For although there be that are called gods, either in heaven or on earth (for there be gods many, and lords many).

“For the name of God, as being the natural designation of Deity, may be ascribed to all those beings for whom a divine nature is claimed,-as, for instance, even to idols. The apostle says: "For there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth." The name of Christ, however, does not arise from nature, but from dispensation; and so becomes the proper name of Him to whom it accrues in consequence of the dispensation.”

“"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, "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 saith, "of Whom are all things," he means the creation and the bringing of things out of nothing into existence. But when he saith, "and we unto Him," he speaks of the word of faith and mutual appropriation, as also he said before, "but of Him are ye 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; "that He might create in Himself of the twain 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. Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, "The Lord saith unto My Lord;" and again, "Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;" and, "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 doth 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. 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 thou canst 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: "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, "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 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.”

“With the error concerning the correction of crimes excluded, in chapters V and VI; likewise concerning virginity and marriage, in chapter VII; here he excludes the error concerning the eating and abstaining from foods, in this chapter, and IX and X, speaking of those things which were sacrificed to idols, from which — although lawful in themselves — he counsels abstaining: first, by alleging to them the scandal of the weak, in this chapter; second, the example of himself, who on account of others abstains from receiving lawful wages, in chapter IX; third, the example of the punishment of the Jews, laid low in the desert after so many benefits of God, in chapter X. Therefore, on account of the scandal of the neighbor, by the example of the apostle, and not on account of fear of punishment, we ought sometimes to abstain from foods that are lawful. In the first part he shows that the eating of things offered to idols is lawful in itself; second, he counsels nevertheless to abstain on account of the scandal of the weak brothers, where: "see lest perhaps," etc. In the first, first he proposes that the greater among them have knowledge concerning things offered to idols; second, he shows what kind of knowledge they have concerning them, where: "but concerning the foods that are sacrificed to idols," etc.; third, that certain weak ones lack this knowledge, where: "but knowledge is not in all," etc.; fourth, that others ought not to eat things offered to idols in their presence, where: "food however does not commend us to God." In the first, first he says that they have knowledge concerning things offered to idols; second, that they have it uselessly without charity, where: "but knowledge puffs up," etc.; third he shows by whom this knowledge is had insufficiently, where: "but if any man think"; fourth, by whom sufficiently, where: "but if any man love," etc. He says therefore, "but concerning these things," etc., as if to say: concerning the aforesaid things you asked of me, namely concerning things pertaining to marriage; but concerning other things, as concerning things sacrificed to idols, it was not necessary to ask, because you all know the truth on this matter. And this is what he says: "but concerning these things that are sacrificed to idols," whether it is lawful to eat or not, I and you know that it is lawful to eat them, according to that word to Titus 1:15: "all things are clean to the clean." "We know that we all have knowledge" — namely I and you who are perfect among others — that is, knowledge concerning the creator and creatures; and therefore we are less excusable if we do evil. Then, when he says "but knowledge puffs up," etc., here he shows how they have knowledge uselessly without charity, as if to say: you indeed have knowledge, but it does not avail you, because from it you grow proud against the ignorant; but knowledge, if it stands alone, puffs up. Ecclesiastes 1:18: "in much wisdom there is much indignation." Acts 26:24: "much learning doth make thee mad." For this was the plague of the Egyptians, that is, of the wise of this world: "swelling blisters," Exodus 9:9. But charity builds up the weak, which lets go of what could harm them, because it does not seek the things that are its own. Whence charity must be added to knowledge. Augustine: "add therefore charity to knowledge, and knowledge will be useful." In itself indeed it is useless, but from charity it is useful. The Philosopher: "to know profits either nothing, or little, toward virtue." Then, when he says "but if any man think," etc., here he shows by whom this knowledge is had insufficiently, namely by those who use it to the harm of the neighbor. And his reasoning is this: whoever has knowledge and not the manner of using it, has knowledge insufficiently; but he who has knowledge without charity is of this kind; therefore he who has knowledge without charity, has knowledge insufficiently. First, therefore, he supposes knowledge without charity; second, he shows the insufficiency of such knowledge, where: "he hath not yet known," etc.; third, the reason of the insufficiency, where: "as it behooveth," etc. He says therefore, "but if any man," etc., as if to say: you have knowledge, but not sufficient, because if any of you thinks that he knows, having knowledge without charity, he knows something, namely that it is lawful to eat things offered to idols. Nevertheless he has not yet known, because he shows by his deed that he does not know how it behooves him to know, that is, how he ought to use knowledge — namely unto edification, not unto the harm of others. But to know happens in two ways, namely to have knowledge and to use knowledge: just as to see is to have sight, and to use sight. The Gloss of Bernard: here the apostle does not approve one who knows many things, if he has not known the manner of knowing. For the manner of knowing is that you know in what order, with what zeal, to what end it behooves each thing to be known: in what order, so that what is more urgent unto salvation comes first; with what zeal, so that what is more efficacious unto love be sought more ardently; to what end, so that you do not wish to know something for empty glory or curiosity, but for the edification of yourself and your neighbor. For there are those who wish to know for this end only, that they may know, and it is curiosity; some, that they may be known, and it is vanity; some, that they may sell their knowledge, and it is base gain; some, that they may be edified, and it is prudence; some, that they may edify, and it is charity. Then, when he says "but if any man love," etc., here he shows by whom this knowledge is had sufficiently, namely by those who use it out of charity. First, therefore, he supposes knowledge with charity; second, he shows the sufficiency of such knowledge, where: "the same is known." He says therefore, "if any man," etc., as if to say: he does not know perfectly who does not know how it behooves him to know. "But if any man love God," and thus has charity together with knowledge, "the same is known" — that is, approved — by him. "For the Lord knoweth who are his," 2 Timothy 2:19. Whence such a one truly knows, with God approving, because he uses knowledge well on account of the charity joined to it. It should be noted here that for someone to know how it behooves him to know, nine things are necessary. First, humbly, without puffing up. Philippians 4:12: "I know how to be humbled." Psalm 130:2: "if I did not feel humbly." Second, soberly, without presumption. Above, chapter 2:2: "I did not judge myself to know." Romans 12:3: "not to be wiser than it behooveth." Third, with certainty, without hesitation. 2 Timothy 1:12: "I know whom I have believed, and I am certain." Fourth, truly and without error. 