Homilies on First Corinthians

^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 any thing 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 any thing 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.