Stephen Morris's Blog, page 7

Whoever Eats or Drinks in an Unworthy Manner

This icon of Melchizedek is one of several that I painted many years ago. You can see the curls of the challah bread in his hand reflected in the curls of his beard. He wears the turban of a high priest and the crown of a king, as he was both priest of God Most High and king of (Jeru-)Salem. His sacrifice of bread and wine (described in Genesis 14 and Psalm 110) is considered an anticipation of the Eucharist.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself…. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement upon himself. (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

The apostle’s words are blunt and sharp. Whoever shares in the Eucharist unworthily brings condemnation on themselves. Although meant to be life-giving, the Holy Gifts can bring judgement and condemnation because the presence of God is a two-edged sword: his light exposes and reveals the truth, whatever that truth might be. If it reveals our honest struggle to live in fellowship with him, we share the fellowship we seek. If it reveals either no such struggle or even active struggle to avoid his light, then we are judged because our partaking of the Eucharist reveals that we knew better, that we turned our back on our own words by refusing to even attempt to live up to the words we said at our baptism and at the celebration of the Eucharist.

“What does it mean to receive unworthily? To receive in mockery, to receive in contempt.”

St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermon 227

How do we mock the Eucharist? When we dare to consume the Eucharist when we are allowing ourselves to be consumed with greed, or anger, or malice. These attitudes are what make us unworthy to receive the Holy Gifts. It was these attitudes–especially greed and selfishness–on display among the Corinthians that made them refuse to wait for one another at the parish dinners, some eating too much and getting drunk while others were going hungry.

To struggle against our greed, anger, or malice is a sign of life and God honors that struggle by remaining in fellowship with the one who struggles. If we give up the struggle against these attitudes, we are already spiritually dead, even if we are physically still alive.

“Do you work wonders for the dead? Will those who have died stand up and give you thanks?” (Psalm 88:11) This question in the psalms concerns not just those dead and buried in the ground but those spiritually dead, still walking around the surface of the earth. In hell, there is no Eucharist; the spiritually dead, in need of Resurrection, are equally outside the Eucharist. “For in death, no one remembers you; and who will give you thanks in the grave?” (Psalm 6:5)

The dead, those who have surrendered to their greed-anger-malice, are incapable of giving thanks or honest participation in the Eucharist. These are the people who mock the Eucharist and receive it with contempt. Struggling against these attitudes are what make us capable of giving thanks and honest participation in the Eucharist; even if we fail and must renew our struggle time-after-time-after-time-after-time, this is the behavior of a person who honors the Eucharist and avoids bringing judgement and condemnation upon themselves.

The post Whoever Eats or Drinks in an Unworthy Manner appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

One Goes Hungry While Another Gets Drunk, Part 2

Judith with the head of Holofernes, Lucas Cranach The Elder. (c. 1530) In the Book of Judith, the Jewish heroine enters the tent of the Assyrian general Holofernes, gets him drunk and chops off his head to save her town. Judith, who is “the pride of all our people and the glory of our race” is considered to be a type of the Mother of God: As Judith beheaded Holofernes, so also is Mary the woman who by her divine pregnancy and childbearing (of Jesus) crushed the head of the serpentine demon, the Devil. Read more about Judith as a type here.

For in eating, each one by preference takes his or her own meal; and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Don’t you have houses for eating and drinking? (1 Cor. 11:21-22)

The apostle condemns the parish members who are better off bringing their own food and wine to parish dinners and then refusing to share, getting drunk while other people at dinner are going hungry. The meal that was meant to erase and heal social divisions only exposed these divisions and made them worse.

The contrast between the “haves” and the “have nots” is a classic theme of Greek and Roman writers. Pliny complained that some hosts served “cheap and paltry” food and wine to guests that they thought less important while having “elegant dishes” served to themselves and a few special guests. Pliny thought this was sordid behavior. (Epistle 2.6)

Other writers, like Juvenal, made fun of hosts who did this. The host was not refusing to spend money, Juvenal said; the host just wanted to cause his guests pain. “What comedy … is more amusing than a disappointed stomach?” A host who did this was truly malicious, Juvenal thought.