2 Timothy 3:7: "ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth." Fifth, simply, without deception. 1 Timothy 6:20: "oppositions of knowledge falsely so called." Sixth, wholesomely, with charity and love. Below, 13:2: "if I should have all knowledge, but should not have charity." Seventh, usefully, with the edification of neighbors. Below, 12:8: "to another is given the word of knowledge in the same spirit." Eighth, liberally, with free communication. Wisdom 6:24: "I will place her wisdom in the light." Ninth, effectively, with good work. James 4:17: "for to him that knoweth good, and doth it not, it is sin to him." The first, namely the humility of knowledge, reproves the proud wise; sobriety, the curious; certainty, the doubtful; truth, the heretics; simplicity, the advocates; wholesomeness, the great; usefulness, the wicked; liberality, the avaricious; effectiveness, the idle. Then, when he says "but concerning the foods that are sacrificed to idols," etc., here he shows what kind of knowledge they have concerning things offered to idols, showing first that they know an idol to be nothing; second, that they know all things to be from God, where: "for although there be that are called gods." In the first, first he says that an idol is nothing; second, next to this, for the sake of clarification, he shows that God is only one, where: "and that there is no God," etc. He says therefore, "but concerning the foods," etc., as if to say: in the aforesaid ways knowledge does not avail, but nevertheless, concerning the foods that are sacrificed to idols, we know — namely with true knowledge — that they are in themselves lawful, nor are they unclean on account of the idol; and this because an idol is nothing in the world. This is explained in three ways. In the first way, thus: an idol is nothing in the world, that is, among the creatures of the world as regards the form of the idol; for although the matter of the idol is something, namely gold, or silver, or the like, nevertheless the form is nothing — namely that which is believed to be there by the idolaters, who believe the idol to be God. Isaiah 41:24: "behold you are of nothing, and your work of that which hath no being." In the second way, thus: an idol is nothing, namely a subsisting person made of an image and a presiding spirit; for from these two nothing comes to be, as is thought by the idolaters. Jeremiah 10:14: "every artificer is confounded by the graven thing, for that which he hath cast is false, and there is no spirit in it." In the third way, thus: an idol is nothing in the world, that is, having the likeness of no thing that is in the world. For there is a difference between an idol and an image, because an image is said to be that which is made to the likeness of some natural thing; but an idol is the likeness of no thing, as if a horse's head were added to a human body. Isaiah 40:18: "to whom then have you made God like," etc. And we know also that there is no God but one. Deuteronomy 6:4: "hear, Israel, the Lord thy God is one God." Then, when he says "for although there be that," etc., here he shows that they know all things to be from God, not from gods so-called or adopted, as are idols, or the saints, but from the one most high. First, therefore, he tells how a plurality of gods can be understood, namely through adoption or naming; second, how there is a unity of divinity, namely through essence, where: "yet to us there is but one God," etc. Where first he touches the unity in the Father; second in the Son, where: "and one Lord," etc. In the first he touches three things, namely essence, because "one God"; person, because "the Father"; power, "of whom are all things"; clemency, because "and we in him"; and he likewise touches these same things in the Son. He says therefore, "for although there be," etc., as if to say: and truly there is but one God, for although there be that are called gods — truly by participation in the divinity, as the saints, Psalm 81:6: "I have said, you are gods," whether "in heaven," as the saints in possession, or "in earth," as the saints on the way — since indeed there are many gods truly by participation in the divinity, as the saintly and just lords, apostles, and prelates — yet to us, etc. In another way it is read thus: "for although there be that are called gods" by the gentiles, namely by false naming, whether "in heaven," as the sun and moon, or "in earth," as Mercury and Diana. "If indeed there be gods many" — namely only by naming, according to the gentiles. Psalm 95:5: "the gods of the gentiles are devils." "And lords many," who rule over others — "yet to us there is but one God" essentially, namely the Father, "of whom are all things" according to nature and through paternal authority, Romans 11:36: "of whom are all things," and we in him through grace. Acts 17:28: "in him we live, and move, and are." And one, with the Father, God, the Lord Jesus Christ. John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." "By whom are all things," namely made according to nature, John 1:3: "all things were made by him." "And we by him," namely we are in God through grace. Romans 1:5: "by whom I have received grace," etc. Therefore the most high creator of all is one, omnipotent. From these things such a reasoning is drawn: there is but one God who made all things, but idols are many; therefore they are not the God who made all things, nor are they believed to be anything; therefore they are nothing. "But knowledge is not in all." Having established that the greater among them have knowledge concerning things offered to idols, here he shows that the lesser lack this knowledge. Where first he shows that in certain ones the aforesaid knowledge concerning things offered to idols was lacking; second, that on account of this — namely the eating of things offered to idols — their conscience is polluted. Where first he touches the reason of the polluted conscience; second, the pollution itself, where: "and their conscience," etc. He says therefore, "but not in all," etc., as if to say: this we know, namely that an idol is nothing, but not in all, as in the weak, is this knowledge. And truly it is not in all: "some however," etc. Or thus: we know that an idol is nothing in the world; for some, "with the conscience of the idol" — because, namely, they think the idol to be something divine — "even until now," that is, after their conversion, just as before, "eat the thing offered to idols," that is, of things consecrated to idols, and this not as food simply, but as a thing offered to an idol, namely in reverence of the idol; and "their conscience, being weak, is defiled" — namely by those who have right knowledge, but not with charity, by whom the weak are led into this error. Deuteronomy 27:19: "cursed be he that maketh the blind to wander in the way." Here he hints that it is not the food, but the conscience, that is polluted through sin, by eating according to the example of the wicked. Then, when he says "but food does not commend," etc., here, fourthly, he shows that they ought not to eat things offered to idols in their presence. Where first he shows that eating of this kind profits nothing before God; second, he proves that it confers no increase of good, where: "for neither if you eat not." He says therefore, "but food," etc., as if to say: your eating harms them, but it does not profit you. "For food does not commend us to God," but right faith in eating. For neither was Esau justified by the eating of lentils, nor was Elijah defiled by the eating of meats. Romans 14:17: "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink." Hebrews, last chapter: "it is good to establish the heart with grace, not with meats." Then, when he says "for neither, if we shall not eat," etc., here he proves what he proposed, and his reasoning is this: not to eat a thing offered to idols does not diminish good, to eat it does not increase good; therefore such food, taken or not taken, profits nothing before God. And this is what he says: "for neither, if we shall not eat, shall we fail" — that is, shall we have less on that account — "nor if we shall eat, shall we abound" in virtues, because food profits the belly, not the mind; and thus, since it does not pertain to the truth of life, justice, and doctrine, it is to be given up on account of scandal.”

