Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 8:7

Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

7. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge ] See note on 1Co 8:1.

for some with conscience of the idol ] Some editors read by familiarity with instead of with conscience of. If so, we must understand the passage of Gentile converts, who by long habit had become so accustomed to the idea of the personality of the idol that they could not shake it off. The words unto this hour confirm this reading. It was very difficult for Gentile converts to shake off their heathen notions. Many of the heresies of early times were due to these invincible prepossessions, as is also the belief in magic and witchcraft, which in all nations has long survived their conversion to Christianity. If, on the other hand, we read conscience, it means either (1) conscientious dread of becoming in any way connected with the idol, or (2) conscientious apprehension of his personality, as though the meat were in some sense his property, and the eating of it an act of worship.

and their conscience being weak is defiled ] He is mistaken in his idea that the idol has a real existence, but as long as he entertains that idea, he is bound to act up to it. Cf. Rom 15:14, ‘To him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. See also Rom 15:20; Rom 15:23 of the same chapter.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Howbeit – But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the argument of the Corinthians – that they all knew that an idol was nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that on their account they should abstain; see 1Co 8:11-13.

There is not … – There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have still remains of pagan opinions and superstitious feelings.

That knowledge – That there is but one God; and that an idol is nothing.

For some with conscience of the idol – From conscientious regard to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and that his favor should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not to be supposed that converted people would regard idols as the only God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favor or avert their wrath. We are to bear in mind that the pagan were exceedingly ignorant; and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon leave them even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices, or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their religious character.

Eat it as a thing … – As offered to an idol who was entitled to adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favor should be sought, or his wrath averted by sacrifice.

And their conscience being weak – Being unenlightened on this subject; and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and delicate on this subject, they might be disposed to do right, and yet not have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and that they ought not to regard it.

Is defiled – Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his conscience becomes more enlightened; 1Co 8:11, 1Co 8:13. From superstitious reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the effect would be to lead him to conformity to idol worship that would defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to the first argument in favor of partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 8:7-13

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.

Ignorance

1. Great ignorance may consist with genuine piety.

2. Is a source of much unnecessary anxiety and peril.

3. Is to be deplored and pitied.

4. May find relief in the study of Divine truth. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Christian liberty

I. Its nature.

1. Implies freedom of action in things indifferent.

2. Depends on knowledge.

3. Requires conscientious conviction.

II. Its limits–

1. Defined by a brothers weakness.

2. By love to Christ.

3. By self-sacrificing love. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

For some with conscience of the idol eat and their conscience being weak is defiled.—

The law of Christian conscience

I. The exposition of the law itself (1Co 8:7-8). The apostle tells the strong-minded Corinthians that the superstitious of their weaker brethren are unquestionably wrong (1Co 8:8); but he also tells them that there is not in every man that knowledge, &c. (1Co 8:7), i.e., some have an ignorant, mistaken conscience; and yet he insists that this conscience, so ill-informed, yet binds the possessor of it: and their conscience being weak, is defiled. Here, then, we have the distinction between absolute and relative right and wrong. Absolute right and wrong are unalterable. But the right or wrong of any action done by any particular man is a matter relative to his particular circumstances. That charity and self-denial, e.g., are right–this we see recognised in almost every nation. But when and how far self-denial is right, and what are the bounds of charity, this is for different circumstances to determine. And so it will be found that there is a different standard among different nations and in different ages, e.g., the standard among the Israelites in the early ages was very different from that recognised by the later prophets. And the standard in the third and fourth centuries was an entirely different one from that recognised among ourselves. The principle laid down by the apostle is this. That which seems to a man to be right is, in a certain sense, right to him; and that which seems to a man to be wrong, in a certain sense is wrong to him (Rom 5:14; Rom 14:14).

II. The applications which arise out of it.

1. Personally. Do what seems to you to be right: it is only so that you will at last learn by the grace of God to see clearly what is right. A man is responsible for the opinions he holds, and still more for the way in which he arrived at them–whether in a slothful and selfish, or in an honest and truth-seeking manner; but being now his souls convictions, you can give no other law than this–You must obey your conscience. For no mans conscience gets so seared by doing what is wrong unknowingly as by doing that which appears to be wrong to his conscience.

2. To others. To the large, free, enlightened mind of Paul, all these scruples and superstitions must have seemed mean and trivial. But conscience was far more sacred to him than even liberty. The scruple may he small and foolish, but it may be impossible to uproot it without tearing up the feeling of the sanctity of conscience, and of reverence to the law of God, associated with this scruple. And therefore the Apostle Paul counsels these men to abridge their Christian liberty, and not to eat of those things which had been sacrificed to idols, hut to have compassion upon the scruples of their weaker brethren. And this for two reasons.

(1) Christian feeling. It might cause exquisite pain to sensitive minds to see those things which appeared to them to be wrong done by Christian brethren. Take a parallel case. There is no doubt that it causes much pain to many Christians to see a carriage used on the Lords day. But you, with higher views of the spirit of Christianity, can exercise your liberty. But is it not your duty to abridge your Christian liberty, and to go through rain, and mud, and snow, rather than give pain to one Christian conscience?

(2) It might even lead their brethren into sin. If any man should eat of the flesh offered to an idol, feeling himself justified by his conscience, it were well: but if any man, overborne by authority or interest, were to do this against conscience, his compliance would as much damage his moral sense as if the act had been wrong in itself.

Conclusion:

1. Distinguish between this tenderness for a brothers conscience and mere time-serving. This same apostle whom we here see so gracefully giving way upon the ground of expediency, stood firm as a rock when anything was demanded which trenched upon Christian principle (Gal 2:5).

2. This abridgment of liberty is a duty especially incumbent upon all who are possessed of influence. If the landlord uses his authority and influence to induce his tenant to vote against his conscience, it may be he has secured one voice to the principle which is right; but he has gained that single voice at the sacrifice and expense of a brothers soul. Or again, if for the sake of ensuring personal attention, the rich man puts a gratuity into the hand of a servant of some company which has forbidden him to receive it, he gains the attention at the expense of a man and a Christian brother.

3. How possible it is to mix manliness with charity! No man ever breathed so freely the atmosphere of heaven as Paul–no man ever soared so high above all scruples as he: and yet no man ever bound himself as St. Paul bound himself to the scruples of his brethren. So that, what in other cases was infirmity, imbecility, and superstition, gathered round it in his case the pure high spirit of Christian delicacy. And now, out of the sayings of those who loudly proclaim the rights of man and the rights of liberty, match us if you can with one sentence so sublime as 1Co 8:13. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

A weak conscience, i.e.,

as we might say diseased, incapable of forming a sound healthy judgment. As we speak of weak nerves the apostle speaks of a weak conscience. A person who has been taught when a child to believe in ghosts, will sometimes be seized with dread if he is alone at night, though his reason has long since convinced him that spectres do not appear. Similarly, though the moral reason of a Christian tells him that the heathen deities which he formerly worshipped do not exist, yet it requires spiritual knowledge of the true God to allay his dread. Cf. 1Ti 1:5, where the apostle joins a good conscience with faith unfeigned. (Principal Edwards.)

Abstinence for the sake of others

Of the flesh of beasts slain by the heathen priests in the service of their gods only a portion being required for the religious rites, the remainder was consumed as food by the priests or exposed for sale in the public markets. Entertainments were sometimes given in localities more or less closely associated with the idolatrous worship, and these meats were offered to the guests. Was it right to partake of such food? There may be at least four different methods of treating a question of that sort. It may be determined merely upon considerations of personal inclination and enjoyment. Those are the only considerations, some might say. If the meat is good, and I want it, why refuse it? With others the case would be at once submitted to the judgment of society: What is the custom? How do my associates dispose of the problem? A third and manifestly higher method asks, What is right? What does an enlightened conscience approve? Here are three entirely distinct methods of dealing with a question of practical morality. But neither of these schemes suit Paul. There is a larger question of charity: How might my habit affect others, and especially my religious associates?

I. In this golden sentence is seen the sensitiveness of Christianity with regard to the weak and the obscure. Such a sentiment was practically new. Christianity for the first time made charity a rudimentary virtue, says Lecky, the historian of European morals. How strange was this method is apparent also from the early criticisms of Christianity–that of Celsus, for example. Why, said he, woollen-manufacturers, shoemakers, and curriers, the most uneducated and boorish of men, are zealous advocates of this religion! By the apostle, however, the opprobrium was turned into a sort of boast: Ye see your calling, brethren God hath chosen the weak things to confound the mighty. These weak things Paul never made the mistake of despising. We, too, shall deal most successfully with similar cases of conscience when we are nearest to Pauls Master and ours, having most of his life in us, his mind of love. Many a boy proudly drops his bat and ball to run and serve his mother or his sister. Such surrenders love counts among its privileges and joys. And if the earthly affection can easily do this, is it likely that a mightier passion will fail?

II. We are taught, further, that the individual is of less consequence than society. That seems too plain to need reiteration. But practically it is not always acknowledged. Writers like Mill put the stress upon personal liberty. They are slow to justify legal measures or social laws which in any degree abridge the privileges of the individual. Such invasion of rights they would condemn, except under the greatest necessity. They seem to estimate a man too high, and mankind too low. But Providence does not make such estimates. What we call the laws of nature constantly subordinate us to the general good. The progress of history is achieved through suffering and martyrdom. Father and mother must deny themselves for the family. Sons and brothers die that the republic may live. Science and invention go forward through unrequited sacrifices. In the fact that men have so often tried to reverse Gods computations, and make the one to be worth more than the many, lies the secret of much of the misery of the human race. Along the lines of this vicious calculation rivers of blood have flowed. Think of the kings and princes who from thrones of gold have looked down upon the millions of their subjects only as the small dust of the balance.

III. It is also to be remembered that in the comparison of thess opposite methods, and in determining the issues which they involve, is to be found an important element of education. The settlement of moral questions to which we are daily summoned is designed for our discipline, a means both of testing and increasing our love for the Master and for His people. With a child we are best satisfied not when he promptly obeys an express command, but when, left to choose for himself, he deliberately prefers anothers pleasure to his own. That shows, and at the same time develops, the kindness of his heart. It is often objected, however, that the requirements of such a charity may become unreasonable, and oppressive–that there are narrow-minded and captious persons who, upon any pretext, will seek to obstruct our freedom and spoil our innocent pleasures. Where, then, shall the line be drawn? The only answer must be that a line cannot be definitely drawn. We are left to the impulses of our natural or gracious hearts. They will put their own constructions upon every principle laid down for guidance. The problem is not, Who is technically right? nor, Who has the better head and the more enlightened conscience? nor, Who is more prominent in the worlds work? This is not a matter of pride, but of self-forgetting charity. The stress and point lie in the question, What will save this brother whom my liberty might offend.? The more unreasonable the prejudice, likewise, to which we yield, the weaker the opinion to which we make our offering of peace and goodwill, the more tenderly will God be sure to regard it. We may be thankful if instead of being among those who ask for concessions, we have reached the high place of those who are delighted to grant them.

