These sayings are not contrary, nay, they are exceedingly in accord. For when the offence is with us, then woe unto us, but when not with us, not so. And again, Woe to (that man) through whom "the name of God is blasphemed." (Rom. ii. 24.) How then if I do what is right in anything, but another blasphemes? That is nothing to me, but only to him: for through him (God) was blasphemed. "And how is it possible to do what is right in anything, and yet give a handle to the rest?" Whence will ye that I bring examples--from present, or from old times? Not to be easily scared (psophodeheis), shall we speak to the very point now in hand? Paul judaized in Jerusalem, but in Antioch not so: he judaized, and they were offended (p. 282, note 3), but those had no right to be offended. He is said to have saluted both Nero's cupbearer and his concubine: [1057] what, think ye, must they have said against him because of this? But they had no right to do so. Since, if he drew them to him for [1058] loose living or any wicked acts, one might well be offended: but if in order to right living, what is there to be offended at? Let me mention something that happened to one of my acquaintance. The wrath of God once fell upon (a city), and he being very young (was) in the order of deacon. The bishop was absent at the time, and of the presbyters none took thought for the matter, but indiscriminately they caused in one night immense numbers [1059] of people to be baptized all at once, and they did indiscriminately receive baptism, all of them ignorant of everything: these he took apart by a hundred or two hundred together, and discoursed to them, not upon any other subject, but only on the sacraments, so that the unbaptized also were not allowed to be present. Many thought he did this because he coveted rule. But he cared not for that: neither however did he continue the thing for a (longer) time, but immediately desisted. When then? Was he the cause of the scandal? I think not. For if indeed he had done this without cause, they might with reason have ascribed it to him: and so again, if he had continued to do so. For when aught of what is pleasing to God is hindered by another's taking offence, it is right to take no notice: but then is the time to mind it, when we are not forced because of him to offend God. For, say, if, while we are discoursing and putting drunkards to shame (skoptonton), any one take offence--am I to give over speaking? Hear Christ say, "Will ye also go away?" (John vi. 67.) So then, the right thing is, neither to take no notice, nor to take too much, of the weakness of the many. Do we not see the physicians acting thus: how, when it may be done, they humor the whims of their patients, but when the gratification does harm, then they will not spare? Always it is good to know the right mean. Many reviled, because a certain beautiful virgin stayed, and they railed upon those who catechised (her). What then? Was it their duty to desist for that? By no means. For let us not look to this only, whether some be offended, but whether they are justly offended, and [1060] so that it is no hurt to ourselves (to give way). "If meat," saith (Paul), "offend my brother, I will eat no meat as long as the world lasts." (1 Cor. viii. 13.) With reason: for the not eating did (him) no harm. If however it offend him, that I wish to renounce (apotaxasthai) (the world), it is not right to mind him. And whom, you will ask, does this offend? Many, to my knowledge. When therefore the hindrance is a thing indifferent, let (the thing) be done [1061] . Else, if we were to look only to this, many are the things we have to desist from: just as, on the other hand, if we should despise (all objections), we have to destroy many (brethren). As in fact Paul also took thought beforehand concerning offence: "Lest," he says, "in this liberality which is administered by us:" for it was attended with no loss (to him) to obviate an ill surmise. But when we fall into such a necessity as that great evils should ensue through the other's taking offence [1062] let us pay no heed to that person. He has to thank himself for it, and we are not now accountable, for it was not possible to spare him without hurt (to ourselves). Some were offended, because certain believers sat down to meat in (heathen) temples. It was not right to sit down: for no harm came of this (their not doing it). They were offended, because Peter ate with the Gentiles. But he indeed spared them, but (Paul) [1063] not so. On all occasions it behooves us in following the laws of God to take great pains that we give no matter of offence; that both ourselves may not have to answer for it, and may have mercy vouchsafed us from God, by the grace and loving-kindness of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.
[1048] It has been much disputed whether the charge: "Thou teachest apostacy from Moses," etc., was true or not. There certainly was truth in the charge. Paul maintained that the Mosaic law, as such, was not binding upon Christians. But it was against those who made it a yoke of bondage upon believers, that he waged a polemic. Where there was no imposition of the law as necessary to salvation, Paul in no way antagonized it, but rather trusted to the free working of the principles of the gospel to gradually accomplish the abolition of its rites and forms. The truth seems to be that Paul was tolerant of Judaism where it did not impose burdens upon believers or threaten the completeness and sufficiency of the gospel; he even accommodated himself to Jewish requirements, as in shaving his head at Cenchrea and circumcising Timothy. He never unnecessarily opposed the law of Moses, but taught that it had been fulfilled in Christ. So far as he accommodated himself to its ceremonies, it was only that he might remove prejudice and so win the Jews to Christ.--G.B.S.
[1049] Old text: malista gar ekeinois sunchronizei, as the comment on hoi apo tes 'Asias 'Ioudaioi, meaning apparently that his arrival at Jerusalem would naturally fall at the same time with that of the Jews who, like himself, came from the same parts. Mod. text transfers the comment to the first clause of the verse, "And as the days were about to be fulfilled: hora pos malista de autois enchronizei," it is not easy to see with what meaning.
