Sanctification by the Holy Spirit In 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul takes the greater part of this epistle to teach them about the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, the ways in which these issues are presented reflect the sanctification of man’s mind, body, and spirit, in that order. For example, Paul’s discussion on church divisions (1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21) emphasizes the sanctification of our minds so that we learn not to prefer one church member, or church leader, above another. His discussion on fornication (1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40) emphasizes the sanctification of our bodies, as we offer them as holy vessels to the Lord. His discussion on meats offered until idols (1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1) emphasizes the sanctification of our spirits as we learn to walk and conduct our lifestyles with a clean conscience, which is the voice of the spirit. Paul then turns his attention to issues regarding public worship (1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40). Remember in the Old Testament how the priests and Levites had to sanctify themselves before entering into the service of the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore, Paul uses this same approach for the New Testament Church. As we allow our minds, bodies and spirits to yield to the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we become vessels in which the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit can operate.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Divisions in the Church 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21

2. Fornication in the Church 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 6:20

3. Idolatry and foods offered to idols 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:34

4. Public Worship 1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40

The Two Issues of Fornication and Foods Offered Unto Idols Reflect Heathen Worship Note that the two major topics that are covered in this epistle of 1 Corinthians, fornication and meat offered to idols, are two of the four issues that those the Jerusalem council decided to ask of the Gentiles. Note:

Act 15:20, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Act 15:29, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Act 21:25, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

In submission to the church apostles and elders a Jerusalem, Paul delivered these ordinances to the Corinthian church earlier while he lived there. In this epistle, Paul expands upon them:

1Co 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”

Note also that Jesus told the church in Pergamos in the book of Revelation that these were the two doctrines of Balaam.

Rev 2:14, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication .”

Therefore, the practice of feasting in idolatry and fornication appears to have been a common practice in Asia Minor among the temple worship of the Greeks. We also see in Rom 1:18-32 how idolatry was followed by fornication as God turned mankind over to a reprobate mind. Thus, these two sins are associated with one another throughout the Scriptures. However, first Paul deals with church divisions.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Idolatry and Things Offered unto Idols: Sanctification of the Spirit to Learn how to Walk with a Pure Conscience In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul dedicates his longest discussion in this epistle to the topic of idolatry and things offered unto idols, using it as an opportunity to each on being led by the spirit by walking with a good conscience, which is voice of our spirit. The word “conscience” ( ) is used 9 times in this passage of Scripture. Paul opens ( 1Co 8:7 ; 1Co 8:10; 1Co 8:12) and closes (1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27-29) this passage with this word. This church was living in the midst of such heathen practices, and like many of us today, they were invited to attend certain functions that involved idolatry and foods offered unto idols. This is why Paul says, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go” Thus, these believers needed some guidelines to go by when confronted with such invitations. The guiding principle that Paul teaches in this passage is for the believer to be led by his conscience so that he does not offence his brother. Therefore, Paul’s concluding statement on how to deal with this issue is, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Eating meat offered to idols 1Co 8:1-13

2. A Positive Example: Paul’s carefulness not to offend 1Co 9:1-27

3. Negative Example: The idolatry of Israel in the wilderness 1Co 10:1-14

4. A Personal Example: The Lord’s Table vs. Pagan Worship 1Co 10:15-22

5. Conclusion 1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1

The Conscience, the Voice of the Human Spirit In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul deals with the issue of idolatry. Keep in mind the underlying theme of this epistle, which is practical ways in which the believer is to allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through them. Thus, Paul uses the word “conscience” nine times in this section of the epistle. This is because the voice of our human spirit is our conscience. In contrast, the voice of our mind is human reason, and the voice of our body is our physical senses that we call feelings. Thus, Paul is teaching the Corinthians to be led by the Holy Spirit on this issue by being led by their conscience.

1Co 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.”

1Co 8:10, “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;”

1Co 8:12, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience , ye sin against Christ.”

1Co 10:25, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:”

1Co 10:27, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.”

1Co 10:28, “But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:”

1Co 10:29, “ Conscience , I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience ?”

The First Council of Jerusalem In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul dedicates his longest discussion in this epistle to the topic of idolatry and things offered unto idols, which was an important part of this Greco-Roman culture with their temple worship. This type of heathen worship consisted of fornication and feasting upon foods that had been offered up to Greek and Roman idols.

However, the issue of meats and their association with heathen idols had long been a problem with the Jews. Wherever they had settled throughout the Empire, they established their own butcheries in order to provide for themselves “clean” meats. This issue of meats and idolatry was a part of the first confrontations of the early Church. In the first Church council in Jerusalem, recorded in Act 15:1-35, the leaders chose to send instructions to the Gentile churches on four topics. Act 15:20 reads, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Much of the meats offered in the markets were the residue of what had been sacrificed to idols. If these believers ate such meats, were they partaking of such worship? Or, if they were invited into a non-believer’s home and offered meats, should they abstain, or eat it so as not to offense the host? But if they ate it, would it not offend the weaker brothers in the church who were just coming out of such an idolatrous lifestyle and could easily fall back into it under similar conditions? All of these issues needed to be addressed. Thus, it was an important topic for Paul to deal with in the church of Corinth as well as in all the churches.

This church was living in the midst of such heathen practices, and like many of us today, they were invited to attend certain functions that involved idolatry and foods offered unto idols. This is why Paul says, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go” (1Co 10:27) Thus, these believers needed some guidelines to go by when attending such invitations. The key point that Paul tries to emphasize in this passage is, “Do not offend other believers.” The key words which are often repeated are “idols” and “offence”. Paul’s concluding statement on how to deal with this issue is, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Christian Liberty in the Matter of Eating Meat Offered to Idols.