Socrates insisted that meals be truly communal experiences. Plutarch warned against disorder at meals and dinner parties. Nevertheless, drunkenness was so common at common meals that Sparta and Crete outlawed dinner parties. Even in the Old Testament, hosts were urged to take care of their guests before sitting down at the table themselves. The host who is generous with food is blessed and guests were expected to help others before helping themselves to the meal. (Sirach 31-32)

Alas, the misbehavior of the Corinthians at dinner had a long pedigree. Their misbehavior revealed that they despised the Church rather than loving their brothers and sisters, as they claimed. Actions always speak louder than words.

Paul reminds us that the Master gave up everything, including himself, for us. But we are reluctant to even share a little food with our fellow believers…. Do not dishonor your brothers or neglect them in their hunger. Do not get drunk. Do not insult the Church. When you come together, give thanks for what you have to eat and do not cut yourself off from your neighbors.

St. John Chrysostom, Homily 27 on 1st Corinthians

The post One Goes Hungry While Another Gets Drunk, Part 2 appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

One Goes Hungry While Another Gets Drunk

The cathedral in Monreale, Sicily has many beautiful mosaics of Bible episodes, including this depiction of Noah growing grapes after the flood and getting drunk (Genesis 9:24-25). This was evidently the first time in human history that anyone had gotten drunk and passed out. Noah’s sons are shown covering him with a cloak as he is asleep; his pose is very similar to that as Adam when God put him to sleep and then took a rib to fashion Eve.

When, however, you come together in the same place it is not to eat the supper of the Lord. For in eating each one by preference takes his or her own meal; and one goes hungry while another gets drunk. Don’t you have houses for eating and drinking? Do you despise the church of God and dishonor those who have not? What shall I tell you? Shall I commend you? (1 Cor. 11:20-22)

St. Paul tells the Corinthians several times, “I do not commend you.” There were several practices that the parish was evidently proud of–or at least, practices that several prominent people in the parish were proud of. St. Paul, however, is not proud of these practices and tells the Corinthians exactly what he thinks.

We know that early Christians met for several sorts of community meals. Some were called agapes, or “love feasts,” and were fellowship dinners that began with prayers. People brought food to share with others. People generally brought enough that there would be enough to share with the poor after the dinner or the next day.

We also know that the Eucharist was celebrated in the context of a festive community meal. The celebration began with the sharing of the Holy Bread, the Body of Christ. The meal followed, during which there might be reading and preaching. The “cup of blessing,” the Blood of Christ, was shared at the conclusion. Although a wealthy church member might host the meal sometimes, these meals were also a “potluck” and people brought food to eat themselves and to share. (We know this from early Christian writings like the Didache and the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus.)

We are not sure whether St. Paul is criticizing the behavior at either an agape or at the celebration of the Eucharist, although the reference to “the supper of the Lord” suggests that it was probably the Eucharist that he was talking about.

The parish met in the home of a community member. Most Greek and Roman homes were built around a central courtyard; the rooms opened onto the courtyard and guests might circulate between the rooms that were open. Most of the Christians in Corinth were not wealthy so their homes would not be large. Even the homes of wealthy parishioners might not have a single room that was large enough for the whole parish to gather in at one time.

At these parish meals–either agape or Eucharist–the people were probably not all in the same room. The wealthier members were evidently in a grander room while the poorer members were in smaller rooms off to the side. Because they were not in the same room, it was easy for the richer people to eat and drink among themselves–even gorging themselves and getting drunk–and let the poorer members have less to eat and drink.

Even though they had “come together in the same place,” i.e. one house, they were not all in one room. In one room, people were going hungry. In another room, people were getting drunk. St. Paul saw nothing commendable in this. Such behavior despises the Church and dishonors the members gathered in fellowship, in communion. St. Clement of Alexandria wrote,

If a person is wealthy and eats without restraint or is insatiable, he disgraces himself in a special way and does wrong on two accounts. First, he adds to the burden of those who do not have, and second, he lays his own intemperance bare in front of those who do have.

St. Clement of Alexandria, in “Christ the Educator,” 2.13

There is so much other background to what St. Paul is talking about in this passage, we will continue with it next week.

The post One Goes Hungry While Another Gets Drunk appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

A Woman Should Cover Her Head Because of the Angels

Angels are depicted with red boots indicating their role as messengers of the heavenly court; red boots were worn by officials associated with the Byzantine imperial system and imperial messengers on imperial business were often identified by their red boots. So the angels, delivering messages from God to humans, were identified in icons as messengers of the King of heaven by their red boots as well.