IV. The superiority of love as a law is manifest, therefore. Such a force is not only disciplinary, but it is in the highest degree disciplinary; it secures the best advantage and growth. This law is not arbitrary. It is no law of fanaticism or enthusiasm or self-torture. In preferring it we only surrender a lower, because we seek a manifestly higher, good. To work from fear is slavery; to work under the compulsion of animal want is a hardship, and if not a positive yet a relative curse; to work for personal ends, as for pride or ambition or the accumulation of property, either for its own sake or our own sake, is compatible with freedom, but has in it nothing either purifying or ennobling; it finds and leaves the soul dry and hard. But activity from love is the perfection of freedom and of joy. We are never so high and great as when for love we can easily make sacrifices to advance the unity and power of Christs Church or the welfare of those for whom He died.

V. How various are the problems of our modern life which this lesson touches we may readily discover. Shall I drink wine? What shall be my attitude toward the theatre and the opera? How shall I deal with the question as to promiscuous dancing? Shall I on Sunday patronise the street-railway? What games shall I approve? How far may I indulge a taste for personal adornment, particularly in places of public worship? What principles and limitations of expenditure are to be preferred in building, beautifying, and administering a home? These and a thousand like inquiries are to be treated in the spirit with which Paul approached the Corinthian problem about meat. They are not merely ethical, but Christian, problems. (H. A. Edson, D. D.)

Abstinence for the sake of others

Slight acts may loose vast forces, as a shout starts an Alpine avalanche. Insignificant questions may involve great principles. So was it with the Corinthian Church. The body of Christ was torn about a piece of meat; but the strife involved solemn matters–love for Christ and dying souls.

I. The law of knowledge. We commonly reckon knowledge to be a product of the intellect, including the powers by which we learn facts, reason upon them, and draw conclusions. The kind of knowledge determines the instrument by which we are to acquire it. Pure mathematics, abstract logic, may seem to use only the seeing eye and reasoning mind. But really to know a thing, the student must have some affinity for the object. It must find him, must stir a response in his nature. True of nature and art, this is more commandingly true of our fellow man. We cannot know him or any truth concerning his life and character except as we love him. This is the only way to get Gods way of looking at him, Gods ideal for him. Love is the discoverer, love is the interpreter, love the guide. Knowledge without love is the turbine without waterfall, wire without electricity. Love without knowledge is cataract minus wheel, loose lightning in the heavens. Love with knowledge is the servant and benefactor of mankind. Love has chemic tests, microscope, clairvoyance. It is the expert picking up the pebble a settlers child is playing with and telling the man he is farming over a gold mine. Knowledge despises his ignorance and leaves him to its poverty. The characteristic of modern charity is the combination of scientific method with personal devotion. It studies the case with minute pains, then helps it with cool head and steady hand as well as warm heart. The worst enemy of true charity is indiscriminate giving; and true giving means personal contact. It is so much cheaper to give money than to give ones self, and the reward is correspondingly small. This is the law: True knowledge includes love; it comes through head and heart together.

II. The law of conscience. But what law can there be to a faculty divided against itself, that, seeing two men doing the same thing, smiles upon one and smites the other? Which of them is right? How can any one ever be sure he is right? Conscience is called the voice of God in the soul of man; but can God say Yea and Nay together? The faculty we name conscience is not simple, but complex. It includes the impulse which commands, Do right; when you know the light, do it, whatever the cost. But back of this lies the judgment which tells us what is right. Not attempting the philosophical definitions, call the one moral impulse, the other moral judgment. The first of these is essentially the same in all sound souls, while differing in force and accepted control. The second differs according to birth, training, personal experience. Plainly, then, persons equally anxious to do right may differ as to the right or wrong of a specific act. Equally conscientious, they conscientiously disagree. Each, trying to do right, does what the other condemns. They agree in moral impulse, but disagree in moral judgment. The difficulty is great, and to recognise its occasion does not remove it. Two precepts are to be urged–

1. Cultivate the moral impulse, which insists upon obedience to known right. Guard this high conception of the majesty of righteousness. Listen to the whispers of conscience rather than to the shouts of interest or songs of pleasure. Protect the sensitiveness of moral discernment as a piano tuner guards the accuracy of his ear. Recur constantly to the invariable standard. Crowd forward conviction into action.

2. Train the moral judgment, which decides whether a specific act is right or wrong. Extend the control of conscience to the formation of opinions. Educators of the moral judgment are–

(1) Revelation. A clear word from God is end of debate.

(2) The teachings of reason, vitalised by love.

(3) Experience; our own, that of the wise and good, and the broad testimony of history.

(4) A spiritual life. Constant fellowship with Christ, effort to grow like Him and to win others to Him, furnish the finest tests and incitements to right moral decisions. We can have Gods wisdom for the asking, the especial illumination of the Holy Spirit. Changes of conviction will issue in changes of practice, and with these may come a period of unrest, while the moral sense is becoming adjusted to the judgment. The immorality of false opinions and virtue of right convictions are often discredited; but they make life, character, destiny. This is the law of conscience: Cultivate a sensitive and positive moral impulse; train the moral judgment to clear and spiritual views.

III. The law of conduct. Conduct has two relations–between myself and God, and between myself and my neighbour. An act done in the sight of others becomes example, and what is innocent kept to myself alone may be hurtful if indiscriminately followed. Unfortunately, doing in secret what is condemned in public savours of insincerity and hurts a delicate honour. As a rule, what is good for me is good for my neighbour, and what hurts him is bad for me. Which of us has suffered much from giving the weak brother, the holy Christ, the benefit of the doubt? That weak brother, he is ever with us; what shall we do about him? Would that he were strong! How we admire the well-poised man, clear head at the top and firmly set feet beneath; physical passions and temper and tongue following obediently at the heel of sound reason; warm heart and positive will, handmaids of a sensitive and proud conscience! Such there are, and how simple to them is life! But they are as rare as admirable. The weak brother, whose claim is mainly his weakness–he ought to train his moral judgment, be fully persuaded in his own mind, then be content to stand or fall to his own Master; but it is not so with him. He keeps looking to see what we do, putting us on a pedestal we have no wish to occupy. Have not we rights also? Yes; and what right higher than to surrender rights to gain blessings? To hesitate between tickling ones palate and saving a soul from death would be worse than brutish. Grant that this means surrender of what we might claim but for this weak brother, are we losers? Am I impoverished by putting helpfulness above self-assertion? What is self-denial but choosing the nobler and better part? Give the weak brother and the spiritual life the benefit of the doubt. The example of abstinence involves no risks. Grow rich by giving up, gain life by dying to self and the world. While this law is general, its application in a temperance lesson is peculiarly clear. Here, of all cases, abstinence involves no risks; and appeals to the weaker without example of abstinence come to nothing. (Charles M. Southgate.)

Abstinence for the sake of others

Not a few of the church members in Corinth reserved the right to purchase and partake of these meats. Where is the flaw in their argument? The apostle meets and controverts it with great clearness.

I. He alleges that charity is better than knowledge. We all, says he, have knowledge. We are all able to make a showing of reasonableness for our foibles and prejudices. The poorest cause may be bolstered by an argument. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth, literally buildeth up. Self-vindication makes us conceited and dogmatic; but charity helps both us and others. The charity here referred to is the largest of the Christian graces. It is the Greek , the Vulgate charitas; it is love in its broadest and deepest sense. It includes love towards God as well as towards men. It is like the constant commerce which is going on between the waters of the heavens and the earth; the rills trickle into the brooks, the brooks murmur towards the rivers, the rivers roll onward to the sea, and the seas are exhaled into the clouds above to distil again in grateful showers and morning dews. So love is the constant means and communion between God and His children. We know our franchise, said the Christian banqueters of Corinth; we have knowledge as to the true character of idols and idol-worship, and are therefore in no danger of being led astray. Knowledge! knowledge! replies the apostle, but what about love? If any man love God the same is known unto Him, and that is the knowledge worth having. All the wisdom of the schools is not to be valued with the assurance that we love God; and the same may be known unto us.

II. The Apostle Turns, Secondly, To A Consideration Of Individual Freedom. For these Corinthian Christians were disposed to stand upon their rights. They said in effect, There is no specific injunction as to these idol-meats in Scripture. The question is left to the individual conscience. Our consciences are clear; the meats do not injure us. We therefore propose to do as we please about them. Granted, says Paul, I do not dispute your rights in these premises; but there are some important facts which you are in danger of losing sight of. He then reminds them–

1. That the mere matter of eating or abstaining is in itself of slight consequence; for meat commendeth us not to God; neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse. So small a matter therefore as a dish upon ones table should not be permitted to jeopardise the spiritual interests of any.

2. There are some weaker brethren who have less knowledge. These weaker brethren must not be left out of the reckoning. We are in a measure responsible for them. Am I, then, my brothers keeper? Aye, and if he fall over a stumbling-block of my making, I shall be held responsible for it.

3. Rights are relative. Some of them must bow down to others, as did the lesser stars to the greater in the patriarchs dream. A mans lowest right is to please himself; his highest is to deny himself for others. Rights may conflict, but duties never; and duty always has the highest and uttermost claim.

4. As to individual freedom there is no such thing. If there were only one man in the universe he might be absolutely free to serve his own pleasure, but the moment you introduce another man there is a mutual restriction. Each is now free only so far as his freedom does not infringe upon the other. It is a mistake to think of freedom as license. There is, in fact, nothing in the world more circumscribed than true freedom. It is not lawlessness nor deliverance from restraint. Its best definition is, Perfect obedience to perfect law. True, we are no longer children of the bond-woman, but of the free. He who comes forth from the bondage of the law into the liberty of the gospel bows down, at the very threshold of his new life, and gives himself as a slave to serve the interests of his fellow men.