Knowledge and charity:

v. 1. Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but charity edifies.

v. 2. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.

v. 3. But if any man love God, the same is known of Him.

In this chapter the apostle offers the answer to a second question which had been laid before him by the Corinthian Christians: Was it right for a Christian to eat flesh that had been offered in sacrifice to an idol? The situation was somewhat complicated, since the entire public and social life of the people of Corinth and of the citizens of all the large cities in those days was permeated with, and to some extent governed by, the worship of idols. Feasts and banquets, both public and private, were usually connected with the name of some heathen god. A large part of the meat on sale in the shops and therefore found on the average table came from the temples, and so it became a difficult matter to avoid its use. This explains the perplexity of the Corinthians which caused their question to the apostle. Before giving his real answer, he reminds them, in the form of a parenthesis, of certain basic facts. With a tinge of sarcasm he writes that he is aware of the fact that all claimed the possession of knowledge. They all were sure that they needed no more information as to the fundamentals of Christianity. Paul proceeds to correct this idea: Knowledge puffs up, inflates, but love builds up. Many of the Corinthian Christians, as many believers are doing today, pretended to be so firmly grounded in head knowledge that they rose superior to all prejudices. But the result was an amount of proud self-satisfaction which forgot all considerations for their neighbor. And therefore Paul frankly tells his readers that such an attitude, according to which a person believes himself to be above all heathen superstition and to have the full and complete knowledge of God and His essence, is vain and sinful if it is not attended by the proper fruit of love in good works.

This axiomatic saying the apostle amplifies: But if anyone has the idea that he knows something (he is herewith definitely told that) he has never yet learned as he ought to, he has not yet obtained the real basis of true knowledge. Just as soon as a person shows any conceit as to his spiritual knowledge, this fact proves that he is still far from possessing that full, deep, penetrating, exhaustive knowledge which is contained in Christianity. For the more a person in all humility and under the gracious guidance of God studies the wonderful doctrines which God has given to men in His Word of grace, the more this humility must increase, the more he will confess: We know in part only, and a very small part at that. Self-conceit and real knowledge are incompatible in spiritual things. On the other hand: But if any one loves God, this person is known of Him. If the faith of a Christian has found its proper expression in love toward God, from which flows love toward his neighbor, 1Jn 5:2, then he also knows that his knowledge of love is the result of God’s having known him. If God knows anyone in this way, it is an effective knowledge, Gal 4:9; Rom 8:29, it brings him into communion, into sonship, with God, into the most intimate relation of mind and spirit. Naturally this includes also this that every person that is the subject of such an effective knowledge on the part of God will know God in turn, will grow in knowledge day by day until the day of the consummation of all hopes and knowledge. To know God as Him that has known us in Christ, that is the childlike knowledge which does not puff up, but is, on the contrary, a constant spur to us to imitate the great love of God which bent down to us in our misery and wretchedness and brought us salvation.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

1Co 8:1-13

The relation of lore to knowledge with respect to the question of eating idol offerings.

1Co 8:1

As touching things offered unto idols. This was doubtless one of the questions on which the Corinthians had asked for advice. We judge from the tone of the questions to which St. Paul here replies that the majority of the Corinthians, being liberal in their views, held that it was a matter of perfect indifference to eat idol offerings; and that, in acting upon this conviction, they contemptuously overrode the convictions of those who could not help thinking that when they did so they committed a sin. The practical decision of the question was one of immense importance. If it were unlawful under any circumstances to eat idol offerings, then the Gentile convert was condemned to a life of Levitism almost as rigorous as that of the Jew. The distinction between clean and unclean meats formed an insuperable barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Wherever they lived, Jews required a butcher of their own, who had been trained in the rules and ceremonies which enabled him to decide and to ensure that all the meat which they ate should be clean (tahor), not unclean (tame). They could touch no meat which was not certified as free from legal blemish or ceremonial pollution by the affixed leaden seal on which was engraved the word “lawful” (kashar). But Gentiles had always been accustomed to buy meat in the markets. Now, much of this meat consisted of remnants of animals slain as sacrifices, after the priests had had their share. So completely was this case, that the word “to sacrifice” had come to mean “to kill” in Hellenistic Greek. Theophrastus, in his ‘Moral Sketches,’ defines the close-handed man as one who, at his daughter’s wedding feast, sells all the victims offered except the sacred parts; and the shameless person as one who, after offering a sacrifice, salts the victim for future use, and goes out to dine with someone else. The market was therefore stocked with meat which had been connected with idol sacrifices. The Christian could never be sure about any meat which he bought if he held it wrong to partake of these offerings. Further than this, he wouldespecially if he were poorfeel it a great privation to be entirely cut off from the public feasts (sussitia), which perhaps were often his only chance of eating meat at all; and also to be forbidden to take a social meal with any of his Gentile neighbours or relatives. The question was therefore a “burning” one. It involved much of the comfort and brightness of ancient social life (Thucydides, 2.38; Aristotle, ‘Eth.,’ 7.9, 5; Cicero, ‘Off.,’ 2.16; Livy, 8.32, etc.). It will be seen that St. Paul treats it with consummate wisdom and tenderness. His liberality of thought shows itself in thisthat he sides with those who took the strong, the broad, the common sense view, that sin is not a mechanical matter, and that sin is not committed where no sin is intended. He neither adopts the ascetic view nor does he taunt the inquirers with the fact that the whole weight of their personal desires and interests would lead them to decide the question in their own favour. On the other hand, he has too deep a sympathy with the weak to permit their scruples to be overruled with a violence which would wound their consciences. While he accepts the right principle of Christian freedom, he carefully guards against its abuse. It might have been supposed that, as a Jew, and one who had been trained as a “Pharisee of Pharisees,” St. Paul would have sided with those who forbade any participation in idol offerings. Jewish rabbis referred to passages like Exo 34:15; Num 25:2; Psa 106:28; Dan 1:8; Tobit 1:10, 11. Rabbi Ishmael, in ‘Avoda Zara,’ said that a Jew might not even go to a Gentile funeral, even if he took with him his own meat and his own servants. The law of the drink offering forbids a Jew to drink of a cask if anyone has even touched a goblet drawn from it with the presumed intention of offering little to the gods. Besides this, the Synod of Jerusalem had mentioned the eating of idol offerings as one of the four things which they forbade to Gentile converts, who were only bound by the Noachian precepts (Act 15:29). But St. Paul judged the matter independently by his own apostolic authority. The decision of the synod had only had a local validity trod was inapplicable to such a community as that of Corinth. St. Paul had to suffer cruel misrepresentation and bitter persecution as the consequence of this breadth of view (Act 21:21-24); but that would not be likely to make him shrink from saying the truth. This treatment of the subject closely resembles that which he subsequently adopted in Rom 14:1-23. We know that we all have knowledge. It is very probable that this is a semi-ironical quotation of the somewhat conceited remark which had occurred in the letter from Corinth. No doubt there was a sense in which it might (theoretically) be regarded as true; but it was St. Paul’s duty both to disparage this kind of knowledge and to show that, after all, there were some among them who did not possess it (Rom 14:7). Knowledge puffeth up. The brief energetic clause, “Knowledge puffeth up; love buildeth up,” shows the strong feeling with which the apostle enters on the discussion. There is a wide distance between theoretic knowledge and heavenly wisdom (Jas 3:13-18). “He who is full is rich; he who is puffed up is empty” (Stanley). “The first person puffed up was the devil” (Beza). Charity edifieth. There is no reason whatever for the rendering of sometimes by “love,” sometimes by “charity.” The fondness for variation which led King James’s translators to do so only obscures the identity of thought which prevails among all the apostles respecting the absolute primacy of love as the chief sphere and test of the Christian life. Edifieth. Helps to build us up as stones in the spiritual temple (Jas 3:9; Rom 14:19; Eph 4:12). “If because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love” (Rom 14:15).