For if a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut; if, however, it is shameful for a woman to cut her hair or shave it off, it is better to keep her head covered…. A woman should keep her head covered because of the angels. (1 Cor. 11:6, 10)

This passage is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for modern readers to understand. St. Paul talks about women keeping silent and their heads covered all because of the angels. How can the apostle who wrote these words also have written that in Christ there is neither rich nor poor, slave or free, male or female? What is he talking about in this passage?

Hairstyles were important in 1st century Greco-Roman culture. Elite women and men spent a lot of time and money to have their hair done “properly” and even the wives of the emperors could be criticized for having an incorrect hairstyle. Men were expected to have hairstyles that were very different from women; women were expected to wear hairstyles that made it easy to see that they were not men. So the easiest and most basic way to do that was for men to cut their hair short and women to keep their hair long; a woman who cut her hair short might as well shave it all off. Philosophers spent a lot of time and ink writing about proper, appropriate hairstyles.

St. Paul wants the Christian men and women in Corinth to be recognizable as men and women. The scandal of the Cross and Resurrection should be the only hurdle making it difficult for non-Christians to embrace the Faith; upending social norms should not be a reason for non-believers to reject the Faith. But what do the angels have to do with this?

Praying and prophesying involve exposing the worshipper to the power and influence of powerful spiritual entities. Some of these are good. Some are evil. Wearing their hair like a “proper” woman was a talisman against the evil spirits that might try to deceive a woman who was praying or prophesying or interpreting Scripture (a sub-genre of prophesy). Keeping their hair long and properly coiffed was a way to protect the Christian women of Corinth, allowing only the good angels to speak to them or inspire their words.

Perhaps one reason modern readers have difficulty with this passage is because we don’t take prophesying and angels seriously any more. Understanding preaching and interpretation of scripture as acts of prophesying and acknowledging the reality, importance, and power of the angels go a long way to make a difficult passage comprehensible and not as a misogynistic rant.

The post A Woman Should Cover Her Head Because of the Angels appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

Why Should my Freedom be Judged by Another’s Consciousness?

Divisive issues? Questions about eating meat tore apart the parish in Corinth!

If a nonbeliever invites you and you wish to go, eat everything placed before you…. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s consciousness? If, as of course I do, I partake with gratitude, why am I reviled because of what I give thanks for? (1 Cor. 10:27, 29-30)

There are two inscriptions from the time of Augustus which tell us that the market at Corinth was built by the city’s elite as a gift to the people. After major sports or civic events, meat was often sold in the market at cheaper prices than usual, making it available for the poorer people. (The meat came from sacrifices offered in the temples as part of the civic or sports event.) Many of the members of the Christian parish in Corinth had limited incomes and would have wanted to purchase this meat at the reduced rate.

The Christians did not live in a Christian neighborhood or ghetto. They lived all over the city and were friends with–or had social connections with–people who were not Christians. It must have been common that Christians would be invited to dinner at non-Christian homes. (The unbelievers might even be family members or in-laws of the Christians.) The members of the parish that had more income would also be invited to fancy dinners and events.

The advice of the apostle Paul in both situations is the same: eat whatever. Eat what you can purchase in the market. Eat what people serve you; if you are invited to dinner, follow the normal rules of good manners and eat what the host serves.

What St. Paul actually writes is, “If I partake with charis … why am I reviled/denounced for what I give thanks for?” Charis in other passages is often translated “grace” or even “beauty.” So we might read this passage as saying, “If I partake with grace…” or “If I behave beautifully and eat what I am served….” The rest of the sentence might then be translated, “Why am I criticized so loudly for behaving with good manners, as long as I have thanked God for what I eat?”

Some people in Corinth thought it was wrong to eat this meat. Should their scruples impact everyone else’s behavior? The question of how much someone else’s consciousness/awareness should impact my behavior is an important one. If someone else’s conscience insists that people of a certain race are not human in the same way as others, am I obligated to curtail my behavior because of this mistaken idea? There are some cases when the Gospel obliges us to act on the basis of our own consciousness and not let the mistaken scruples of others hold us back. There are other cases when the stakes are not so high and we might be able to take other people’s consciousness into account and modify our behavior so as to not offend others. One ancient author said,

The conscience that St. Paul refers to is not the conscience of the one who knows idols do not exist but the conscience of one who still thinks the gods depicted in the idols are real.