III. This leads us, thirdly, to consider with the apostle the example of Christ Himself. Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? For whom Christ died! Is it true, then, that Jesus stooped to the infirmity of the least of His little ones? Aye, and here are we, followers of His, haggling about meats and drinks! God forgive us, that we fall so far short of the mind that was in Christ Jesus our Lord. In Php 2:7 occurs a word about which there is much controversy. The word is kenosis; it means an utter emptying, and is applied to Christs humiliation. When He crossed the threshold of heaven to undertake His redemptive work He laid aside crown, royal robes, heavenly retinue, everything, that He might restore the race of fallen men. He was free to remain where He was; but He put away His freedom and took upon Himself the form of a servant for our sake. Oh, by the love and devotion of our Lord, let us cease our clamouring for rights, and begin to ask, How may we empty ourselves as He did for the uplifting of the children of men? The point at which humanity comes nearest to Deity is self-denial. Its best illustration is at Calvary, where God stoops down to embrace His penitent children. The summit of human character is reached when a man gives himself for others. Christ did it. We also, for Christs sake, must do it. (D. J. Burrell, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 7. There is not in every man that knowledge] This is spoken in reference to what is said, 1Co 8:4: We know that an idol is nothing in the world; for some with a conscience of the idol, viz. that it is something, eat it-the flesh that was offered to the idol, as a thing thus offered, considering the feast as a sacred banquet, by which they have fellowship with the idol. And their conscience being weak-not properly instructed in Divine things, is defiled-he performs what he does as an act of religious worship, and thus his conscience contracts guilt through this idolatry.

As in the commencement of Christianity, among the Jews that were converted, there were many found who incorporated the rites of the law with the principles of the Gospel; so, doubtless, among the Gentiles, there were several who did not at once throw aside all their idolatry or idolatrous notions, but preserved some of its more spiritual and imposing parts, and might think it necessary to mingle idolatrous feasts with the rites of Christianity; as the sacrament of the Lord’s supper was certainly considered as a feast upon a sacrifice, as I have proved in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist. As the minds of many of these young Gentile converts could not, as yet, have been deeply endued with spiritual knowledge, they might incorporate these feasts, and confound their nature and properties.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Though some of you know that there is but one living and true God, and that an idol is nothing in the world, and meat is neither sanctified nor polluted by being set before it; yet every one doth not know so much: and though the gospel have been a long time preached amongst them, yet to this day they may have some superstitions opinion of the idol, and then their conscience will be defiled or polluted. It is much the same case at this day as to the business of image worship, or veneration of images, and invocation of saints, amongst the papists. The wisest and most knowing of them will declaim against giving Divine adoration to the image, or to the saint, and tell us that they worship the true and living God upon the sight of the image only, and make use of the name of the saint only to desire him, or her, to pray to God for them. Now not to meddle with that question: Whether in our worshipping the true God, it be lawful to set a creature before us as our motive or incitement to worship, or use any Mediator but Christ? Yet the things are unlawful, upon the same account that the apostle here determines it unlawful for stronger Christians to eat meat offered to idols, though they knew and professed that an idol was nothing; for all people that come so to worship have not that knowledge; there are, without doubt, multitudes of simple people amongst the papists, that, plainly, in this kind of veneration and adoration venerate and adore the creature; and so their consciences are defiled by idolatry, because they have not such knowledge as others have, supposing that what those others did were lawful as to their practice, which indeed it is not.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

7. HowbeitThough to us who”have knowledge” (1Co 8:1;1Co 8:4-6) all meats areindifferent, yet “this knowledge is not in all” in the samedegree as we have it. Paul had admitted to the Corinthians that “weall have knowledge” (1Co 8:1),that is, so far as Christian theory goes; but practicallysome have it not in the same degree.

with conscienceanancient reading; but other very old manuscripts read “association”or “habit.” In either reading the meaning is: Some GentileChristians, whether from old association of ideas ormisdirected conscience, when they ate such meats, ate themwith some feeling as if the idol were something real (1Co8:4), and had changed the meats by the fact of the consecrationinto something either holy or else polluted.

unto this hourafterthey have embraced Christianity; an implied censure, that they arenot further advanced by this time in Christian “knowledge.”

their conscience . . . isdefiledby their eating it “as a thing offered to idols.”If they ate it unconscious at the time that it had been offered toidols, there would be no defilement of conscience. But conscious ofwhat it was, and not having such knowledge as other Corinthiansboasted of, namely, that an idol is nothing and can therefore neitherpollute nor sanctify meats, they by eating them sin againstconscience (compare Ro14:15-23). It was on the ground of Christian expediency, not tocause a stumbling-block to “weak” brethren, that theJerusalem decree against partaking of such meats (though indifferentin themselves) was passed (Ac15:1-29). Hence he here vindicates it against the Corinthianasserters of an inexpedient liberty.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge,…. The apostle is not speaking of Heathens, in whom there was no knowledge of the one true God, the author of all things, and of the one Lord Jesus, the only saviour and Redeemer; but of Christians, in whom there was the knowledge of these things, but not in all of them; the knowledge of this, that an idol was nothing; for though they knew that an idol was not God, and had no true deity in it, nor was it any true representation of God, yet fancied that it had an influence upon food that was offered to it, to defile it, and render it unclean, so that it ought not to be eaten; and since there were such persons that were so ignorant and weak, it became those who had more knowledge to be careful how they laid stumblingblocks in the way of such, to the prejudice of their consciences: that there were such, the apostle affirms,

for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; that is, there were some persons even at that very time, though they had been so long converted from Heathenism to Christianity, yet had such an opinion of an idol, that they really thought in their own consciences, that there were something in an idol, they could not well tell what, that defiled meats offered to it, and made them unlawful to be eaten; and yet, through the influence of the example of others, were prevailed upon to eat of them, having at the same time a notion of such food, as if it was not common food, but had received some virtue from the idol; and not without some regret, and uneasiness of mind, as being polluted with it. The Alexandrian copy, and some others, read,

“through custom of the idol”; and so the Ethiopic version seems to have read: and the sense is, that some having been formerly accustomed to worship idols, and to eat things offered to them, as having received some virtue from them, still retained an opinion, that there was some difference between such meats and others.

And their conscience being weak is defiled; because such act against the dictates of their own conscience; which, though weak, is binding, and sinned against, defiles, according to the rules given by the apostle, Ro 14:14.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

On Eating Things Offered to Idols.

A. D. 57.

      7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.   8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.   9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.   10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;   11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?   12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.   13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

      The apostle, having granted, and indeed confirmed, the opinion of some among the Corinthians, that idols were nothing, proceeds now to show them that their inference from this assumption was not just, namely, that therefore they might go into the idol-temple, and eat of the sacrifices, and feast there with their heathen neighbours. He does not indeed here so much insist upon the unlawfulness of the thing in itself as the mischief such freedom might do to weaker Christians, persons that had not the same measure of knowledge with these pretenders. And here,

      I. He informs them that every Christian man, at that time, was not so fully convinced and persuaded that an idol was nothing. Howbeit, there is not in every man this knowledge; for some, with conscience of the idol, unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; with conscience of the idol; that is, some confused veneration for it. Though they were converts to Christianity, and professed the true religion, they were not perfectly cured of the old leaven, but retained an unaccountable respect for the idols they had worshipped before. Note, Weak Christians may be ignorant, or have but a confused knowledge of the greatest and plainest truths. Such were those of the one God and one Mediator. And yet some of those who were turned form heathenism to Christianity among the Corinthians seem to have retained a veneration for their idols, utterly irreconcilable with those great principles; so that when an opportunity offered to eat things offered to idols they did not abstain, to testify their abhorrence of idolatry, nor eat with a professed contempt of the idol, by declaring they looked upon it to be nothing; and so their conscience, being weak, was defiled; that is, they contracted guilt; they ate out of respect to the idol, with an imagination that it had something divine in it, and so committed idolatry: whereas the design of the gospel was to turn men from dumb idols to the living God. They were weak in their understanding, not thoroughly apprized of the vanity of idols; and, while they ate what was sacrificed to them out of veneration for them, contracted the guilt of idolatry, and so greatly polluted themselves. This seems to be the sense of the place; though some understand it of weak Christians defiling themselves by eating what was offered to an idol with an apprehension that thereby it became unclean, and made those so in a moral sense who should eat it, every one not having a knowledge that the idol was nothing, and therefore that it could not render what was offered to it in this sense unclean. Note, We should be careful to do nothing that may occasion weak Christians to defile their consciences.

      II. He tells them that mere eating and drinking had nothing in them virtuous nor criminal, nothing that could make them better nor worse, pleasing nor displeasing to God: Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse, v. 8. It looks as if some of the Corinthians made a merit of their eating what had been offered to idols, and that in their very temples too (v. 10), because it plainly showed that they thought the idols nothing. But eating and drinking are in themselves actions indifferent. It matters little what we eat. What goes into the man of this sort neither purifies nor defiles. Flesh offered to idols may in itself be as proper for food as any other; and the bare eating, or forbearing to eat, has no virtue in it. Note, It is a gross mistake to think that distinction of food will make any distinction between men in God’s account. Eating this food, and forbearing that, having nothing in them to recommend a person to God.

      III. He cautions them against abusing their liberty, the liberty they thought they had in this matter. For that they mistook this matter, and had no allowance to sit at meat in the idol’s temple, seems plain from ch. x. 20, c. But the apostle argues here that, even upon the supposition that they had such power, they must be cautious how they use it it might be a stumbling-block to the weak (v. 9), it might occasion their falling into idolatrous actions, perhaps their falling off from Christianity and revolting again to heathenism. “If a man see thee, who hast knowledge (hast superior understanding to his, and hereupon concedest that thou hast a liberty to sit at meat, or feast, in an idol’s temple, because an idol, thou sayest, is nothing), shall not one who is less thoroughly informed in this matter, and thinks an idol something, be emboldened to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry?” Such an occasion of falling they should be careful of laying before their weak brethren, whatever liberty or power they themselves had. The apostle backs this caution with two considerations:– 1. The danger that might accrue to weak brethren, even those weak brethren for whom Christ died. We must deny ourselves even what is lawful rather than occasion their stumbling, and endanger their souls (v. 11): Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? Note, Those whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood should be very precious and dear to us. If he had such compassion as to die for them, that they might not perish, we should have so much compassion for them as to deny ourselves, for their sakes, in various instances, and not use our liberty to their hurt, to occasion their stumbling, or hazard their ruin. That man has very little of the spirit of the Redeemer who had rather his brother should perish than himself be abridged, in any respect, of his liberty. He who hath the Spirit of Christ in him will love those whom Christ loved, so as to die for them, and will study to promote their spiritual and eternal warfare, and shun every thing that would unnecessarily grieve them, and much more every thing that would be likely to occasion their stumbling, or falling into sin. 2. The hurt done to them Christ takes as done to himself: When you sin so against the weak brethren and wound their consciences, you sin against Christ, v. 12. Note, Injuries done to Christians are injuries to Christ, especially to babes in Christ, to weak Christians; and most of all, involving them in guilt: wounding their consciences is wounding him. He has a particular care of the lambs of the flock: He gathers them in his arm and carries them in his bosom, Isa. lx. 11. Strong Christians should be very careful to avoid what will offend weak ones, or lay a stumbling-block in their way. Shall we be void of compassion for those to whom Christ has shown so much? Shall we sin against Christ who suffered for us? Shall we set ourselves to defeat his gracious designs, and help to ruin those whom he died to save?