1Co 8:2

If any man think that he knoweth anything. Humility is the test of true knowledge, and love the inevitable factor in all Christian knowledge. The conceit of knowledge is usually the usurped self assertion of an imaginary infallibility. We only know “in part,” and our knowledge, having at the best a purely relative value, is destined to vanish away (1Co 13:8). As he ought to know. True knowledge has in it an element of moral obligation, and saintliness is knowledge and supersedes the necessity for formal knowledge. Love is knowledge which has passed into heavenly wisdom. The student may say to the mystic, “All that you see I know;” but the mystic may retort,” All that you know, I see.”

1Co 8:3

If any man love God, the same is known of him. We should have expected the sentence to end “the same knows him.” St. Paul purposely alters the symmetry of the phrase. He did not wish to use any terms which would foster the already overgrown conceit of knowledge which was inflating the minds of his Corinthian converts. Further than this, he felt that “God knoweth them that are his” (2Ti 3:1-17 :19), but that, since we are finite and God is infinite, we cannot measure the arm of God by the finger of man. Hence, although it is quite true that “Every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God” (1Jn 4:7), yet in writing to those whose love was very imperfect, St. Paul deliberately chooses the passive form of expression as in Gal 4:9, “Now that ye have known God or are rather known of God.”

1Co 8:4

We know that an idol is nothing in the world. After his brief but pregnant digression on the nature of true knowledge, he returns to these questions, and probably once more quotes their own words. They had given this reason for open and public indifference with respect to meat offered to idols. With respect to idols, three views were possible to Christians: either

(1) that they were “demons”the spirits of deified dead men; or

(2) that they were evil spiritsa favorite view among the Jews (via 1Co 10:20; Deu 32:17; 2Ch 11:15; Psa 106:37; Rev 9:20); or

(3) that they were merely. That there is none other God but one. This belief is the signature of Judaism, according to their daily and oft repeated shema (Deu 6:4, etc.).

1Co 8:5

For though there be that are called gods. The verse is a limitation of the phrase which perhaps he had quoted from their letter. There are, indeed, demons, and there are created things, like the host of heaven and the powers of nature, which are called gods and pass for gods. Gods many, and lords many. Perhaps a passing allusion to the use of elohim, gods, for men in great positions, and to the habitual deification of Roman emperors even in their lifetime. The title “Augustus,” which they all had borne, was to Jewish ears “the name of blasphemy” (Rev 13:1), implying that they were to be objects of reverence. Indeed, the worship of the Caesars was, in that strange epoch of mingled atheism and superstition, almost the only sincere cult that was left.

1Co 8:6

But to us. The “but” means “nevertheless.” We Christians only regard these “gods,” “lords,” and “idols” as nonexistent, except so far as they correspond to created and material things. The Father. Not only by creation and preservation, but much more by redemption and adoption, and as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 8:15; Gal 3:26). Of whom are all things. All things, even including the gods of the heathen, “visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all firings were created by him and for him, and by him all things consist” (Col 1:16, Col 1:17). And we in him; rather, into or for him. He is the End and Goal as well as the Author of our existence. One Lord. The only real “Lord,” though the Roman emperors often took the title, and one of themDomitianinsisted on the use of the expression, “Dominus Deusque noster” (“Our Lord and God”), as applied to himself (Suetonius. ‘Domit.,’ 13). By whom are all things. “By whom,” as the Agent of creation and redemption (Joh 1:3, Joh 1:10; Heb 1:2). And we by him. “By him,”as the Mediator and the Giver of life (Rom 11:36, “Of him, and to him, and through him are all things”).