“For though there be that are called gods,.... That are so by name, though not by nature; who are called so in Scripture, as angels and magistrates, or by men, who give them such names, and account them so: whether in heaven; as the sun, moon, and stars: or in earth; as men who formerly lived on earth; or various creatures on earth, who have been accounted deities; or stocks and stones graven by man's device: as there be gods many: almost without number, as were among the Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, and others; yea, even among the Jews, who falling into idolatry, their gods were according to the number of their cities, Jer 2:28 and lords many; referring to the Baalim, or the several idols that went by the name of Baal, or lord, as Baal Peor, Num 25:3 Baal Zephon, Exo 14:2 Baal Zebub, Kg2 1:2 Baal Berith, Jdg 8:33.”

“There be that are called gods - There are many images that are supposed to be representations of divinities: but these divinities are nothing, the figments of mere fancy; and these images have no corresponding realities. Whether in heaven or in earth - As the sun, moon, planets, stars, the ocean, rivers, trees, etc. And thus there are, nominally, gods many, and lords many.”

“"For even supposing there are (exist) gods so called (Th2 2:4), whether in heaven (as the sun, moon, and stars) or in earth (as deified kings, beasts, &c.), as there be (a recognized fact, Deu 10:17; Psa 135:5; Psa 136:2) gods many and lords many." Angels and men in authority are termed gods in Scripture, as exercising a divinely delegated power under God (compare Exo 22:9, with Exo 22:28; Psa 82:1, Psa 82:6; Joh 10:34-35).”