      IV. He enforces all with his own example (v. 13): Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. He does not say that he will never eat more. This were to destroy himself, and to commit a heinous sin, to prevent the sin and fall of a brother. Such evil must not be done that good may come of it. But, though it was necessary to eat, it was not necessary to eat flesh. And therefore, rather than occasion sin in a brother, he would abstain from it as long as he lived. He had such a value for the soul of his brother that he would willingly deny himself in a matter of liberty, and forbear any particular food, which he might have lawfully eaten and might like to eat, rather than lay a stumbling-block in a weak brother’s way, and occasion him to sin, by following his example, without being clear in his mind whether it were lawful or no. Note, We should be very tender of doing any thing that may be an occasion of stumbling to others, though it may be innocent in itself. Liberty is valuable, but the weakness of a brother should induce, and sometimes bind, us to waive it. We must not rigorously claim nor use our own rights, to the hurt and ruin of a brother’s soul, and so to the in jury of our Redeemer, who died for him. When it is certainly foreseen that my doing what I may forbear will occasion a fellow-christian to do what he ought to forbear, I shall offend, scandalize, or lay a stumbling-block in his way, which to do is a sin, however lawful the thing itself be which is done. And, if we must be so careful not to occasion other men’s sins, how careful should we be to avoid sin ourselves! If we must not endanger other men’s souls, how much should we be concerned not to destroy our own!

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Howbeit in all men there is not that knowledge (‘ ). The knowledge ( ) of which Paul is speaking. Knowledge has to overcome inheritance and environment, prejudice, fear, and many other hindrances.

Being used until now to the idol ( ). Old word from (, ), accustomed to, like Latin consuetudo, intimacy. In N.T. only here and John 18:39; 1Cor 11:16. It is the force of habit that still grips them when they eat such meat. They eat it “as an idol sacrifice” ( ), though they no longer believe in idols. The idol-taint clings in their minds to this meat.

Being weak ( ). “It is defiled, not by the partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mark 7:18; Luke 11:41), but by the doing of something which the unenlightened conscience does not allow” (Robertson and Plummer). For this great word (conscientia, knowing together, conscience) see on Ac 23:1. It is important in Paul’s Epistles, Peter’s First Epistle, and Hebrews. Even if unenlightened, one must act according to his conscience, a sensitive gauge to one’s spiritual condition. Knowledge breaks down as a guide with the weak or unenlightened conscience. For , weak (lack of strength) see on Mt 26:41.

Defiled (). Old word , to stain, pollute, rare in N.T. (1Tim 3:9; Rev 3:4).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

With conscience of the idol [ ] . The best texts read sunhqeia custom, which occurs only here and Joh 18:39; see note. Lit., with custom of the idol; i e., as Rev., being used to the idol. Their long habit previous to their conversion made them still regard their offering as made to something really existent, and consequently to feel that it was sinful to eat of meat thus offered.

Is defiled [] . See on Rev 14:4.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. (all ouk en pasin he gnosis) But (strong adversative) there is not in all men the knowledge – not all men know that there exists but one real, true God. Eph 4:6; Isa 45:22; Isa 46:9.

2) For some with conscience of the idol. (tines de te sunetheia heos arti tou eidolou) For some with a sub-conscious habit of the idol until this very moment.

3) Unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. – (heos arti) Unto this very moment. (hos eidolothuson eshiousin) As on idolatrous sacrifice they are eating or partaking.

4) And their conscience being weak is defiled. (kai he suneidesis auton asthenes ousa molunetai) And the conscience of them being weak is defiled, weakened, or compromised. One cannot worship or serve two Gods – this creates a conflict of conscience, a compromise of convictions and profession, Mat 6:24; Luk 16:13.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

7. But there is not in all that knowledge. He refutes, in a single word, all that he had previously brought forward in their name, showing that it is not enough that they know that what, they do is right, if they have not at the same time a regard to their brethren. When he said above — We know that we all have knowledge, (1Co 8:1,) he referred to those whom he reproved for abusing their liberty. Now, on the other hand, he calls them to consider, that there are many weak and ignorant persons associated with them, to whom they ought to accommodate themselves. “You have, it is true, a correct judgment in the sight of God, and if you were alone in the world, it would be as lawful for you to eat of things offered to idols, as of any other kinds of food. But consider your brethren, to whom you are debtors. You have knowledge; they are ignorant,. Your actions ought to be regulated not merely according to your knowledge, but also according to their ignorance.” This reply is particularly deserving of notice; for there is nothing to which we are more prone (468) than this, that every one follows his own advantage, to the neglect of that of others. Hence we feel prepared to rest in our own judgment, and do not consider, that the propriety of those works that we do in the sight of men depends not merely on our own conscience, but also on that of our brethren.

Some with conscience of the idol This is their ignorance, that they were still under the influence of some superstitious notion, as if there were some virtue in the idol, or some virtue in a wicked and idolatrous consecration. Paul, however, does not speak of idolaters, who were entire strangers to pure religion, but of ignorant persons who had not been sufficiently instructed, to understand that an idol is nothing, and therefore that the consecration, which was gone through in name of the idol, is of no importance. Their idea, therefore, was this: “As an idol is something, the consecration which is gone through in its name is not altogether vain, and hence those meats are not pure, that have been once dedicated to idols.” Hence they thought, that, if they ate of them, they contracted some degree of pollution, and were, in a manner, partakers with the idol. This is the kind of offense that Paul reproves in the Corinthians — when we induce weak brethren, by our example, to venture upon anything against their conscience.

And their conscience God would have us try or attempt nothing but what we know for certain is agreeable to him. Whatever, therefore, is done with a doubting conscience, is, in consequence of doubts of that kind, faulty in the sight of God. And this is what he says, (Rom 14:23,) Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Hence the truth of the common saying, that “those build for hell, who build against their conscience.” For as the excellence of actions depends on the fear of God and integrity of conscience, so, on the other hand, there is no action, that is so good in appearance, as not to be polluted by a corrupt affection of the mind. For the man, who ventures upon anything in opposition to conscience, does thereby discover some contempt of God; for it is a token that we fear God, when we have respect to his will in all things. Hence you are not without contempt of God, if you so much as move a finger while uncertain, whether it may not be displeasing to him. As to meats, there is another thing to be considered, for they are not sanctified to us otherwise than by the word (1Ti 4:5.) If that word is wanting, there remains nothing but pollution — not that the creatures of God are polluted, but because man’s use of them is impure. In fine, as men’s hearts are purified by faith, so without faith there is nothing that is pure in the sight of God.

(468) “ Il n’y a rien plus commun et ordinaire que ce vice;” — “There is nothing that is more common and ordinary than this fault.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Appleburys Comments

Text

1Co. 8:7-12. Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak. 10 For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idols temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ.

Not All Have This Knowledge (712)

Commentary .

there is not in all men that knowledge.The complete revelation of all things that pertain to life and godliness is given in the Bible. But we are not all on the same level in the comprehension of that knowledge. Try to imagine the situation of those who had the background of idolatry with its attendant sins. It must have been a difficult adjustment for those to make who had been used to thinking that they were worshipping idols when they ate the meats that were sold in the markets.

their conscience being weak is defiled.Our word conscience is derived from the Latin and has the same root meaning as the Greek term. The prefix signifies with or together. The root word means to know. This suggests that conscience is the awareness of an act together with its moral implications, that is, the thing that is right or wrong about it. Conscience condemns us for doing what is wrong or commends us for doing what is right according to our accepted standard. For the Christian, that standard is the Bible.

The Christian whose background was pagan and who had been used to eating food that had been sacrificed to idols was aware that he was still using such food. His question was, Is it right for a Christian to do so? In many cases the answer was No for he did not have the knowledge that nothing is an idol in this world. His guilt, though not based on truth, was, nevertheless, real to him. The person who persists in doing what he believes to be wrong, even though it might not be wrong, is in danger of reaching the state in which his conscience no longer functions as a warning against wrongdoing. In this way the conscience is stained or defiled. The stain that sin leaves on the conscience can only be removed by the blood of the Lamb (Heb. 9:14; 1Pe. 1:22-23).

A weak conscience is one that is not fully instructed. It permits one to do what he believes to be wrong. The weak conscience can be strengthened by the truth and by training it to function correctly. The trained conscience that has the truth to guide it will condemn what is wrong and commend what is right.

But food will not commend us to God.Literally, does not present us to God. The thought is that food, whether we eat it or not, is not the thing that presents us to God in a favorable light. The thing that does commend us to God is the proper consideration for the weak brother lest we cause him to sin.

Jesus had a word to say on this matter of defilement: Not that which entereth into the mouth defiles the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man (Mat. 15:11). But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Mat. 15:18-20).

this liberty of yours.The apostle sounds a warning to those who have knowledge about food that had been sacrificed to idols. They are to consider the brother with a weak conscience, lest by their action he be led to sin.

The word translated liberty is usually translated authority in the New Testament. But there are places where it clearly means right as in this context and in 1Co. 9:5 and perhaps also 1Co. 11:10. In this sense it is closely related to freedomliberty as in 1Co. 10:29.

The basic idea of the word is right to choose or liberty of action. It can mean authority, power, or right. See Joh. 10:18 where Jesus speaks of His power or right to lay down His life. He had the right to do so for He had received the command from the Father. In Joh. 1:12 He tells of the rightcertainly not the powerto become children of God which was given to the believer in Christ.

There was no question about ones right to eat the food that had been used in the worship of idols. There were, however, some things that did limit this right. No one had a right to cast a stumblingblock before his brother.