1Co 8:7

There is not in every man that knowledge. A correction of the somewhat haughty assertion of the Corinthians in 1Co 8:1. With conscience of the idol; literally, by their consciousness of the idol. In eating meat offered to any god whom they had been accustomed to worship, “being used to the idol,” as the Revised Version renders it (reading “by familiarity with,” for ) cannot dismiss from their minds the palatal sense that, in eating the idol sacrifice, they are participating in the idol worship. Their conscience being weak is defiled. Being Gentiles who till recently had been idolaters, the apparent participation in their old idolatry wore to them the semblance of apostacy. The thing which they were eating was, in its own essence, indifferent or clean, but since they could not help esteeming it unclean, they defied a conscientious doubt, and so their conduct, not being of faith, became sinful (Rom 14:14, Rom 14:23). St Paul admits that this was the sign of a conscience intellectually weak; but the weakness was the result of past habit and imperfect enlightenment, and it was entitled to forbearance and respect.

1Co 8:8

But meat commendeth us not to God; rather, will not recommend us. God would think none the better of them for eating idol sacrifices, even though they asserted thereby a freedom which was the reward of clear insight. This verse will serve to show why “fasting” is nowhere rigidly enjoined on Christians. If fasting is a help to our spiritual life, then we should practise it, but with the distinct apprehension of the truth that God will think none the better of us merely because we eat less, but only if the fasting be a successful means of making us more pure and more loving. If the Bible had been in the hands of the people during the Middle Ages, this verse would have rendered impossible the idle superstition that to eat meat in Lent was one of the deadliest sins, or that there was any merit whatever in the Lenten fast except as a means of self improvement and self mastery. This verse says expressly, “We lose nothing by not eating; we gain nothing by eating.”

1Co 8:9

Lest this liberty of yours become a stumbling block; rather, this power or right of yours. To lead any one to do that which he thinks to be wrong is to place a stone of stumbling in his way, even if we do not think the act to be wrong. For we make men worse if by our example we teach them to act in contradiction of their conscience. “Let your motto be forbearance, not privilege, and your watchword charity, not knowledge. Never flaunt your knowledge, seldom use your privilege” (Evans).

1Co 8:10

Sit at meat in the [an] idol’s temple. To recline at a banquet in the temple of Poseidon or Aphrodite, especially in such a place as Corinth, was certainly an extravagant assertion of their right to Christian liberty. It was indeed a “bowing in the house of Rimmon” which could hardly fail to be misunderstood. The very word “idoleum” should have warned them. It was a word not used by Gentiles, and invented by believers in the one God, to avoid the use of “temple” () in connection with idols. The Greeks spoke of the “Athenaeum,” or “Apolloneum,” or “Posideum;” but Jews only of an “idoleum”a word which (like other Jewish designations of heathen forms of worship) involved a bitter taunt. For the very word eidolon meant a shadowy, fleeting, unreal image. Perhaps the Corinthian Christians might excuse their boldness by pleading that all the most important feasts and social gatherings of the ancients were held in temples. Be emboldened; rather, be edified. The expression is a very bold paronomasia. This “edification of ruin” would be all the more likely to ensue because self interest would plead powerfully in the same direction. A little compromise and complicity, a little suppression of opinion and avoidance of antagonism to things evil, a little immoral acquiescence, would have gone very far in those days to save Christians from incessant persecution. Yet no Christian could be “edified” into a more dangerous course than that of defying and defiling his own tender conscience.

1Co 8:11

Shall the weak brother perish. The fact that he was “weak” constituted a fresh appeal to pity. It made him more emphatically one of “Christ’s little ones,” and Christ had pronounced a heavy malediction on all who caused such to offend. But if there is this “ruinous edification” upon the trembling and sandy foundation of a weak conscience, what could possibly follow but a gradual destruction? The tense is the present (the praesens futurascens), “and he who is weak, in thy knowledge, is perishing“”the brother for whose sake Christ died.” The order of the original often gives a force to the words, which it is difficult to reproduce, as here. The word “is perishing” becomes very emphatic by being placed first in the sentence. “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died” (Rom 14:16). Perish; terrificum verbum. Clarius. He could use no word which would more effectually point his warning.

1Co 8:12

And wound their weak conscience; rather, and in smiting their conseience which is weak. “What,” asks St. Chrysostom, “can be more ruthless than a man who strikes one who is sick?” Was it not a cowardly exercise of liberty to strike the conscience of the defenceless? It is another form of “defiling” (1Co 8:7) the conscience, but brings out the cruelty of such conduct. Ye sin against Christ. Because Christ lives and suffers in the persons of the least of his little ones (Mat 25:40, Mat 25:45; Rom 12:5, etc.).

1Co 8:13

Make my brother to offend. “Make to offend” is, in the original, the verb “scandalize.” The word for “meat” means any kind of food. Flesh. The particular subject of discussion here. “I will,” says St, Paul, “abstain from flesh altogether rather than by eating it lead a weaker brother into sin.” While the world standeth. The same expression is elsewhere rendered “forever.” Literally it means to the aeon. St. Paul is often led into these impetuous expressions of the depth of his feelings. The reader will find the whole question argued in s similar spirit in Rom 14:19-22. Lest; namely, in the case supposed. In reality there was no need for taking so severe a pledge of abstinence.

