the One who died on his behalf.

Source: QUESTIONS 71
[AD 458] Theodoret of Cyrus on 1 Corinthians 8:11
Paul magnifies the accusation in order to prevent people from committing the crime.

Source: COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 217
[AD 379] Basil of Caesarea on 1 Corinthians 8:12
Consequently, either when something is done which is intrinsically evil and scandal results, or if the performance of a licit act and one within our sphere of competence causes scandal to one who is weak in faith or knowledge, then the penalty is clear and unescapable.… “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck.”.

Source: CONCERNING BAPTISM 10
[AD 400] Pseudo-Clement on 1 Corinthians 8:12
For this does not profit us, that another stumble because of us. Let us, therefore, be studiously on our guard at all times, that we do not smite our brethren and give them to drink of a disquieting conscience through our being to them a stumbling-block. For "if for the sake of meat our brother be made sad, or shocked, or made weak, or caused to stumble, we are not walking in the love of God. For the sake of meat you cause him to perish for whose sake Christ died." For, in "thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their sickly consciences, you sin against Christ Himself. For, if for the sake of meat my brother is made to stumble," let us who are believers say, "Never will we eat flesh, that we may not make our brother to stumble." [1 Corinthians 8:12-13]

Source: Two Epistles on Virginity
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:12
"And thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ."

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

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

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:12
Those who wound a weak conscience sin against Christ. He considers the concerns of his servants to be his own. Those who are wounded make up his own body. These people are destroying the work which Christ built up by his own blood.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.10
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:12
It is the very law of Christ that we bear one another’s burdens. Moreover, by loving Christ we easily bear the weakness of another, even him whom we do not yet love for the sake of his own good qualities, for we realize that the one whom we love is someone for whom the Lord has died.

Source: QUESTIONS 71
[AD 215] Clement of Alexandria on 1 Corinthians 8:13
"For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts "says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble."

Source: Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II
[AD 258] Cyprian on 1 Corinthians 8:13
Moreover, what a number of serious mischiefs we see to have arisen hence; and what a multitude of virgins we behold corrupted by unlawful and dangerous conjunctions of this kind, to our great grief of mind! But if they have faithfully dedicated themselves to Christ, let them persevere in modesty and chastity, without incurring any evil report, and so in courage and steadiness await the reward of virginity. But if they are unwilling or unable to persevere, it is better that they should marry, than that by their crimes they should fall into the fire. Certainly let them not cause a scandal to the brethren or sisters, since it is written, "If meat cause my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend."

Source: Epistle LXI
[AD 384] Ambrosiaster on 1 Corinthians 8:13
It is all right to have a wife, but if she commits adultery she is to be rejected. Likewise, it is all right to eat meat, but if it has been sacrificed to idols it is to be refused.

Source: COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:13
11. "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh forever." This is like the best of teachers, to teach in his own person the things which he speaks. Nor did he say whether justly or unjustly; but in any case. "I say not," (such is his tone,) "meat offered in sacrifice to an idol, which is already prohibited for another reason; but if any even of those things which are within license and are permitted causes stumbling, from these also will I abstain: and not one or two days, but all the time of my life." For he says, "I will eat no flesh forever." And he said not, "Lest I destroy my brother," but simply, "That I make not my brother to stumble." For indeed it comes of folly in the extreme that what things are greatly cared for by Christ, and such as He should have even chosen to die for them, these we should esteem so entirely beneath our notice as not even to abstain from meats on their account.

Now these things might be seasonably spoken not to them only, but also to us, apt as we are to esteem lightly the salvation of our neighbors and to utter those satanical words. I say, satanical: for the expression, "What care I, though such an one stumble, and such another perish?" savors of his cruelty and inhuman mind. And yet in that instance, the infirmity also of those who were offended had some share in the result: but in our case it is not so, sinning as we do in such a way as to offend even the strong. For when we smite, and raven, and overreach, and use the free as if they were slaves, whom is not this enough to offend? Tell me not of such a man's being a shoemaker, another a dyer, another a brazier: but bear in mind that he is a believer and a brother. Why these are they whose disciples we are; the fishermen, the publicans, the tent-makers, of Him who was brought up in the house of a carpenter; and who deigned to have the carpenter's betrothed wife for a mother; and who was laid, after His swaddling clothes, in a manger; and who had not where to lay His head — of Him whose journeys were so long that His very journeying was enough to tire Him down; of Him who was supported by others.