For if a man see thee who hast knowledge.Paul supposes a possible situation to illustrate what he means. He thinks of the man who knows that meat sacrificed to an idol may be eaten by a Christian without his participation in the worship of an idol. But what of the brother with a weak conscience who sees you doing this? Will he not be encouraged by your example to do what he believes to be wrong? the brother for whose sake Christ died.A Christians conduct can cancel the cross of Christ. Christ died for the weak brother as well as for the strong. But should one who has knowledge do a thing that causes another for whom Christ died to be lost? We should think of this side of the matter when we face similar situations today.

sinning against the brethren.This was being done thoughtlessly Undoubtedly, the strong Christian said to himself that there was nothing wrong in what he was doing, but he was not considering its effect on the one who did not know about idols.

wounding their conscience.This thing struck a blow that left a wound on the conscience of the weak brother. Even though it was right in itself, it became a sin, for it caused a brother to be lost.

ye sin against Christ.Were they really aware of this before Paul pointed it out? This is the real reason why a Christian should limit his personal liberty, for sinning against a brother is sinning against Christ. As Paul was writing this, was he remembering the voice he had heard on the Damascus road? Why persecutest thou me? Jesus takes an injury done to one of these least as an injury to Himself (Mat. 25:40).

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.The Apostle had admitted that in theory all have knowledge which should render the eating of things offered to idols a matter beyond question; but there are some who, as a matter of fact, are not fully grownhave not practically attained that knowledge.

Some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol.Better, some, through their familiarity with the idol, even up to this time eat it as offered to an idol.

The weight of MSS. evidence is in favour of the word familiarity instead of the word conscience, and joins even up to this time, not with eat, but with the previous words. Thus the allusion is to heathen converts who, from their previous lifelong belief in the reality of the idol as representing a god, have not been able fully to realise the non-existence of the person thus represented, though they have come to believe that it is not God; and therefore, they regard the meat as offered to some kind of reality, even though it be a demon. (See 1Co. 10:20-21.) The Apostle admits that this is a sign of a weak conscience; and the defilement arises from its being weak.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

7-13. The two preliminaries, the knowledge and the monotheism, now being settled, St. Paul takes up the vital topic of sacrificial eating. He denies that all possess the true gnosis, affirming that there is, on the contrary, a class of tremulous Christians with whose weakness it is a bounden Christian duty to sympathize.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

7. Howbeit Nevertheless. Whatever you Corinthians may say in your letter, (1Co 8:1,) it is certain that not in every man is that gnosis. He denies the full accuracy of their statement.

Some Who were doubtless Gentile converts, who could not expel their old habits of thought so but that the impression of the reality of the idol-god would impress their minds.

This was, doubtless, a large class of persons. It was impossible for the more sound-minded Christians to eradicate their lifelong tendencies; and to trample upon them with cool philosophic indifference might be a desolating course.

Conscience of the idol One reading with a habituation of the idol: that is, with their habitual view of the idol, contracted from paganism.

Conscience With a consciousness, intellectual and moral, that recognises it as an idol-god, and not a mere nothing.

Being weak Still under the power of old pagan associations of thought.

Defiled Induced by Christian example to eat, and yet trembling with fear for the imaginary guilt of their own act, they really transgress their own conscience, and are thus condemned; and, perhaps, learn to brave conscience and thus become wicked. Note on Rom 14:23.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge, but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.’

But not all know fully within their hearts that this is so, that gods are nothing, and that there is but One God. Some still have a superstitious awareness of ‘the gods’ as though they were ‘something’ (just as many, even some Christians, have a belief in mascots, talismans and ‘luck’). So when they eat of a thing sacrificed to an idol it produces in them superstitious ideas, for the idol has previously been their way of life. It had bound all that they did. Thus they feel when eating food sacrificed to such an idol that in some way they are participating in the god, that it is affecting their lives, that they are becoming involved again, and their consciences are smitten because they consider that they are honouring the god, which they know to be wrong. So by being encouraged by more knowledgeable brothers to partake of food offered to idols, and especially within the temple precincts (1Co 8:10), they feel compromised and defiled. (To say nothing of the witness before the world). And the result may well be a sinking back into idolatry.

The same can apply to us today. We should avoid all contact with the occult, with fortune-telling, with tarot cards, with seances, and so on, and in our multicultural societies with anything that savours of the worship of gods, because although they may seem nothing to us, those to whom they do mean something will misinterpret our involvement.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The weak in faith defile their conscience:

v. 7. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

v. 8. But meat commendeth us not to God; for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

All the believers of Corinth agreed with Paul in his great confession concerning the true God; in this respect their knowledge was sound. But not all of them had the knowledge that there was no such thing as a false god, an idol, in existence, and that therefore the meat offered to the idols was like any other meat, uncontaminated by the consecration to a thing which did not really exist except in the imagination of the heathen. Some of them, by reason of the fact that they were used to the idol, since that was the familiar way of speaking of the idol, as they had always made use of it, could not get rid of the notion that there was something real about the idol. And therefore, as Paul writes, to the present time they ate the meat as an idol sacrifice, and thus their conscience, since it was weak, was polluted, Rom 14:23. “The consciousness of sharing in idol-worship is defiling to the spirit of a Christian. ” The idea that the idol was, after all, a real being gave them a bad conscience, and for that reason their eating, though in itself not wrong, became sinful. “Their conscience was cleansed through the blood of Christ, Heb 9:14, in whom they believed; but it was weak, because the confirming Word of God had not yet worked the knowledge in them by which a Christian knows and is certain in the Lord Jesus that nothing in itself is unclean, Rom 14:14.”

For the sake of the weak, therefore, Paul writes: But food will not commend us to God, will not affect our relation toward God; the food that we eat cannot influence our spiritual life. When we are presented to God for judgment on the last day, He will not judge and condemn us on the basis of the food that we subsisted on in this world, just as we do not lose our standing before Him at the present time for that reason. For neither if we eat are we the better off, nor if we eat not are we the worse off; it makes no difference before the Lord; these external matters do not affect our standing with Him. In either case our observance or non-observance of eating will not promote us in spiritual grace, nor will it detract from the blessings which we may be enjoying.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

1Co 8:7. For some with conscience, &c. For there are some, who with notions still remaining that the idol may have some efficacy upon the victim, eat of it as a real victim, and their conscience, &c. Heylin. Dr. Doddridge reads it, But some do, even until now, with consciousness of the idol, eat the things as sacrificed to the idol; and so their conscience, &c.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 8:7 . “We know that there is no idol, etc.; however, this that we speak of ( ) is not in all; but doubtless (the as in 1Co 7:37 , and very often so 1Co 8:9 after a negative clause) there are many who,” etc.

] in virtue of their conscience till now regarding the idol , i.e. through this, that their moral consciousness is still burdened with the conception of an actual existence of the heathen gods as such. The opposite of the is: , , 1Co 8:4 . Because those who are weak in the faith have not risen to this conviction, but still remain under the belief that the idols really exist, therefore they eat the meat offered to idols as meat offered to idols, i.e. their conception in eating it is, not that it is the same as other meat, and consequently to be partaken of without scruple and without receiving any idolatrous defilement, but that it is really meat consecrated to an idol which is assumed to exist, and hence that to eat of it is sinful.

[1347] ] means simply conscience (neither judicium , as many maintain, nor obscure conception , as Schulz would have it; Billroth’s rendering is better, though still inexact: “conviction that there are ;” so also Reiche, Maier), and is the object of the moral consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the gen. with ., comp Heb 10:2 ; 1Pe 2:19 ; so also frequently in Greek writers. The context shows what the relation is as regards meaning (here it is that which is inherent in the consciousness as its contents).

] marks off the time more sharply than “always as yet” (Hofmann), which would be ; it means, “ up to this very hour ” ( 1Co 4:13 , 1Co 15:6 , and in all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most naturally attach itself to ; but since the place which on critical grounds must be assigned to it is before (see the critical remarks), it must be joined to . We might have expected or ; even in Greek authors, however, one finds adverbial attributives used in this loose adjectival way without any connecting article; and Paul himself in other places employs this mode of expression (see on 1Co 12:28 ; 2Co 11:23 ; Phi 1:26 ; Gal 1:13 ).

It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to supply a second (without the article) after ., and connect with this.

] because it is weak ; for were it strong, it would no longer have suffered itself to be morally bound by the conception of idols, and hence would not have been defiled (made conscious of guilt) by eating, because in that case the eating would be (Rom 14:23 ). (comp 2Co 7:1 ), of ethical defilement; also in Sir 21:28 ; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 42; Synesius, Eph 5 . Comp Tit 1:15 : . Observe there the two sides of the conscience: it was weak to begin with , and afterwards it is defiled as well.

[1347] See generally, besides von Zezschwitz ( Profangrcit . pp. 52 ff., 75), Khler, Schriftgemsse Lehre vom Gew. , 1864; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 133 ff.; Lindes, de vi et ratione ex. N. T. , Lund, 1866; R. Hofmann, Lehre vom Gew. , Leipz. 1866.

NOTE.

The , which points back to their state before conversion, puts it beyond question that the weak brethren are not to be conceived of as Jewish-Christians , but as Gentiles , whose conscience was still burdened with the belief, brought with them from the heathen period of their lives, that the idol was a divine reality. They must have supposed the idols to be subordinate divine being (not demons , as Neander thought, which, according to 1Co 10:20 , would have been the correct conception), from whose worship they had been brought to that of the one Supreme God; so that they could not look upon the consumption of sacrificial flesh as a mere harmless eating of meat, but had their conscience always hampered with the thought that by so eating they were brought into contact with those idol-deities. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp Chrysostom): , , . Theodoret says: , , . This in opposition to the common view, that the weak brethren are to be sought among the Petrine party . Schenkel even goes the length of explaining the name of that party from the abstinence of the members from sacrificial flesh; therein they held strictly, he thinks, to the Apostolic Council, whose decree had been arrived at specially through the influence of Peter (?). The correct view, that the weak brethren were Gentile -Christians, is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann’s reading of .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

(7) Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. (8) But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. (9) But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. (10) For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; (11) And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (12) But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (13) Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

There is somewhat very humbling to the soul, in what is said in the first verse of this paragraph : there is not in every man that knowledge. The Reader will recollect to whom the Apostle is writing, and of whom he speaks, namely, the Church; that is, truly regenerated Christians. They were called with an holy calling: 2Ti 1:9 , had been made partakers of the divine nature, by a work of grace upon their souls : 1Pe 1:3-4 , and yet so small and inconsiderable was their knowledge in divine things, that they had not as yet attained to the clear conviction of what the Apostle had said before, to know that an idol is nothing in the world. From living amidst the society of heathens, who worshipped idols, and offered sacrifice to them, and from long prejudice in having themselves been educated in that way, they could not divest their minds from still retaining a somewhat of veneration for them; and instead of eating of the part of the same meat which the ignorant heathens offered to their idols, as common food, uninjured by their superstition and folly; and eating of it to shew, that they contemned the idol, and considered the meat perfectly pure from any pollution arising from their weakness who had offered it to the idol; they eat of it with a kind of religious fear, and awe, and thereby wounded their consciences, Rom 14:14 .