Severian of Gabala (a popular preacher in Constantinople, AD 398-404)

The importance of having an informed, educated conscience is paramount. We must be reading the Gospel and the Church fathers-mothers to have “the mind of Christ” shaped in our own minds as well. Ignorance is not bliss; ignorant consciences are in for a rude awakening on Judgement Day.

The post Why Should my Freedom be Judged by Another’s Consciousness? appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

The Cup of Blessing That We Bless

On the left, a Russian bishop prepares the one Bread and one Cup, adequate for a large number of communicants, who will all receive from the same loaf and chalice. On the right, a priest places the “fermentum” in the chalice, signifying the unity of the Eucharist which he celebrates with the Eucharist which the bishop celebrates elsewhere that day.

Judge what I say. The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not communion in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not communion in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread we, the many, are one body, for we all share in one and the same bread. (1 Cor. 10:15-17)

Because the parish in Corinth–wealthy members, poor members, Gentile Christians, Jewish Christians, the “weak”, the “strong”–all partake of the one bread and the one cup at the Eucharist, they are one body. One fellowship. One community united in faith against the temptations and allurement of the fallen world. Although many, they are one–manifesting and revealing the Kingdom of God to all those willing to look and see.

That chalice, or rather, what the chalice holds, consecrated by the word of God, is the blood of Christ. Through these elements the Lord wished to entrust to us his body and the blood which he poured out for the remission of sins. If you have received worthily, you are what you have received.

St, Augustine of Hippo, Easter Sermon

St. Augustine reminds his congregation of what St. Paul told the Corinthians: they must partake of the bread and cup worthily. If they do not partake in a worthy manner, the Holy Gifts will destroy them rather than enliven them.

But St. Pauldidn’t say the Corinthians had to be pure or sinless. He said they had to beworthy. Worthiness is a very different thing. To be worthy to touch, to beworthy to consume the Body of Christ does not mean to be sinless. As severalEnglish theologians in the 1600s and 1700s pointed out, to be worthy is to be committedto self-examination, committed to repentance, committed to always turningaround, changing direction, re-orienting myself towards Christ. So I must alwaysprepare to approach the Table by examining myself, reviewing what I have doneand who I have been during the time since I last approached the Holy Table.Examine myself, measure myself against our standard—which is Christ—and determinehow I might, in perhaps some single small way, turn my back on that person thatI do not want to be and take some small step closer to being the person I wasmade to be in Christ.

Tobe worthy of receiving Holy Communion, to dare to touch the Corpus Christi,I must be committed to self-examination and repentance. One of those Englishtheologians, Simon Patrick[1] in 1660, suggested using aphrase from the Gospel that Greek and Russian Christians use as they approachthe chalice: “Lord, remember me when you come in your kingdom.” The thief crucifiedwith Christ acknowledged Jesus as Lord and reoriented his life—turning his backon his image of himself as a victim who was owed whatever he could take fromother people—and he asked Jesus to make a place for him in the Kingdom. Whatwas Jesus’ answer? “Today, you will be with me in paradise.” If we approach thechalice with the self-examination, the reorientation of our lives, the words ofthe thief—Remember me in your kingdom—Christ makes the same promise to us:Today you will be with me in paradise. Today you will begin to live forever.

[1]Bishop of Ely, Mensa Mystica, or a Discourse concerning the Sacrament of theLord’s Supper. (Prayer Book Spirituality, p. 283)

The post The Cup of Blessing That We Bless appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

…And the Rock was Christ

A wall painting in the mid-3rd century Dura Europos synagogue (Syria) depicts Moses striking the rock which then provides water for the 12 tribes of Israel in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. The rock followed the Israelites throughout the 40 years they spent in the wilderness, providing the water they needed until they entered the Promised Land.

All our ancestors were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock, which was following them, and the rock was Christ. (1 Cor. 10:1-4)

The story of Moses striking the rock and producing water for the thirsty Israelites in the wilderness is told twice in the Old Testament–perhaps the same event is reported twice? Or some suggest that the first (temporary) provision of water was supplemented by a second (more permanent) provision of water.