HOMILETICS

1Co 8:1-3

A twofold knowledge.

“Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to knew. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.” Here a new subject is introduced. Paul had already touched on four difficult points in connection with the Corinthian Churchpoints on which it seems some of the members had written to him for information. One referred to matrimony, another to ecclesiastical ritualism, another to slavery, and another to the eating of meats that were offered to idols. Meats used for sacrificial purposes in the heathen temples were, according to custom, offered in Corinth for sale as food. In that Church there were some who had scruples about the eating of such meat, and some who had not. Paul’s counsel was sought on that subject, and in this chapter he supplies it. In this sketch I shall confine my attention to the twofold knowledge to which he here refers.

I. A PRIDE GENERATING KNOWLEDGE. “Knowledge puffeth up.” By this knowledge he means, I presume:

1. A knowledge that is merely intellectuala stock of mental conceptions concerning the various objects brought under attention: they might be material or spiritual, those referring to body or those referring to mind, to the creature or to the Creator. Now, such knowledge, even though it be of a theological and ecclesiastical character, tends to self conceit.

2. A knowledge that is essentially superficial. Mere intellectual knowledge has a tendency to generate pride, and the more superficial that knowledge the stronger its tendency. The men who go furthest into the essence of things, take the widest view of the domain of knowledge, enter furthest into the arcana of nature, will be the least disposed to self elation. The greater the scientist the more humble of his class.

II. A MAN EDIFYING KNOWLEDGE. “Charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him.” It appears from this:

1. That “charity,” or love to God, is the true knowledge. Love is the life and soul of all science. Mere intellectual knowledge, however great, is a tree without sap, without moral beauty or strengthening fruit; love is the root of the universe, and you must have love rightly to interpret it.

2. That this true knowledge builds up the soul. It “edifieth.” It builds it up, not as a house is built up, by putting dead stones and timber together, but as the oak is built up, by the world appropriating force of its own life, compelling outward nature to deepen its roots, extend its bulk, multiply its branches, and push it higher towards the heavens.

3. That this true knowledge ensures the approval of God. “If any man love God, the same is known of him.” The word “known” must be taken in the sense of approval. In the last day, Christ will say to those who have not this love, “Depart from me: I never knew you,” that is, never approved of you. This love for God in the heart converts the tree of intellectual knowledge into the tree of life.

1Co 8:4-13

Aspects of responsibility.

“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols,” etc. This paragraph suggests three general remarks.

I. THAT THE MORAL OBLIGATIONS OF ALL MEN ARE DETERMINED BY THEIR RELATION TO THE ONE GOD AND HIS SON. “As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.” There are many objects in the world that men call gods, and treat as gods, but they are really nothing, their existence imposes on them no moral obligation. There is One, however, and only One, from your relation to whom there grows up all moral obligations. “One God.” Monotheism is demon strated by all nature, by all consciences, as well as by the Bible.

1. He is a Father. “The Father, of whom,” etc. The Creator of the universe, but the Father of spirits; spirits are his offspring.

2. He is the Source of all things. “Of whom are all things.” The mighty universe and all it contains are but streams from him, the Fountain of life.

3. He is our End. “We in him,” or “unto him,” more properly. The supreme End of our existence and Object of our love. In connection with him there is another, “one Lord Jesus Christ.” This one Lord Jesus Christ was not only his creative Agent, “by whom are all things,” but his redemptive Agent, the Mediator between God and men. And we by him,” or “through him.” As Christians, we are what we are through him. Now, the will of this one God, as coming through Christ to us, we are morally bound to fulfil. An obligation this which not only can never be abrogated, but never modified by any circumstances, age, or revolution.

II. THAT WHAT MIGHT BE WRONG FOR ONE MAN TO DO MIGHT NOT BE SO FOR ANOTHER. The apostle teaches that those in the Corinthian Church who had reached the conviction that an idol was nothing in the world, and that consequently there was no harm to them personally in eating of the sacrifices that were offered to idols, would commit no wrong in doing so. The meat itself had not been corrupted because it had been offered to idols, it was as good as any other meat, and as their consciences were not against it there would be no wrong in them participating in it as food. On the other hand, those who had a superstitious idea that they ought not to touch the meat they saw the priests feeding upon in heathen temples, would commit wrong in using it as food. “Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” The right or the wrong depended on each man’s conscience. That which is against a man’s conscience may not be against the eternal law of right, but is against his own sense of right, and therefore should be avoided; and that which is in accord with a man’s conscience, though it may not be in accord with the principles of absolute rectitude, would not be wrong to him. Though sincerity is not a virtue, it is always relatively binding; insincerity is always an absolute sin. Thus what is relatively wrong to one man is not so to another. Here is the principle, “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” Therefore, “let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

III. THAT TO OFFEND THE CONSCIENCE OF A GOOD MAN, HOWEVER WEAK, IS A WRONG IN ALL. “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” Respect for the weak consciences of good men:

1. May require self denial on our part. A truly enlightened and healthy minded Christian may feel at perfect liberty to do that from which a weak minded disciple would recoil with horror. The apostle, for example, might have felt at perfect liberty to sit down in heathen temples, and feast on meat that had been offered to idols, for his great soul had risen up out of the letter and form of religion, concerning meats, and drinks, and ceremonies, and statutory laws, and exulted in that “liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free.” Therefore any restriction in such matters would involve more or less self denial, and this Paul willingly accepted, rather than “offend” a “weak brother.” On this principle it becomes all to act. Men who have reached the higher stages of Christly life may feel at liberty to do many things; but if they are surrounded by good people whose consciences are in the strongest antagonism to all such things, it is their duty to deny themselves of such liberty.