As this first verse in the paragraph is humbling to the contemplation, in beholding the weakness of some timid souls in the divine life: so the next verse describes the strength of others, who like the Apostle could, and did, see the folly and sin of idols, and idolaters; and as such, looked upon the meat which was offered by those heathens as common food as pure after their folly had been acted upon, as it was before; and considered it with such perfect indifference, that whether they partook of the meat or not, it neither made them better, or worse.

But the Apostle very wisely and graciously took occasion, from the strength of understanding in the one, and the weakness in the other, to raise a subject of instruction, which not only became suited to the circumstances of those Corinthians upon this matter, but to the Church of God upon all other points, where a strength of knowledge in divine things, in some believers might be made beneficial, rather than injurious, to others, with respect to greater freedom, than timid minds might suppose proper upon numberless occasions. And the Apostle sets the subject in a striking point of view, by several arguments. It is as if he had said, let none of those who are strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus think, that from the contempt they justly entertain for idols and idolatrous sacrifices, they may with impunity sit at meat among idolaters and even in their idol temple. This would be wrong, whatever private contempt they entertained in their heart against it. For a weak brother a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, who saw it, and did not know what passed in the heart of his stronger brother, might form wrong conclusions therefrom, and have his conscience wounded. Never, adds the Apostle, would I eat meat upon such conditions, lest I should make my brother to offend. For wounding one of Christ’s little ones, is wounding, Christ himself, as the Lord hath said, Zec 2:8 . I beg the Reader to notice the expression of the Apostle in that verse, where he said : And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? Not perish everlastingly, or even perish in time. For it is not possible, that any for whom Christ died can come into condemnation. So Christ himself long before had said. My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish: neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand, Joh 10:27-28 . Neither can the sin of others affect the persons of Christ’s people. It may distress them, wound their minds, hurt their consciences; but not injure their interest in Jesus. But the sense is, shall a child of God be made unhappy, and his comforts destroyed, through the inattention of his brethren? And will you, said the Apostle, who are strong in grace, hurt a brother who is weak? Shall your very knowledge, being more than his, be so misapplied, as to become the very means of doing this? This were a breach of charity indeed, and a breach which cannot even plead ignorance in excuse; for it is induced from a perversion of better knowledge!

I shall have labored in my comments on this Chapter, to very little purpose, if the Reader, under divine teaching, is not led to look beyond the pale of the Corinthian Church as it then was, to what the Christian Church in every age hath been, and now is; as liable to errors creeping in, from the weakness and perversity of out poor fallen nature, in that corrupt part of it which grace doth not renew in the present life. Though there may be no open idols, nor meats offered in sacrifice to idols, in the day in which we live and the land where we dwell; yet the stumbling blocks of iniquity which men put up before their face, the errors in doctrines, the customs and pleasurable pursuits of the world, and the profanation of things sacred, in the neglect of the Lord’s day, and numberless nameless offences, which distinguish the present Christ-despising, God dishonoring generation; call for great watchfulness among truly awakened, regenerated believers. If it was so, distressing to a weak mind, in the Corinthian Church, when he saw a brother whom he considered better taught than himself, in the temple of an idol; must it not now be offensive, to behold those who profess a love for our Lord Jesus Christ, mingling in society with those who deny his Godhead? Can that man be sincere in attachment to his Lord, who cordially takes by the hand those who are endeavoring by all the stratagems they can devise, to lessen Christ’s glory, and make the blood of the Covenant an unholy thing? Reader! the day is awful. Attempts are making in religion, to bring the iron and the clay together, and to fritter away the grand, and momentous truths of our most holy faith, in accommodation to what is called rational Christianity. It is considered marks of a narrow spirit, to contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. In such a day, may the Lord make all his redeemed ones faithful. May every truly regenerated child of God be led by grace, to enter his protest against a timeserving spirit; but like the beloved Apostle John, bear testimony to the word of God’s grace, that the Son of God is come, and in proof of it hath given him an understanding to know him that is true, and that he is in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Little children keep yourselves from idols, Amen. 1Jn 5:20-21 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Ver. 7. Unto this hour ] Though they have been better taught and clearly convinced, yet they stiffly retain, at least, some tincture of their old odd superstitious conceits. No man’s speech, whether he be learned or unlearned (saith Cicero), shall ever persuade me from that opinion which I have taken up from mine ancestors concerning the worship of the immortal gods. (De Nat. Deor. iii.)

Their conscience being weak ] That is, not rightly informed of the true nature of things indifferent.

Is defiled ] By doing what they doubt of.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

7. ] But ( sondern ) not in all is the knowledge (of which we have been speaking: i.e. see above, is not in them in their individual apprehension, though it is by their profession as Christians): but (aber) some through their consciousness (or, according to the other reading, habituation) to this day, of the (particular) idol (i.e. through their having an apprehension to this day of the reality of the idol, and so being conscientiously afraid of the meat offered, as belonging to him : not wishing to be connected with him. is not = ., but stands separate, as above: so , Php 1:26 ) eat it as offered to an idol, and their conscience, in that it is weak, is defiled . By , it is shewn that these must have belonged to the Gentile part of the Corinthian church: to those who had once , before their conversion, held these idols to be veritable gods. Had they been Jewish converts, it would not have been which would have troubled them, but apparent violation of the Mosaic law.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 8:7-13 . 26. THE WEAK CONSCIENCE OF THE OLD IDOLATER. The knowledge of the one Father and Lord upon which the Cor [1251] Church prided itself, had not released all its members from fears respecting the idolothyta ; in some the intellect outran the heart, in others it lagged behind. With the latter, through weakness of understanding or force of habit, the influence of the heathen god still attached to objects associated with his worship (1Co 8:7 ). For a man in this state of mind to partake of the consecrated flesh would be an act of compliance with heathenism; and if the example of some less scrupulous brother should lead him thus to violate his conscience and to fall into idolatry, heavy blame will lie at the door of his virtual tempter (1Co 8:10-12 ). Such blame P. declares that he will himself on no account incur (1Co 8:13 ).

[1251] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 8:7 . “But not in all is there the knowledge”( ) which you and I claim to have (1Co 8:1 ; 1Co 8:10 ), expressed just now in the terms of the Church confession (1Co 8:4 ff.). , “by reason of their habituation up till now to the idol”: for this dat [1252] of defining cause, cf . Eph 2:1 . ( cf. 1Co 4:8 ; 1Co 4:11 ) qualifies the quasi-vbl. noun , actively used, which, as in 4Ma 13:21 and cl [1253] Gr [1254] , signifies with the objective gen [1255] (= or ) intercourse, familiarity with ; the other, passive sense is seen in 1Co 11:16 . The Western reading, , preferred by some critics as the lectio ardua , gives the sense, “through relation of conscience to the idol” (Hf [1256] , Hn [1257] ). , “as an idol-sacrifice eat (the meat in question)” under the consciousness that it is such, with the sense haunting them that what they eat belongs to the idol and associates them with it; cf. 1Co 10:18 ff. and notes. “And their conscience, since it is weak (unable to get rid of this feeling), is soiled”(opp [1258] of the of 1Ti 3:9 , 2Ti 1:3 ). The consciousness of sharing in idol-worship is defiling to the spirit of a Christian; to taste knowingly of idolothyta, under any circumstances, thus affects converts from heathenism who have not the full faith that the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof; now, “whatsoever is not of faith is sin”(Rom 14:23 ).

[1252] dative case.

[1253] classical.

[1254] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[1255] genitive case.

[1256] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[1257] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1258] opposite, opposition.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 8:7-13

7However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.

1Co 8:7 “However not all men have this knowledge” In context this refers to the “weaker” and “stronger” Christian (cf. Rom 14:1-2; Rom 14:14; Rom 14:22-23; Rom 15:1). “Weak” in this context refers to superstition or legalism connected with one’s past, unconverted life. This is a sarcastic glance back to 1Co 8:1 and the arrogance of certain factions of the church of Corinth and their emphasis on wisdom and knowledge (cf. 1Co 8:11).

“and their conscience being weak is defiled” Believers must act in faith on the light we have (cf. Rom 14:23), even when this knowledge is erroneous or spiritually childish. Believers are only responsible for what they do understand.

Paul uses the term “conscience” often in the Corinthian letters (cf. 1Co 4:4; 1Co 8:7; 1Co 8:10; 1Co 8:12; 1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27-29; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Co 5:11). It refers to that moral inner sense of what is appropriate or inappropriate (cf. Act 23:1). The conscience can be affected by our past lives, our poor choices, or by the Spirit of God. It is not a flawless guide, but it does determine the boundaries of individual faith. Therefore, to violate our conscience, even if it is in error or weak, is a major faith problem.

The believer’s conscience needs to be more and more formed by the Word of God and the Spirit of God (cf. 1Ti 3:9). God will judge believers by the light they have (i.e., weak or strong), but all of us need to be open to the Bible and the Spirit for more light and to be growing in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. See fuller note on “conscience” at 1Co 10:25. See SPECIAL TOPIC: WEAKNESS at 2Co 12:9.

“defiled” This term originally referred to unclean clothing (cf. Zec 3:3-4; Jud 1:23; Rev 3:4). It came to be used figuratively for moral pollution (cf. Rev 14:4).

It is surprising that this term is chosen to describe what happens to weak believers who violate their own faith boundaries. God looks at the heart in every situation. Breaking our faith understanding, even if weak or inappropriate, is a serious breach of faith!

1Co 8:8 “But food will not commend us to God” This shows the faulty theology, both of those who affirm asceticism, or Jewish legalism, as well as those who affirm radical freedom. Neither eating or not eating will present us acceptable to God (cf. Rom 14:14; Rom 14:23; Mar 7:18-23). Love for God expressed in self-limiting love for other brothers and sisters in Christ is the key to peace and maturity within the Christian fellowship.

“commend” See Special Topic: Abound at 2Co 2:7.

“if. . .if” There are two third class conditional phrases in 1Co 8:8, which show potential action.

1Co 8:9

NASB, NRSV”But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak”

NKJV”But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to those who are weak”

TEV”Be careful, however, not to let your freedom of action make those who are weak in the faith fall into sin”

NJB”Only be careful that this freedom of yours does not in anyway turn into an obstacle to trip those who are vulnerable”

This is a present active imperative. Christian freedom (i.e., exousia, cf. 1Co 9:4-6; 1Co 9:12; 1Co 9:18) must be controlled by love or it becomes a license (cf. 1Co 10:23-33; 1Co 13:1-13; Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13). We are our brother’s keeper!

