John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 8

He now passes on to another question, which he had merely touched upon in the sixth chapter, without fully discussing. For when he had spoken of the avarice of the Corinthians, and had drawn that discussion to a close with this statement—Neither covetous, nor extortioners, nor fornicators, etc., shall inherit the kingdom of God, he passed on to speak of the liberty of Christians—All things are lawful for me.

He had taken occasion from this to speak of fornication, and from that, of marriage. Now, therefore, he at length develops what he had touched upon regarding intermediate things—how we should restrain our liberty in such matters.

By intermediate things, I mean those that are neither good nor bad in themselves, but indifferent. God has put these in our power, but in their use, we should observe moderation, so that there may be a difference between liberty and licentiousness.

At the beginning, he selects one instance, distinguished above all the others, where the Corinthians grievously offended: their having been present at the sacred banquets held by idolaters in honor of their gods, and eating indiscriminately of the meats offered to them. As this gave much occasion for offense, the Apostle teaches them that they rashly perverted the liberty granted them by the Lord.

Concerning things offered to idols. He begins with a concession, in which he voluntarily grants and allows them everything that they were prepared to demand or object. “I see what your pretext is: you make Christian liberty your pretext. You claim that you have knowledge, and that not one of you is so ignorant as not to know that there is but one God. I grant all this to be true, but what good is that knowledge which is ruinous to the brothers and sisters?” Thus, he grants them what they demand, but in such a way as to show that their excuses are empty and useless.

Knowledge puffeth up. He shows, from the effects, how frivolous it is to boast of knowledge when love is lacking. “What good is knowledge of a kind that puffs us up and elates us, while it is the role of love to edify?”

This passage, which is otherwise somewhat obscure due to its brevity, may easily be understood in this way: “Whatever is devoid of love is of no importance in the sight of God; furthermore, it is displeasing to him, and even more so, anything that is openly contrary to love. Now, the knowledge of which you boast, O Corinthians, is altogether opposed to love, for it puffs up people with pride and leads to contempt for the brothers and sisters, while love is concerned for the welfare of brothers and sisters and exhorts us to edify them. Accursed, then, be that knowledge which makes people proud and is not regulated by a desire to edify.”

Paul, however, did not mean that this should be considered a fault of learning—that those who are learned are often self-complacent and admire themselves, accompanied with contempt for others. Nor did he understand this to be the natural tendency of learning—to produce arrogance. Instead, he simply meant to show what effect knowledge has in an individual who does not have the fear of God and love for the brothers and sisters, for the wicked abuse all the gifts of God to exalt themselves.

Thus riches, honors, dignities, nobility, beauty, and other things of that nature, puff up, because people, elated by a mistaken confidence in these things, very frequently become insolent. Nor is it always so, for we see that many who are rich and beautiful, abounding in honors, and distinguished for dignity and nobility, are nevertheless of a modest disposition and not at all tainted with pride.

And even when it does happen, it is nevertheless not proper for us to blame what we know to be gifts of God. For in the first place, that would be unfair and unreasonable; and further, by blaming things that are not blameworthy, we would exempt the persons themselves from blame, who alone are at fault. My meaning is this— “If riches naturally tend to make people proud, then a rich person, if proud, is free from blame, for the evil arises from riches.”

We must, therefore, lay it down as a settled principle that knowledge is good in itself. But as piety is its only foundation, it becomes empty and useless in wicked people; as love is its true seasoning, where that is lacking, it is tasteless. Truly, where there is not that thorough knowledge of God which humbles us and teaches us to do good to the brothers and sisters, it is not so much knowledge as an empty notion of it, even in those who are considered the most learned.

At the same time, knowledge is by no means to be blamed for this, any more than a sword if it falls into the hands of a madman. Let this be said in response to certain fanatics who furiously declaim against all the liberal arts and sciences, as if their only use were to puff people up, and were not of the greatest advantage as aids in common life. Now those very persons who defame them in this manner are ready to burst with pride, so much so that they verify the old proverb— “Nothing is so arrogant as ignorance.”

And if any man thinketh—that man thinketh that he knoweth something, who is delighted with the opinion he holds of his own knowledge and despises others, as if he were far above them.

For Paul does not condemn knowledge here, but rather the ambition and haughtiness that ungodly men acquire from it. Otherwise, he does not urge us to be skeptical, so that we are always hesitating and remaining in doubt. Nor does he approve of a false and counterfeit modesty, as if it were good to think we are ignorant of what we actually know.