2. Is urged on the strongest considerations.

(1) The lack of it may inflict serious injuries on the weak.

(a) It may “become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” This means, I presume, an occasion of sin. Their faith may be shaken, and they may become apostates; and, more,

(b) they may be “emboldened,” encouraged to do the wrong. Without your moral strength, imitation of you will be pernicious.

(c) It may ruin them. “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” Christ died for all, tasted death for every man; yet his death, it seems, does not necessarily ensure the salvation of any. What a solemn thought, that the conduct even of an advanced Christian may lead to the spiritual ruin of others!

(2) The lack of it is a sin both against the weak brethren and against Christ. “When ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”

3. Is exemplified in the sublime resolve of the apostle. “If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Here is benevolent expediency, the strongest ground on which the temperance reformation can be wisely and effectively advocated. In this sublime utterance you have the self sacrificing and magnanimous spirit of the gospel. Give up all rather than ruin souls. Such an utterance as this is characteristic of Paul. “But I could wish that I myself were accursed for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”

CONCLUSION. Where, in the state or in the Church, can you find a man who approaches in spirit the sublime philanthropy of Paul? In the state we have men who call themselves reformers, who grow eloquent in proclaiming the rights of man and the glories of liberty; but can you find either in their speeches or deeds the matchless spirit of philanthropy, beaming and booming in these words of the apostle?”Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” Are not our reformers, alas! more or less traders and hirelings? Where even in our Churches do we find preachers aglow with this unconquerable love for man? And yet this is Christianity, this is what the world wants, what it must have ere it can be morally redeemed. “There never did,” says Sir Walter Scott., “and never will, exist anything permanently noble and excellent in a character which was a stranger to the exercise of resolute self denial. Teach self denial, and make its practice pleasurable, and you create for the world a destiny more sublime than ever issued from the brain of the wildest dreamer.”

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB

1Co 8:1-13

Strength and weakness; knowledge and love.

The discussions contained in this chapter relate to “things offered unto idols.” Bear in mind that idolatry was not then simply a religious system, but a system immensely extended and covering a corresponding surface of political, social, and business interests. At all points it touched individuals and families, and was connected with feasts, entertainments, and etiquette. “Most public entertainments and many private meals were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice” (Stanley). How far might knowledge assert itself and put on independency? What was the true use of expediency? And what the offices of conscience? And to what extent must the strong be tender and considerate towards the weak? Two parties existed on this subject in Corinth: the one that rested on Christian liberty, and, believing that “an idol is nothing in the world,” demonstrated its adhesion to this belief by buying and eating meats sacrificed to idols, and even went to the excess of attending the feasts “in the idol’s temple;” the other party looked upon such conduct with abhorrence. If, now, Christianity had been a mere scheme of human thought, an elaborate philosophy, a poetic inspiration, it is obvious that no such earnest dispute could have arisen. If, again, St. Paul had contemplated the subject on the ground only of abstract and theoretical principles, following out the logic that “an idol is nothing,” and claiming the full freedom guaranteed by the assumption, a very different chapter from this would have been written. But see how he approaches the matter. His first step is to check the liberalists, and he does it efficaciously, for he convicts them of pride and recklessness on the side of intellect. Intellect he does not condemn, but its wrong use. His condemnation is founded on the fact that the intellect arrogantly claims to be the mind, to be the equivalent of the man himself, and, consequently, shuts off the recognition of anything except knowledge. St. Paul’s position at the outset is, “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” It is vigorously stated and is accompanied by evident impulse. The “knowledge” referred to is knowledge isolated from its rightful and essential associations, the knowledge of a truth, and yet without its checks and balancesan engine lacking safety valve and governor. No matter how valuable the knowledge may be in itself; call it insight, call it what you please; if it abuse itself in its use, it loses its worth. Selfishness vitiates its excellence, and makes it doubly harmful, pernicious to the possessor, and obstructive of benefit to him on whom it acts objectively. Men are prone to exaggerate knowledge as knowledge. They say, “Knowledge is power.” So it is, but whether the power be for good or evil depends on the man behind the knowledge. Think of the intimate connection between the intellect and the body, and how much more it is affected thereby than other portions of the mind; think how tangled it often is in the nerves, and imprisoned in the cells of the brain,and can you wonder at the distrust that wise men have of its functions, unless controlled, and that sternly, by principle and sentiment? What subtle poisons creep into the blood and thence into thought! A slight imprudence in eating, a bad dream last night, a household worry or a business vexation, disturbed breathing or accelerated heart action, and the intellect is warped and enfeebled. Do what we may to curtail the evils, infirmities cling to all its activities. Yet much may be done, and it is done in no other way than that suggested by the apostle. “Charity [love] edifieth [buildeth up].” By this he means that the heart must he under the influence of grace, and thus inspire the intellect so that it may be delivered from its selfishness and especially its self conceit. And so fully has Christianity indoctrinated all our best thinkers with this idea, that they have come to believe that wisdom is the conjoint product of right thought and true feeling. “If any man love God, the same is known of him,” and the knowledge here predicated of God has a reflex agency on the man’s knowledge. Instead of being “puffed up,” instead of an inmoderate and unjustifiable use of his Christian freedom, instead of a vaunting display of his superiority to prejudice and ignorance, he is regardful of the scruples of others, and, while aware of the difference between them and himself, turns the difference to the account of humility and forbearance. The idol is nothing, hut its nothingness is no reason for insensibility to the claims of weak brethren on his manly sympathies. For the great doctrine of “one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him,” is so profoundly realized, that human brotherhood is its complement in his character and conduct. “One Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him,” the Mediator of the natural universe, in whose sovereignty all laws and institutions and objects have their reason and end; the Mediator of the Spiritual universe, who has consummated the manifestation of humanity in the person and work of the Holy Ghost;this Jesus of Nazareth, who is the Christ of God and Lord over all, has so embodied the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of humanity in his own incarnation and office, that henceforth the grandeur of the one is the strength and joy and glory of the other. St. Paul loses no opportunity to enforce this supreme truth. Does he argue in behalf of Christian liberty? Here is his basis. Does he plead for expediency? Here is his warrant. Does he harmonize them as coexisting and cooperating sentiments? They are mutually supporting because their possessor has the knowledge which comes from God in Christ. From this sublime height he is never long absent. Thitherward is he always tending, nor will he decide any question, whatever its bearings, with a judgment detached from the great truth Christ taught: “I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” All, however, have not this knowledge. The insight of some is partial and confused, “whose Christian faith is not yet so emancipated from the religious convictions of their old heathen state, and who are still in the bonds of their former conscience, moulded by heathen ideas” (Dr. Kling). Having this “conscience of the idol,” looking upon the idol as a reality, and forbidden by his conscience to eat the flesh offered to an idol, the “weak brother” is offended. The meat itself is a matter of indifference, nor are you the “better” or the “worse” for the mere act of eating. A grave question, however, lies at the back of the action. It concerns “this liberty of yours,” and the spirit actuating your mind in doing this thing. “Take heed;” this liberty may degenerate into a haughty self valuation, may become a “stumbling block,” and may induce the “weak brother” to imitate your example, and thus sacrifice his conscience under your influence. Though the conscience be weak, it is conscience; it is his; its authority over him is sacred; obey it he must. Worse than all, your conduct, taking effect upon him, may imperil the salvation of a man, “for whom Christ died.” Enlighten his conscience all you can; hell) to make it truthful as well as sincere; hut, meantime, “take heed” lest sympathy and conventionality embolden him to err. “Weak” now, you will only weaken him the mere if your liberty mislead him. The only element in him out of which strength can grow is the conscience. Use your freedom so as to liberate, not to enslave, this highest authority in our nature. Use your knowledge to illuminate, not to darken, this divinest of all the organs personal to the soul, through which truth reaches the man. Use your Church relation to build up and not pull down your brother, that you may be a coworker with God and with his conscience in making him a “temple of the Holy Ghost.” Then comes the utterance of great heartednessthe declaration that he will eat no such meat forever if it make his brother to offend. This was no sudden effervescence of sentimentality. It was genuine sentiment. It was organic to the man’s nature. Impulse was strong because conscience was stronger. The current of feeling was no cataract leaping from a rocky bed into rocky depths, and dashing itself into foam, but a mighty river that could not become too full for its banks.L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