The first version of the story is in Exodus 17. The people complain to Moses that there is no food in the wilderness; God then provides manna and quail to the people on a daily basis. The people then complain that there is no water to drink and accuse Moses of leading them out into the wilderness to die of thirst. God instructs Moses to strike a rock with the staff he used in his combat with Pharoah in Egypt and water gushes out of the rock.

The second version of the story is in Numbers 20. In this version, the people have refused to enter the Promised Land because they do not believe that God will give them the military victory over the current inhabitants, so God promises that none of the Israelites then alive will ever enter the Promised Land; only their children will enter. After the people turn back into the wilderness, Moses’ sister Miriam dies and the people complain again that there is no food or water. (Some early commentators suggest that their hunger and thirst are directly a result of their mourning for Miriam.) So Moses strikes a rock and water gushes out; this is, presumably, the rock that then follows the Israelites throughout the rest of their wanderings in the wilderness.

St. Paul understands the rock that followed the Israelites –which provided enough water every day for several thousand people and animals — to be Christ himself. The food and water and the rock in the wilderness are “types” of Christ; they foreshadow and are dress rehearsals for the gifts that Christ will give in the New Testament and in the Church. Just as the Lord made the world out of the water in Genesis 1 and refashioned the world during the Flood, he now gives enough water in the wilderness to sustain the people, even though they “grumble” and “murmur” against him.

Early Christian preachers warned their congregations not to grumble or murmur against the Lord who feeds them at the altar with the Body and Blood of Christ. Grumbling and murmuring are persistent human foibles–we keep complaining about people who don’t think as highly of us as they should, about situations in which we are treated unfairly, about leaders and bosses who don’t appreciate what we have to offer. How best to combat these temptations to grumble and mutter and complain? Instead of grumbling, these early preachers suggest that we give thanks for the opportunities that we have been given. Focus on how the glass is half-full rather than how it is half-empty.

Our families and friends get tired of hearing us complain about something all the time. Grumbling leads only to more grumbling, these preachers say; giving thanks results in more thanksgiving!

But grumbling so much easier, most of the time! In order to give thanks, we have to look at ourselves and figure out what we can do to improve the situation. That takes energy. That takes work. And then we have to actually do whatever it is that might improve our situation. So much easier to just grumble and expect someone else–like Moses?–to fix whatever is wrong. But that doesn’t get us any closer to where we want to be, does it?

The post …And the Rock was Christ appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

For the Weak, I Have Become Weak

Seraphim of Sarov lived as a hermit in a log cabin for 25+ years and is one of the most renowned Russian saints. He is generally considered the greatest of the 18th-century  startsy  (elders). Seraphim extended the monastic teachings of contemplation, theoria and self-denial to the layperson. He taught that the purpose of the Christian life was to receive the Holy Spirit. Perhaps his most popular quotation amongst his devotees is “acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved.”

For the weak, I have become weak so that I might win over the weak; to all people I have become all things so that I might surely save some. All these things I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I might share in it. (1 Cor. 9:22-23)

St. Paul behaves as someone “under the law,” bound by Jewish observances, when he is with those who consider themselves obligated to keep the Old Testament observances and then behaves as someone “outside the law,” not bound by such observances, when he is with people who do not consider themselves obligated to keep such observances. The “weak” are a euphemism that parallels those “under the law,” the Christians in Corinth that think they are obligated to maintain the Old Testament practices.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem preached that Christ himself did likewise, becoming whatever was needed by those he was with:

Everywhere the Savior becomes all things to all men. To the hungry, bread; to the thirsty, water; to the dead, resurrection; to the sick, a physician; to sinners, redemption.

Sermon on the Paralytic, 10

St. Paul was accused of being a chameleon, an inconsistent crowd-pleaser who altered his behavior to please whoever he was with. He insists that his behavior was not inconsistent to please the crowd; rather, his behavior was completely consistent with the Gospel so that he could spend time with those who needed to hear the Good News. His behavior is consistent with bringing salvation to everyone, whether they keep the Old Testament laws or not.

St. Paul points out that his salvation–his “sharing in the Gospel”–depends on his making the Gospel available to others. The Good News of Jesus’ Death and Resurrection is available to everyone but St. Paul cannot share it if he keeps this Good News to himself. He must share it if it is to benefit him. His salvation depends on the salvation of others.