Therefore, that man who thinketh that he knoweth something—or, in other words, who is insolent from an empty notion of his own knowledge, so that he prefers himself to others and is self-conceited—he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

For the beginning of all true knowledge is acquaintance with God, which produces humility and submission in us; indeed, it prostrates us entirely instead of elating us. But where pride is, there is ignorance of God—a beautiful passage! If only everyone understood it correctly, so as to properly understand the rule of right knowledge!

But if any man loves God, here we have the conclusion, in which he shows what is especially commendable in Christians. It even makes knowledge and all other gifts commendable if we love God; for if this is the case, we will also love our neighbors in Him. In this way, all our actions will be properly regulated and consequently approved by God. He shows, therefore, by its results, that no learning is commendable that is not dipped in the love of God, because that alone ensures that whatever gifts we have are approved by Him, as it is said in the second Epistle—

If any man be in Christ he is a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17).

By this he implies that without the Spirit of regeneration, everything else, regardless of its outward appearance, has no value. To be known by God means to be esteemed, or to be counted among His sons. Thus, He erases all proud persons from the book of life (Philippians 4:3) and from the list of the devout.

Concerning, therefore, the eating of those things: He now returns to the statement with which he had begun and speaks more plainly regarding the pretext used by the Corinthians. For as the whole of the evil arose from this root — that they were pleased with themselves and despised others — he condemns, in general, that contemptuous knowledge which is not seasoned with love.

Now, however, he explains particularly the kind of knowledge on which they prided themselves: that an idol is an empty figment of the human brain and must therefore be considered as nothing. Accordingly, the consecration performed in the name of the idol is a foolish imagination and of no importance, and a Christian, therefore, is not polluted who, without reverence for the idol, eats of things offered to idols. This is the sum of their excuse, and Paul does not set it aside as false (for it contains excellent doctrine), but because they abused it, in opposition to love.

Regarding the words, Erasmus reads this way: “An idol has no existence.” I prefer the rendering of the old translation: “An idol is nothing.” For the argument is this: an idol is nothing, because there is but one God. For it follows admirably: “If there is no other God besides our God, then an idol is an empty dream, and mere vanity.” When he says, and there is no other God but one, I understand the conjunction “and” as meaning “because.”

For the reason an idol is nothing is that it must be evaluated according to the thing it represents. Now it is appointed for the purpose of representing God; furthermore, for the purpose of representing false gods, because there is but one God, who is invisible and incomprehensible.

The reason, too, must be carefully observed: An idol is nothing because there is no God but one; for He is the invisible God and cannot be represented by a visible sign so as to be worshipped through it. Whether, therefore, idols are erected to represent the true God or false gods, it is in all cases a perverse contrivance.

Hence Habakkuk calls idols teachers of lies (Habakkuk 2:18), because they deal falsely in pretending to give a figure or image of God, and deceive people under a false title. Hence οὐδεν (nothing) refers not to essence, but to quality — for an idol is made of some substance, either silver, or wood, or stone; but as God does not choose to be represented in this way, it is vanity and nothing in terms of meaning and use.

For though there be that are called—"They have," he says, "the name, but the reality is lacking." He uses the word called here to mean—renowned in the estimation of men. He has also made use of a general division when he says in heaven or on earth. The gods that are mentioned as being in heaven are the heavenly hosts, as Scripture terms the sun, moon, and the other stars.

Moses shows from this, however, how very far they are from being entitled to divine honors: that they were created for our use. The sun is our servant; the moon is our handmaid. How absurd, therefore, it is to render to them divine honors! By the gods that are on earth are properly meant, in my opinion, men and women for whom religious worship has been appointed.

For, as Pliny observes, those who had served mankind well had their memory consecrated by religion, so that they were worshipped as deities—Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Mercury, and Apollo, who were mortal men but were, after death, exalted to the rank of deities; and, more recently, Hercules, Romulus, and eventually the Caesars. It is as if it were in the power of mankind to make deities at their pleasure, while they cannot give themselves either life or immortality.

There are also other terrestrial gods, taken either from cattle or from other animals; for example, among the Egyptians: the ox, the serpent, the cat, the onion, and the garlic; and among the Romans: the boundary-stone and the stone Vesta.

They are gods, then, only in name; but Paul says that he does not dwell on deifications of this sort.