1Co 8:1

Knowledge and love.

In the Divine Being himself both knowledge and love are perfect; he is light; he is love. Man, made in God’s image, is capable of both; but his knowledge is and must be very limited and partial, whilst he has vast capacities for love. Not only so; as the apostle here teaches, love is better than knowledge, for whilst this puffs up, that edifies. We recognize this superiority in several particulars.

I. IN ITS INFLUENCE UPON THE INDIVIDUAL‘S OWN CHARACTER. Paul’s observation convinced him that this was the case. There were at Corinth those who boasted of their knowledge, of their intellectual powers of discrimination, of their superiority to the ignorant vulgar. But these very persons, although Christians in name, were very far from displaying the character of Christ himself, evincing little of consideration and forbearance towards their fellow believers. In fact, they were “puffed up,” their knowledge inflating them, but imparting to them no real stability or vigour of character. On the ether hand, such as were animated by the purifying and elevating principle of love were, by the action of that principle, delivered from selfishness and self seeking. They were “edified,” i.e. built up, as a temple in stately proportions, upon a secure and ample foundation. This is a generalization, the justice of which is borne out by the experience of the Church of Christ. A show of knowledge is often unlovely when compared with the reality of love, which imparts a beauty and a radiance to the character beyond what human effort and culture can possibly bestow.

II. IN ITS INFLUENCE UPON HUMAN SOCIETY. It has been maintained in our own day (by Mr. Buckle) that moral beliefs have no influence in the development of society, which is due to the advance of scientific knowledge. But facts are in contradiction to this theory. Learning, science, art, are all good in themselves; but they give no guarantee that they shall be wisely and beneficially used, and they may be far from a blessing to society. But where compassion and benevolence are prevalent and ruling principles, there society feels the benefit of their operation. The Church is maintained in peace and harmony; the world around is profited by the self denying efforts made for the amelioration of its condition. We have only to compare the condition of ancient Rome with that of modern England to be assured of this.

III. IN ITS ACCEPTABLENESS TO GOD. We are not to understand that our Divine Ruler is indifferent to the progress of knowledge. “That the soul be without knowledge is not good.” And there is a kind of knowledge which is near akin to love: to know God is life eternal. But mere intellectual activity, mere speculative acquaintance with truth, are vain and worthless in his sight to whom all things are known from the beginning. But love, as it is the highest expression of the Divine nature and character, is peculiarly congenial and acceptable to God. With the loveless soul God has no sympathy; but the soul that is on fire with love to God and man is preparing to dwell in the everlasting radiance which makes and. blesses heaven.T.

1Co 8:3

Intimacy between God and man.

As the passage treats of man’s knowledge professed, supposed, and real, we should expect in this verse to find a statement regarding man’s knowledge of God. And by some the second clause of this verse has been interpreted in this sense. If this somewhat strains the language, and if it is necessary to understand that we have here an assertion that the lover of God is known by God, all the same the apostle must be acknowledged here to affirm a spiritual intimacy between the human spirit and the Father of spirits..