This communal attitude about salvation became common in the Christian East. St. Seraphim of Sarov, a Russian monk who lived at the same time as Mozart and George Washington, said that anyone who saves themselves saves a thousand people around them. To save oneself, in St. Seraphim’s view, is to achieve peace and fellowship with God in Christ. That peace and fellowship radiates out into the lives around a person just as waves ripple out from a pebble thrown into a pond.

No one is saved unless everyone is saved. I ask myself, how might I contribute to this process in a way that invites people in rather than makes them feel excluded?

The post For the Weak, I Have Become Weak appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

Food Offered to Idols

What is most frequently offered in religious rituals? Food! Religious food practices shape communities–what people do or do not offer to the gods and do or do not eat together identifies who we are as societies. What the Hebrews and the Egyptians ate before the Exodus helped distinguish the two communities. Read about food in ancient Egypt here.

So, concerning food that is offered to idols. We know that in the world an idol is nothing and there is no God but one…. But food will not put us in the presence of God. We are not inferior if we do not eat nor are we superior if we do eat. (1 Cor. 8:4, 8)

The parish in Corinth was torn apart by several disputes, one of which involved what was or was not legitimate to eat. It was meat that had been sacrificed to idols was the problem. The obvious question is, “Then why not just go buy meat from the kosher butcher?” No problem with idols then. Problem solved.

There was a large Jewish community in Corinth with plenty of kosher butchers. I could spend 20 minutes–or several hundred words–talking or writing about how the animosity between the Jewish and the Christian communities was ready to boil over at the least provocation. Christian patronage of kosher butchers was simply not possible. Tensions between the two communities were just too high.

The Christian neighbors that needed to experience God’s peace and harmony in Corinth were more than just two theological factions or two groups that wouldn’t eat together or speak to each other at coffee hour. The labels of “weak” and “strong” throughout the epistles are code words for ethnic identity and social status. The weak were the Jewish believers, the socially disadvantaged, those on the periphery of the culture, the people who could be expelled from town because the powers-that-be don’t want to be bothered with them—just as the Jews had been expelled from Rome several times already. (Many of the Jews in Corinth being, in fact, refugees who had settled there after the most recent expulsion from the great capital, only a few years before St. Paul came preaching there.)

The strong were the Gentile believers, the socially powerful and important, the people who would probably think that it might actually be a good idea to expel the “weak” from town if they got too troublesome or demanding.

St. Paul declared that he would give up meat forever—that he would fast as the Prophet Daniel had fasted in Babylon because there was no kosher meat available—to maintain the harmony of the Christian community. St. Paul said that anyone who joined him in that fast, joined him in maintaining that harmony would also be maintaining the harmony not only of the community but the harmony of their personal relationship with God. The fast established and maintained the love and reconciliation between members of the congregation. The fast—like the holy kiss—was an expression of love for both God and neighbor.

The post Food Offered to Idols appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.

“We Have Knowledge!”

Traditional Easter baskets are full of eggs, meat, cheese, and holiday Easter bread. People bring their baskets to church to be blessed and share the food with their families, friends, and neighbors. Community identity is forged by what people do or do not eat together.

Concerning food that has been offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs us up but love builds us up. If anyone thinks that he or she knows something, that one does not yet know as he or she ought to know. (1 Cor. 8:1-2)

Having spent all of chapter 7 talking about various aspects of marriage, St. Paul turns to the subject of food. He discusses various aspects of food for the next three chapters of this epistle. Food was important to the Christians of Corinth. Food is still important to Christians today.

The Corinthian parish had evidently written to St. Paul and asked him several questions about food. What to eat? Who to eat with? How to maintain their Christian identity in connection with food?

St. Paul begins by pointing out that although all the Corinthians claim to have knowledge, there is both “false knowledge” and “true knowledge.” The difference is that true knowledge goes together with love. False knowledge puffs up people, making them proud and arrogant. True knowledge, united with love, brings people into fellowship with each other. “We have knowledge!” was apparently the slogan or motto of the faction of the parish that was proud and arrogant. St. Paul warns these people that too often the people who claim to know more or know better are–in fact–the ones who know the least about the truth.

“Whatever knowledge we may have, it is still imperfect,” said St. John Chrysostom when he was preaching about this passage. “Where God is concerned, we cannot even say just how wrong our perception of him is.” He warns them, “More than anyone else, the arrogant injure themselves.”

The post “We Have Knowledge!” appeared first on Stephen Morris, author.