This subject of Christian freedom and responsibility is also discussed in Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13. See the Contextual Insights from my commentary on Romans, chapters 14 and 15 at 1Co 6:12.

1Co 8:10 “if” This is another third class conditional, which means potential action. The grammar of 1Co 8:10 expects a “yes” answer.

NASB, NKJV”someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple”

NRSV”others see you who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol”

TEV”Suppose a person whose conscience is weak in this matter, sees you, who have so-called ‘knowledge’ eating in the temple of an idol”

NJB”Suppose someone sees you who have the knowledge, sitting in the temple of some false god”

This phrase is translated ambiguously in NASB and NKJV. The idiomatic, dynamic equivalent translations of TEV and NJB capture the thought.

The knowledge Paul is referring to goes back to 1Co 8:1-4. Strong believers know that there is only one God (cf. 1Co 8:4). Weak believers are still influenced by the past. Strong believers bend over backwards so as not to offend their weak brothers or sisters in Christ or sincere seekers (cf. 1Co 8:1).

True spiritual strength is not in knowledge only, but in loving actions toward other believers, even weak ones, superstitious ones, legalistic ones, ascetic ones, baby ones! True knowledge makes one a humble steward of the undeserved grace of God in Christ!

“dining in an idol’s temple” See notes at 1Co 10:14-22.

NASB”be strengthened”

NKJV”be emboldened to eat”

NRSV”be encouraged to the point of eating”

TEV”will not this encourage him to eat”

NJB”may be encouraged to eat”

This is the term “build up” or “edify” as in 1Co 8:1. Here it is used in either

1. a sarcastic sense about the destructive influence of the stronger brother’s actions

2. a possible quote from the Corinthian letter related to how to help those with weak faith

1Co 8:11

NASB”For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died”

NKJV”And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died”

NRSV”So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed”

TEV”And so this weak person, your brother for whom Christ died, will perish because of your ‘knowledge'”

NJB”And then it would be through your knowledge that this brother for whom Christ died, vulnerable as he is, has been lost”

The order of the Greek sentence emphasizes “your” (i.e., this so called superior knowledge you possess). When one Christian’s freedom destroys another Christian, that freedom is a disaster (cf. Rom 14:15; Rom 14:20).

This is a sarcastic comment as is 1Co 8:10. The Corinthian church was proud of their knowledge (1Co 8:1). Here Paul shows knowledge can be a disaster. Paul always admonishes the “stronger” brother to have patience and concern for the “weaker” brother, because of Christ’s love for them both.

The terms “ruined,” “perish,” or “destroyed” must be interpreted in light of Rom 14:22-23, where it means “causing another to sin,” which is analogous to the use of the term here. This is not ultimate destruction, but a temporary, yet serious, set-back in spiritual growth.

SPECIAL TOPIC: DESTRUCTION (APOLLUMI)

1Co 8:12 “by sinning against the brethren. . .you sin against Christ” This is a powerful statement. Our love for God is shown in our love for one another. Several times in the NT, people’s actions against believers are seen as actions against Christ (cf. Act 9:4-5) and people’s actions for believers are seen as actions for Christ (cf. Mat 25:40; Mat 25:45).

1Co 8:13 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence. Food issues were causing some believers to violate their personal faith assumptions.

“stumble” This is the Greek term that was used of trapping animals. Literally it referred to “a baited trap-stick.”

“I will never eat meat again” This verse has a very strong triple negative construction (cf. Rom 14:21). Freedom in Christ should edify, not destroy. The unstated implication is that Paul will not eat meat sacrificed to an idol or in an idol’s temple. This does not imply that Paul became a vegetarian.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

not. App-105.

every man = all.

that = the.

some. App-124.

conscience. i.e. conviction. Greek. suneidesis, but the texts read (first occurance) sunnetheia, custom (see Joh 18:39. Joh 11:16). The meaning is much the same. Having been so long accustomed to believe the idol to have a real existence, they still regard the sacrifice as a real one.

unto = until.

this hour = now.

defiled = polluted. Greek. moluno. Only here and Rev 3:4; Rev 14:4.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

7.] But (sondern) not in all is the knowledge (of which we have been speaking: i.e. see above, is not in them in their individual apprehension, though it is by their profession as Christians): but (aber) some through their consciousness (or, according to the other reading, habituation) to this day, of the (particular) idol (i.e. through their having an apprehension to this day of the reality of the idol, and so being conscientiously afraid of the meat offered, as belonging to him: not wishing to be connected with him. is not = ., but stands separate, as above: so , Php 1:26) eat it as offered to an idol, and their conscience, in that it is weak, is defiled. By , it is shewn that these must have belonged to the Gentile part of the Corinthian church: to those who had once, before their conversion, held these idols to be veritable gods. Had they been Jewish converts, it would not have been which would have troubled them, but apparent violation of the Mosaic law.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 8:7

1Co 8:7

Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge:-While all men should know that there is but one true and living God, even all Christians did not possess the knowledge that enabled them to be independent of these idols.

but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol;-Some who had been converted to Christ had a lingering reverence for the idols they had long worshiped, [and therefore they regarded the meat as offered to some kind of reality.]

and their conscience being weak is defiled.-While one completely free from reverence for an idol might eat of things sacrificed to it without any feeling of reverence for it, others could not eat of them without having their reverence aroused for the idol, and, their conscience being so weak as to reverence the idol, would be defiled.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

there: 1Co 1:10, 1Co 1:11

with: Rather, as Dr. Doddridge renders, “with consciousness of (some religious regard to) the idol,” as [Strong’s G4893], and formerly conscience, also imports. 1Co 8:9, 1Co 8:10, 1Co 10:28, 1Co 10:29, Rom 14:14, Rom 14:23

Reciprocal: Exo 34:15 – eat Dan 1:8 – defile Rom 14:5 – Let Rom 15:14 – filled 1Co 6:12 – are not 1Co 10:7 – be 1Co 10:25 – for 1Co 15:34 – some Col 2:16 – in meat Tit 1:15 – their

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 8:7. Not every man (even among the disciples) had been clearly informed on the subject of meats that had been used in the idolatrous service. For the meaning of conscience, see the notes at Act 24:16 in volume 1 of the New Testament Commentary. When these uninformed brethren were induced to eat this meat, they had a “guilty feeling” because they could not see anything in the act except a form of idolatrous worship. Such an attitude would make them really guilty, because one must have a clear conscience in order to please God.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 8:7. Howbeit in all men there is not that knowledge: but some, being used[1] until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. The weak here are Gentile converts who, being steeped in idolatry up to the time of their conversion, were unable as yet to shake off the impression that the idol, which by them had so long been regarded as a god, had after all something divine in it. In this view, the argument is, that when such weak brethren saw their stronger-minded brethren openly partaking of meat known to have been sacrificed to an idol, they would be emboldened by their example to do the same, while still regarding the act as idolatrous, and so would defile their conscience.

[1] The received text here reads, from conscience of the idol; and Meyer and Alford think this right. But the above reading is decidedly better supported, and it is the text of Griesbach. Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These words are brought in as a reason by the apostle why strong Christians should not eat meat offered unto idols, with respect to those that are weak; as if he had said, “Though many of you know that an idol is nothing, and that meat is neither sanctified nor polluted which is set before it, and therefore you can eat or not eat without any scruple as to yourselves, yet you should consider what is safest to be done with respect to others; for every man has not this knowledge that an idol is nothing, but some persons having a conceit of the idol’s being something, eat what is offered to it as a thing offered to an idol; that is, not as common meat, but as a sacred banquet in honour of the idol; and so his conscience, being weak, that is, erroneous, is defiled.”

Learn hence, That an action which is lawful in respect of ourselves, may yet be a sin if done by us with respect to others; another, encouraged by our example, may do the same act, but not do it with the same intent, as in the case before us. The sight of one Christian’s eating things offered unto idols, who knows that an idol is nothing in the world, may harden, embolden, and encourage others to do the same, who really intend some honour by it to the idol: the outward action is the same, but the opinion and intention widely different.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

A Demonstration of Brotherly Love

Despite the fact that there is only one true God, Paul indicated some converts still held a feeling of reverence for the idols they had long worshiped. They would have sinned in eating meat offered to such idols. This was probably the reasoning behind the apostles’ injunction of Act 15:2-9 . In contrast, the eating or not eating meats had no effect on the strong brother’s relationship with God. The apostle argued that since it does not make one any better in God’s sight, his concern should have been for its effect upon others ( 1Co 8:7-9 ).

One Christian might have been able to eat without sin, yet his actions could have given another boldness to eat and thereby have caused him to sin. The second sinned because in eating he felt he was paying reverence to the idol. Paul was saying it is possible to participate in an act which is not sinful in itself and have it become sinful because of its effect on others. Leading the weak into a situation which would tempt them to sin would have caused Christ’s death to be in vain for that one ( 1Co 8:10-11 ).

It is a sin against Christ to so lead a weak one to sin. Jesus told his disciples, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea” ( Mat 18:6 ). In describing the judgment, the Lord pictured himself speaking to those who would not enter heaven. The King said, “Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me” ( Mat 25:40-45 ). Paul’s conclusion was that Christians should not take advantage of their liberty because of its effect on others. Exercising their freedom without consideration for their brethren would be placing a snare or trap in the path of a weak brother ( 1Co 8:12-13 ).

Paul’s thinking on these matters was likely solidified by his experience on the Damascus road ( Act 9:1-9 ). Jesus asked him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” Yet, he had never had direct contact with the Lord until that time, so far as we know. His only crime was in persecuting the body of Christ, or church, which Jesus equated with persecuting him!

