The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: the First Epistle to the Corinthians
Notice (1.) that when the sacrifice was completed, the flesh which had been offered on the idol’s altar was removed from it to a table, near the altar or temple, in order that they who had offered it might, with the friends they had invited, eat of it there ; for sacrifices and religious feasts were generally concluded with such a sacred banquet. Cf. the sacrifice offered by Evander and Æneas in Virgil (Æneid, viii. 179-183). So, too, the Jews were in the habit of eating in the porch before the Temple of the sacrifices which they had offered (1 Sam. ix. 23). So, too, Christ concluded the Eucharistic sacrifice with a banquet on it, and a distribution of it to the Apostles. Hence, too, in the primitive Church, all the faithful communicated at the Mass, that they might be partakers of the sacrifice, and conclude it with such a banquet. Again, the heathen, who sacrificed victims to their idols, used, after the sacrifice, to carry home with them portions of it to give to those in their house, and to send to their friends, that so the absent might be partakers of the sacrifice, as Giraldus (de Diis Gentium) points out from Herodotus and others. Similarly, the Christians in the time of persecution used to carry home the Eucharist, and even sent it to the absent, as a mark of love and communion, and to enable them to be partakers of the sacrifice. Cf. Eusebius, Hist. lib. v. c. 24 and 29.
Notice (2.) that the Apostle gives a plain answer to the question, whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols. He says that it never had been, nor was then, lawful to eat of things offered to idols, as such, or as being sacred to idols. He who so eats of them tacitly admits by the very act that the idol is sacred, has some Divine influence, and that, because of the idol, the flesh offered is sacred, because offered to a Divine being, which is idolatry. This takes place whenever such food is partaken of in such a place, in such a way, and under such circumstances, as that the eater is morally thought to eat it out of honour to the idol, as when the offerers sent portions to their friends with the intention of showing worship to the idol, when their friends received and ate them. Again, the case is still more clear, if you eat directly after the sacrifice, near the altar or the temple, together with those that offer the sacrifice, in presence of idolaters ; for then you are rightly judged to eat it to the honour of the idol. It is otherwise if afterwards you feed on it alone, and from hunger or greediness, whether it be at home or at the temple, because in that case you are not thought to feed on it as being sacred to the idol, but you are seen to be merely gratifying your hunger or appetite. It may be said, S. Augustine (Ep. 154, and de Bono Conj. c. xvi., and contra Faustum, lib. xxxii. c. 13) asks whether a Christian, when travelling and pressed by hunger, may, if he can find nothing but some food offered to an idol, and if no one is present, eat of it, or whether it is better for him to die ; and he answers, “It may be said that it is either known to have been offered to the idol or not : if it is known, it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue ; if it is not known, it may be taken for his necessity without any scruple of conscience.” Otherwise, as I have said, it is better to reject it, lest the eater should seem to have communicated with idols. He ought then to abstain from things offered to idols, if they are known to be such.
I reply that S. Augustine does not say that he must abstain from it, if he knows that it has been so offered. He says “it is better for it to be rejected by Christian virtue,” implying pretty plainly that it is lawful to eat of it, but that it would be better and more noble if he abstained from it and preferred death. There is a parallel case in the Carthusian rule. One in extreme weakness is allowed to eat flesh to save his life ; but he will do what is better and more holy if he follow his profession and abstain and so die. Cf. Victoria (Relect. de Temperant. num. 8), Azorius ( Morals , lib. v. c. 6), and others. For he is not bound to save his life at all costs, but he may rank it below his vow, or rather the holiness of his profession, so as to give an example of virtue to others, and to hallow the discipline and rigour of his order. The Carthusians do not take a formal vow of abstinence from flesh, but merely have it enjoined on them by the constitutions of their order.
Ver. 22. — Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? i.e., to anger. Do we set up a rival to the Lord ? Do we leave Him, our Bridegroom , and cling to a devil, and the things offered to him, or at all events wish to serve both, and yoke together God and the devil? So Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact. S. Paul is alluding to Deut. xxxii. 21. S. Jerome, commenting on Habakkuk ii., rightly says the unclean spirits preside over all idols, and answer those who call on the idols, and give oracular replies, and lend them help.
Are we stronger than He? By no means ; therefore our provoking God to anger will not go unpunished by Him.
Ver. 23. — All things are lawful for me . Viz., all things that are not essentials, such as to eat of things offered to idols, not as sacred, or as things sacrificed, but as common food. So far Paul has treated of things offered to idols as such, and has forbidden the use of them. Hence, in ver. 14, he bids the Corinthians fly from idolatry, the meats of ver. 20. But in this verse he passes on to the second case, when meat that has been offered to idols is partaken of, not formally as such, but materially, as mere food or flesh ; and with regard to this he says, “ All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient,” because all things do not edify. Materially, you may eat of things offered to idols considered in themselves, but if there is attached to such action the giving of offence, then you may not; see vers. 27, 28, 33. Clement ( Stromata ) well said: “They who do whatsoever is lawful will easily sink into doing what is unlawful.” Theophylact explains this verse differently, but his explanation is beside the drift of the context.
Ver. 24. — Let no man seek his own , but every man another’s wealth . Let no one seek or buy flesh which, e.g., has been offered to idols, and which is useful and pleasant to himself, just because it is of a low price; but in such matters let each one seek his neighbour’s edification, and not to buy it or eat it, so as to cause him offence or spiritual loss. So Theophylact.
Ver. 25. — Whatsoever is sold in the shambles , that eat, asking no question. Eat indifferently everything, whether offered to idols or not. Asking no question, i.e., making no difference, or according to S. Ambrose, making no inquiry ; according to Theophylact, without hesitation.
Herodotus tells us, as well as S. Augustine in the commentary he commenced on the Epistle to the Romans (c. 78), that the heathen custom was to send to the shambles whatever remained over of the sacrificed meats after the feast, and to give the priests the proceeds. In the shambles, therefore, they were looked upon as any other meats, as having returned to secular and common use. S. Augustine says : “ Some weaker brethren at that time abstained from flesh and wine , lest they should unknowingly partake of things offered to idols; for all kinds of sacrificial flesh were offered for sale in the shambles , and the heathens used to pour out libations of wine to their images , and even to offer sacrifices at their winepresses.” Hence the Apostle dispels this scruple, and bids them buy and eat freely whatever was sold in the shambles, making no distinction between meats, nor asking where they came from, as if it were a matter of conscience, or as though the flesh needed cleansing, if it came from an idol’s temple. The Christians of Antioch followed this teaching of the Apostles, when Julian the Apostate endeavoured to force them into idolatry through idol meats. Theodoret (lib. i. c. xiv.) thus describes the incident: “Julian first polluted the water-spring with victims offered to idols, so that every one who drank of the water was infected. He then polluted in the same way whatever was offered for sale in the market; for bread, flesh, fruits, vegetables, and all other eatables were sprinkled with this water ; but when the Christians saw this, though they could not but grieve and detest the wickedness, still they ate of such things, in obedience to the injunction of the Apostle: ‘Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no question.’”