Chrysostom, 1 Cor. 8:6 & the Trinity

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.

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, 1 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. (Homily 20 1 Corinthians 8:1-13)

3. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. After having united them to one other by the salutations and the kisses, he again closes his speech with prayer, with much carefulness uniting them unto God also.

Where now are they who say that because the Holy Spirit is not inserted in the beginnings of the Epistles, He is not of the same substance? For, behold, he has now enumerated Him with the Father and Son. And besides this, one may remark, that when writing to the Colossians and saying, Grace to you, and peace from God our Father, he was silent of the Son, and added not, as in all his Epistles, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Is then the Son not of the same substance either, because of this? Nay, these reasonings are of extreme folly. For this very thing especially shows Him to be of the same substance, that Paul uses the expression [or not] indifferently.

And that what is here said is no conjecture, hear how he mentions Son and Spirit, and is quite silent of the Father. For, writing to the Corinthians, he says, But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11 What then, tell me? Were these not baptized into the Father? Then assuredly they were neither washed nor sanctified. But did they baptize them? Doubtless then just as also they did baptize. How then did he not say, ‘You are washed in the name of the Father.’ Because it was indifferent in his view, at one time to make mention of this, at another of that Person; and you may observe this custom in many places of the Epistles.

For writing to the Romans he says, I beseech you therefore by the mercies of God, Romans 12:1 although those mercies are of the Son; and, I beseech you by the love of the Spirit, Romans 15:30 although love is of the Father. Wherefore then mentioned he not the Son in the mercies, nor the Father in the love? Because as being things plain and admitted, he was silent about them.

Moreover, he will be found again, to put the gifts also themselves transposedly. For having said here, The grace of Christ, and the love of God and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Ghost; he in another place speaks of the communion of the Son, and of the love of the Spirit. For, I beseech you, he says, by the love of the Spirit. Romans 15:30 And in his Epistle to the Corinthians, God is faithful, by Whom you were called into the communion of His Son. 1 Corinthians 1:9 Thus the things of the Trinity are undivided: and whereas the communion is of the Spirit, it has been found of the Son; and whereas the grace is of the Son, it is also of the Father and of the Holy Spirit; for [we read], Grace be to you from God the Father.

And in another place, having enumerated many forms of it, he added, But all these works the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally as He will. 1 Corinthians 12:11 And I say these things, not confounding the Persons, (away with the thought!) but knowing both the individuality and distinctness of These, and the Unity of the Substance. (Homily 30 2 Corinthians 13:10-14)