[1050] hora to ethos auton pantachou tarachodes, kai haplos boonton en to meso. Meaning perhaps that the conduct of these Ephesian Jews was of a piece with that of their heathen countrymen, ch. xix. 28.
[1051] en tois signois auton embale. Ammonius in the Catena, "It was a custom of the Jews to utter this cry against the just as they did against the Lord, Aire auton! i.e. away with Him from among the living." Hence OEcumen. combining this with the explanation in the text, "It was the custom of the Jews, etc. But some say, That is, what they say with us," etc. And so mod. text, "It was a custom of the Jews to say this against those whom they would condemn, as also in the case of Christ they appear doing this, and saying, Aron auton! that is, Make him to disappear from among the living. "But some," what among us they say according to the Roman custom, 'En tois signois auton embale, the same is the Aire auton.
[1052] Mod. text supplies the evident lacuna with, "And by what he says, takes him off from his suspicion. "But let us look again at what has been read. "There are," they say, "with us seven men," etc.
[1053] This vow appears to have been the Nazarite vow described in Num. vi. 1-21, taken by the apostle as an accommodation to Jewish prejudices and to allay the suspicions of the legal party in Jerusalem. This was done upon the recommendation of James, the "Bishop" of the church, and his associates. The significance of Paul's paying the expenses, is, perhaps, that the period during which the others vow had run was on this condition reckoned to his account also. It is noticeable that the party of James distinctly admits that adherence to the legal ceremonies is not required of the Gentile Christians; it is equally important to notice that Paul yielded to the advice to take this view, as a concession in a matter of indifference, since he was living for the time as a Jew among Jews, that he might give no needless offence and might win the more. It was not a compromise, but an expedient concession to convictions and prejudices which it was not wise or necessary to oppose or increase.--G.B.S.
[1054] Mod. text, "Using this economy then, he himself at a later time (?) accuses Peter, and he does not do this hapls" St. Chrysostom's view of St. Peter's dissimulation at Antioch as an "economy," is most fully given in his exposition of the passage, Chomment. in Gal. chap. ii. §. 4, 5.
[1055] Mod. text adds, "But as for the sicarii, some say they were a kind of robbers, so called from the swords they bore, which by the Romans are called sicæ: others, that they were of the first sect among the Hebrews. For there are among them three sects, generally considered (haireseis hai genikai): Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes who are also called hosioi, for that is the meaning of the name Essenes,' on account of their reverend manner of life: but the same (?) are also called sicarii, because of their being zealots." For a further illustration of the way in which the modern text was formed, especially in respect of its use of the Catena (see p. 279, note 3), compare the latter with OEcumenius on this passage. The Catena, namely, cites from Origen: "Among the Jews are treis haireseis genikai; Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes: these (last) exercise a more reverend manner of life, being lovers one of another and temperate: whence also they are called Essenes, i.e. hosioi: but others called them (?) sicarii, i.e. zealots." (OEcumen. using the Catena, makes a continuous exposition from Chrys., Origen, and Josephus. Mod. text from the same materials, interpolates the text of Chrys. as above.
[1056] B. alone of our mss. gives the negative which the sense requires; restored to the text by Ed. Par. Ben. 2.
[1057] The cupbearer may be Narcissus (Rom. xvi. 11): the name of the concubine is not mentioned. In one of his earliest works, Adv. Oppugn. Vitæ Monast. i. § 3. t. i. p. 59. D. St. Chrys. relates that Nero cast St. Paul into prison, and in the end beheaded him, in his rage at the loss of a favorite concubine, converted by him to the faith.
[1058] Ben. espasato, which is the reading of D. only: all the rest epespasato.
[1059] In the original, muriadas pollas. The deacon is probably Chrys. himself; the bishop, Flavian.
[1060] kai me meta tes hemeteras blabes. Mod. text and Edd. kai ei me, which is ambiguous. "The thing to be considered is, whether they are offended dikaios kai me meta t. he. b. justly, and not with concomitant hurt to ourselves should we give way." As in the case afterwards mentioned, the sitting at meat in an idol's temple; the "weak brothers" were offended dikaios, and to abstain from such conduct was not attended with any moral hurt or loss to the men of "knowledge."
[1061] hotan toinun adiaphoron e to koluma, ginestho. Ben, quando igitur indifferens est, abstineatur. But the koluma (which is overlooked in this rendering) seems to mean, the hindrance to the apotaxasthai, which latter will be the subject to ginestho. For instance, if the impediment urged by others against a person's taking the monastic vows be a thing indifferent, let him take them. Else, if we were to look to this only--viz. that this or that man is offended--pollon echomen apostenai--many are the right undertakings we should have to forego or desist from: as on the other hand were we to make it a rule to despise all considerations of offence, we should have to be the ruin of many a brother.
[1062] Namely, in a matter where the duty of persisting in our course is plain--viz. where the other is offended ou dikaios, and to give way would be meta tes hemeteras blabes--then, even though great evils to him or others result from our not giving way, we must take no notice of the offence, must allow it no weight.