12. Think on these things, and esteem the pride of man to be nothing. But count the tent-maker as well as your brother, as him that is borne upon a chariot and has innumerable servants and struts in the market-place: nay, rather the former than the latter; since the term brother would more naturally be used where there is the greater resemblance. Which then resembles the fisherman? He who is supported by daily labor and has neither servant nor dwelling, but is quite beset with privations; or that other who is surrounded with such vast pomp, and who acts contrary to the laws of God? Despise not then him that is more of the two your brother, for he comes nearer to the Apostolic pattern.

"Not however," say you, "of his own accord, but by compulsion; for he does not this of his own mind." How comes this? Have you not heard, "Judge not, that you be not judged?" But, to convince yourself that he does it not against his inclination, approach and give him ten thousand talents of gold, and you shall see him putting it away from him. And thus, even though he have received no wealth by inheritance from his ancestors, yet when it is in his power to take it, and he lets it not come near him neither adds to his goods, he exhibits a mighty proof of his contempt of wealth. For so John was the son of Zebedee that extremely poor man: yet I suppose we are not therefore to say that his poverty was forced upon him.

Whenever then you see one driving nails, smiting with a hammer, covered with soot, do not therefore hold him cheap, but rather for that reason admire him. Since even Peter girded himself, and handled the dragnet, and went a fishing after the Resurrection of the Lord.

And why say I Peter? For this same Paul himself, after his incessant runnings to and fro and all those vast miracles, standing in a tent-maker's shop, sewed hides together: while angels were reverencing him and demons trembling. And he was not ashamed to say, [Acts 20:34] "Unto my necessities, and to those who were with me, these hands ministered." What say I, that he was not ashamed? Yea, he gloried in this very thing.

But you will say, "Who is there now to be compared with the virtue of Paul?" I too am aware that there is no one, yet not on this account are those who live now to be despised: for if for Christ's sake thou give honor, though one be last of all, yet if he be a believer he shall justly be honored. For suppose a general and a common soldier both present themselves before you, being friends of the king, and you open your house to both: in which of their persons would you seem to pay most honor to the king? Plainly in that of a soldier. For there were in the general, beside his loyalty to the king, many other things apt to win such a mark of respect from you: but the soldier had nothing else but his loyalty to the king.

Wherefore God bade us call to our suppers and our feasts the lame, and the maimed, and those who cannot repay us; for these are most of all properly called good deeds which are done for God's sake. Whereas if you entertain some great and distinguished man, it is not such pure mercy, what you do, but some portion many times is assigned to yourself also, both by vain-glory, and by the return of the favor, and by your rising in many men's estimation on account of your . At any rate, I think I could point out many who with this view pay court to the more distinguished among the saints, namely, that by their means they may enjoy a greater intimacy with rulers, and that they may find them thenceforth more useful in their own affairs and to their families. And many such favors do they ask in recompense from those saints; a thing which mars the repayment of their hospitality, they seeking it with such a mind.

And why need I say this about the saints? Since he who seeks, even from God, the reward of his labors in the present life and follows after virtue for this world's good, is sure to diminish his recompense. But he that asks for all his crowns wholly there, is found far more admirable; like that Lazarus, who even now is "receiving" [Luke 16:25] there all "his good things;" like those Three Children, who when they were on the point of being thrown into the furnace said, [Daniel 17:17-18] "There is a God in heaven able to deliver us; and if not, be it known unto you, O king, that we serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up:" like Abraham, who even offered his son and slew him; and this he did, not for any reward, but esteeming this one thing the greatest recompense, to obey the Lord.

These let us also imitate. For so shall we be visited with a return of all our good deeds and that abundantly, because we do all with such a mind as this: so shall we obtain also the brighter crowns. And God grant that we may all obtain them, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, honor, now, henceforth, and for everlasting ages. Amen.

Source: Homily 20 on First Corinthians
[AD 407] John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 8:13
This is like the best of teachers, to apply to himself the things he is speaking about. Paul is not concerned about the rights and wrongs of the issue in any objective sense. His only concern is that his brother should not stumble.

Source: HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLES OF PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS 20.11
[AD 430] Augustine of Hippo on 1 Corinthians 8:13
Those who are stronger and are not troubled by scruples are nevertheless commanded to abstain so as not to offend those who, on account of their weakness, still find abstinence necessary.

Source: THE WAY OF LIFE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 71