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 8:7-8. Howbeit, there is not in every man In every professing Christian; that knowledge Namely, that there is but one God, and one Lord, and that an idol is nothing, and has no power to defile the meat: some Christian converts may not sufficiently apprehend this, but may imagine there is really some invisible spirit present in the idol, and acting by and upon it: for some with conscience of the idol Out of some respect to it, as if it were a kind of deity; unto this hour Even since their embracing of Christianity; eat it The meat; as a thing offered unto an idol With some religious regard to the idol, intending thereby to pay some kind of homage to it; and their conscience being weak, is defiled The weakness of their conscience, says Macknight, consisted in their believing that idols had a real existence as gods, and were employed by God in the government of particular countries and cities. And the defiling of their conscience consisted in their hoping to receive benefit from the idol, or at least to avoid the effects of his wrath, by joining in the sacrifice that was offered to him. Others interpret the verse more consistently with the context, thus: Some eat with consciousness of the idol, that is, fancying it is something, and that it makes the meat unlawful to be eaten; and their conscience being weak That is, not rightly informed; is defiled Contracts guilt by so doing. But Why should we occasion this inconvenience? for we know that meat commendeth us not in any degree to the acceptance and favour of God Abstracted from circumstances; neither by our eating, nor by our refraining from it: eating and not eating are in themselves things merely indifferent. For neither if we eat What has been offered to an idol, are we the better, more holy in Gods sight; neither if we eat not But conscientiously abstain from such meat; are we the worse Disapproved of by him, and exposed to his displeasure. The great God does not so much esteem a man for being, or disapprove of him for not being, superior to such little scruples: but the tenderness of his conscience, together with the zeal and charity of his heart, are the grand qualities he regards. Doddridge.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 7. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. Some, through the habit which they have to this hour of [believing in] the idol, eat the meats as offered to the idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.

The strong contrast indicated by the , but not, and by the place given at the opening of the sentence to the , in all (opposed to , to us, 1Co 8:6), may be paraphrased as follows: But this monotheistic knowledge possessed by us all has not yet unfolded in the consciousness of all its full consequences. At the first glance the opening words of this verse seem to contradict the assertion of 1Co 8:1 (we know that we all have knowledge), and it was this supposed contradiction which led several critics to refer the words of 1Co 8:1 only to the enlightened Christians of Corinth (Beza, Flatt, etc.), or to these with the addition of the apostle (Meyer). 1Co 8:7 in this case would refer to the weak Christians only, and would agree without difficulty with 1Co 8:1. But in thus escaping from one contradiction, we fall into another. How, on this view, can we explain the , all, of 1Co 8:1, having regard to the , not in all, of 1Co 8:7? The all of 1Co 8:1 would necessarily require to have been qualified by some restriction. Besides this, as de Wette observes, the apostle has just unfolded in 1Co 8:6 the contents of the knowledge, and he has done so as speaking not in the name of some, but of all Christians (we, in opposition to the heathen). The apparent contradiction between 1Co 8:1; 1Co 8:7 must therefore be resolved differently. Account must be taken of two differences of expression. In 1Co 8:1 : we all have; here: in all there is not; in 1Co 8:1 : [some] knowledge, a certain knowledge ( without article); in 1Co 8:7, [the] knowledge ( with the article): All have the monotheistie knowledge in general (a certain knowledge, 1Co 8:1); but the precise knowledge which is in question here (to wit, that heathen deities do not exist, and consequently cannot contaminate either the meats offered to them or those who eat them), this knowledge is not in all, has not yet penetrated the conscience of all to the quick, so as to free them from every scruple. How many truths do we possess, from having learned our catechism, the practical conclusions of which we are yet far from having drawn! How many people ridicule belief in ghosts, whom the fear of spirits terrifies when they find themselves alone in the night! The idolatrous superstitions are numerous which still exercise their influence on our monotheistic Christendom.

The strong among the Corinthians did not make this distinction between theoretic knowledge and its practical application; and hence it was that they thought themselves entitled to set aside all consideration for the weak: Freedom to eat meats offered to idols follows logically from the monotheistic principle common to all; so much the worse for those of us who want logic! We are not called to put ourselves about for a brother who reasons badly. This was strong in logic, but weak in (love). And hence it was that the apostle had introduced at the beginning of this chapter the short digression on the emptiness of knowledge without love.

There is room for hesitating between the reading of the T. R.: , through conscience, after the Byz. and Greco-Lat.’s, the Itala and the Peschito, and that of the Alex. and of a later Syriac translation: , through habit. Meyer, Heinrici, Holsten have returned, contrary to Tischendorf’s authority (8th edition), to the received reading. They allege its difficulty. But is it not very improbable that the word , so rare in the New Testament (it is found only twice), has been substituted for the term , which occurs in this same verse and twice besides in this chapter? (1Co 8:10; 1Co 8:12). As to the sense. , conscience, would denote the inward conviction of the reality of the idol, which in such persons has survived their conversion. The term denotes the habit which they have of regarding the idol as a real being. The words , till now, especially placed, as they are in most Mjj., before , apply naturally, not to the verb, but to the substantive which precedes, and agree perfectly with the notion of habit: a habit (which lasts) till now even after the new faith should have put an end to it. If this is the true reading, the conclusion is almost necessary that the persons in question were of heathen origin. The old prejudice, under the dominion of which they had lived, resisted logic. They could not imagine that the powers they had so long revered under the names of Zeus, Mars, Minerva, etc., had not some reality. Hence the meats offered on their altar could no longer be simple meats; they must have taken something of the malignant character of those beings themselves. And therefore the Christian who eats them in this character ( , as sacrificed) is ipso facto polluted.

What does the apostle mean by the expression weak conscience? The term , conscience, strictly denotes the knowledge which the Ego has of itself, as willing and doing good or evil (the moral conscience), and of itself in what it thinks and knows (the theoretical conscience). It is the moral conscience which is here in question. It is weak, because a religious scruple, from which the gospel should have set it free, still binds it to beings which have no existence and hinders it from acting normally. Probably those former heathen, while adhering to belief in one God, still regarded their deities of other days, if not as gods, at least as terrible powers. The apostle adds that this conscience will be defiled, if the person eats of those meats in this state. In fact, this act remains upon it as a stain which separates from the holy God the man who has committed it while himself disapproving of it.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge [the apostle limits and corrects their statement found in 1Co 8:1]: but some, being used until now [being but recently converted from paganism] to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

7. But there is not knowledge in all: but some with a conscience of the idol even unto this day eat as if it were offered to the idol, and their conscience being weak is polluted. We are bound to keep a clear conscience under all circumstances, though an enlightened conscience may many a time subject us to great inconvenience and expense. Whenever you violate your conscience you fall under condemnation at the tribunal of your own heart.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 7

That knowledge. Here the word knowledge is used in its ordinary sense, and not as in the 1 Corinthians 8:1.–With conscience of the idol; with conscientious feelings in respect to the idol.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

1Co 8:7. Not in all etc.: a fact which in our conduct we must take into account.

Knowledge: recalls we know, 1Co 8:4. With his usual courtesy Paul does not say, not in all of you; as though his readers were without knowledge.

On the interesting and very early variation, accustomed-intercourse with the idol or conscience of the idol, see Appendix B. The former reading is the word rendered custom in 1Co 11:16. It is literally a living together with some one, and thus by unconscious self-adaptation becoming accustomed to him. In days gone by the idols had been to Paul’s readers a terrible reality ever molding their thoughts and lives. And the impress made by this long continued mental intercourse with idols remained until now, even after they had accepted Christianity. These words, though they would apply to Jewish superstitious dread of idols as infernal, or to the continued obligation of Deu 7:25 f, refer more naturally to converted heathens who were unable to cast away altogether the deeply inwoven mark made in their minds by the idolatry of earlier days. Instances of this are very common now on the mission field.

Eat it: the meat of idol-sacrifices. Owing to their former contact with idolatry, they look upon the meat, while eating it, as an idol-sacrifice. To those who know that idols do not exist, it is but common meat.

Conscience (see Rom 2:15) being weak: the inward faculty which contemplates the secrets of the man’s own heart not having mental and spiritual strength to grasp the truth that an idol is but an empty name. Consequently, in his heart of hearts he is conscious of defilement, i.e. of that which lessens his respect for himself and which he would hide from others. By speaking of this as something actually going on, Paul makes it more easy for us to realize and contemplate the process of defilement.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

8:7 {3} Howbeit [there is] not in every man that knowledge: for {4} some with {k} conscience of the idol unto this hour eat [it] as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

(3) The reason why that does not follow, is this: because there are many men who do not know that which you know. Now the judgment of outward things depend not only upon your conscience, but upon the conscience of those that behold you, and therefore your actions must be applied not only to your knowledge, but also to the ignorance of your brethren.

(4) An applying of the reason: there are many who cannot eat of things offered to idols, except with a wavering conscience, because they think them to be unclean. Therefore if by your example they wish to do that which inwardly they think displeases God, their conscience is defiled with this eating, and you have been the occasion of this mischief.

(k) By conscience of the idol, he means the secret judgment that they had within themselves, by which they thought all things unclean that were offered to idols, and therefore they could not use them with good conscience. For conscience has this power, that if it is good, it makes indifferent things good, and if it is evil, it makes them evil.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

The criterion of care for a brother 8:7-13

"He [Paul] develops an airtight case based on a solid theological foundation (1Co 8:6). But then comes the alla (’however’ [1Co 8:7]), and the argument moves in an entirely different direction.

"At issue is the nature of the community. Is it a community where those with a correct theology can ignore others who have an aversion to eating the idol-consecrated food? What must prevail is not the principle of superior knowledge but the realization that those who lack knowledge are those ’for whom Christ died’ (1Co 8:11). Edification takes precedence over freedom; the other person’s advantage takes precedence over one’s own (1Co 10:23-24). The christological epistemology of 1Co 1:18 to 1Co 2:16 applied to the controversy over eating food offered to idols calls for a community of sensitivity and love." [Note: Cousar, "The Theological . . .," p. 99.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The traditional interpretation of this verse is as follows. Whereas every Christian should know that there are no other gods but the one true God, some of the Corinthians, because of their previous belief in idols, had difficulty shaking that belief. They still had needless false guilt about eating meat that someone had previously dedicated to a heathen deity. They thought they were doing something wrong even though they were not. This false guilt created a problem for them in their relationship with God.

A modern equivalent might be a Christian who gets saved out of a pagan background in which he was spending all of his free time and money on recreation of various kinds. He becomes a Christian and realizes that recreation had been his god. As a conscientious Christian he wants to avoid slipping back into that trap so he avoids recreation. He may even become critical of other believers who enjoy the forms of recreation to which he considers himself previously enslaved. He has trouble accepting recreation as a legitimate activity for Christians. When he sees other Christians enjoying recreation, he tends to look down on them as carnal. He has false guilt about participating in recreation.

Probably Paul was describing a Corinthian Christian who would go to a feast in an idol temple, as he or she had done before conversion. That person would have pangs of true guilt because by participating he or she was tacitly approving the worship and consequently the existence of the idol. Paul said the person’s conscience was weak because even though he or she intellectually believed there was only one God, his or her emotions had not fully assimilated that truth. Evidently this was Peter’s problem when he compromised by withdrawing from eating with Gentiles (Gal 2:11-14).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)