I. THE CONDITION OF THIS INTIMACY.

1. It is a condition which could scarcely occur to man apart from revelation. Men fear God, reverence God, worship God, seek to avert the wrath of God; but to love God is not an exercise of mind which seems congruous to the relation between the Creator and his creatures.

2. It is a condition which Christianity renders possible and natural. By revealing God as love, by bringing that love home to the heart in the incarnation and the sacrifice of the Son of God, Christianity makes a claim upon human love. The manifestation of affectionate interest and benevolence in a way so remarkable, so unique, is sufficient to account for a new relationship, and for new emotions corresponding therewith.

3. It is a condition capable of universal fulfilment. “If any man love God.” There are many whose natural powers of body and of mind are very limited. But there is none who has not the capacity for love. There may be a moral unpreparedness, but this may be overcome. The Gentile as well as the Jew, the illiterate as well as the learned, are capable of loving the Author of salvation.

II. THE CHARACTER OF THIS INTIMACY. Love is represented as leading to, as involving, knowledge.

1. On the side of God himself. This is the explicit statement of the text: “The same,” i.e. the man who loves, “is known by him,” i.e. by God. Knowledge is, in Scripture, according to a Hebrew idiom, often used as equivalent to favour; even as we say we know a person intimately, meaning in the knowledge of friendship. Of course, the Omniscient knows all his creatures; but he has a friendly, fatherly, affectionate, intimate knowledge of those who love him. He reads the language of their hearts. “The Lord knoweth them that are his.” He knows them to watch over and keep, to guide and govern, to strengthen and to save them.

2. On the side of man. This is the implicit statement of the text; for he who in the sense affirmed is known by God also knows God. How true it is that he who loves God knows him too! There are many respects in which we cannot know our earthly, human associates, unless we are drawn to them by the cords of love. Love opens the doors of knowledge. It creates that sympathy which gives intensity to the intuitive gaze of the soul. Thus it is that, whilst many learned and philosophic minds are ignorant of the Deity, there are to be found, among the lowly, the ignorant, and the feeble, those who, with hearts quickened and softened with grateful love, live in a hallowed intimacy with him who is the Father of their spirits and the God of their salvation.T.

1Co 8:5, 1Co 8:6

The unity of God.

The Apostle Paul had been trained in the monotheism which had from the first been the belief of the Hebrew race, and from which they had not for centuries previous to his time ever swerved. But as a preacher of Christianity, a religion which aspired to world wide empire, he was constantly brought, especially as the apostle of the Gentiles, into contact with the worshippers of idols, both philosophic and popular. And he was often called to be the counsellor of those who, although called out of heathenism, still lived in a heathen atmosphere and were entangled in consequence in not a few practical difficulties. In discussing for the benefit of these Corinthian questions of conduct arising out of their necessary association with those who practised heathen customs, Paul took his stand boldly and uncompromisingly upon the great religious doctrine of the unity of God.

I. THE UNITY OF GOD IS CONTRASTED WITH POLYTHEISTIC BELIEF AND WORSHIP.

1. The deities of the heathen are called gods. They are called, but they are not; it is a delusion. “An idol is nothing in the world.” The grand denunciation of the Hebrew psalm occurs to the mind: “Eves have they, but they see not,” etc.

2. These deities are deemed “gods” and “lords.” They were and still are, in heathen lands, deemed superhuman, supernatural, and are invested by the imagination with some claims to the homage, reverence, and service of intelligent men.

3. They are in number many, every river and grove having its deity. It is well known that the heathen had. even their household gods, e.g. the Romans their lares et penates.

4. They have their several localities and ranks and. realms of dominion. They are “in heaven,” as the superior Olympian deities; or “on earth,” as those inferior numina which haunt this lower world, nymphs and fauns and, dryads, etc. Such was the system which Christianity found, with which Christianity came into conflict.

II. THE UNITY OF GOD FURNISHES A CENTRE AND AN AIM FOR THE NEW RELIGIOUS LIFE OF MEN.

1. In himself he is “the one God, the Father.” In itself this was a glorious revelation; and in Jesus Christ provision was made for its wide promulgation and acceptance.

2. He is the Creator and Upholder of all; “Of whom are all things.”

3. And especially he is the great Object of our faith, love, and devotion. We are “for, .. unto him.” It is at this point that the great revelation of the new theology becomes the great motive of the new religion. Polytheism distracted the minds of the worshippers, and made it impossible that faith in God should become the inspiration of a new and better life; for it was a questionWhat measure of reverence and of service shall be offered to this deity, and what to that? But Christianity revealed one God, in whom are all perfections, and who is not only the Creator but the moral Governor and Saviour of mankind. They who live to serve this God have an elevating, purifying, powerful aim in the conduct of their life.

III. THE UNITY OF GOD FURNISHES THE NOBLEST MOTIVE TO THE NEW RELIGIOUS LIFE.

1. The one God is made known by the one Lord Jesus Christ. It is a misunderstanding of the Scripture doctrine to conceive of this view of the Redeemer as conflicting with the monotheism which is the glory of the Bible revelation. The one Lord reveals the one God, as the Word. reveals the Utterer, as the Son reveals the Father.

2. Christ is the universal Mediator, “by whom are all things.” This is the doctrine of John as well as of Paul. And we may well understand the moral as well as the physical creation to be included. For all the Blessings which the Father destines for humanity he has resolved to confer by Jesus Christ.

3. We as Christians are what we are “through him.” As in the former clause we recognized the great aim, so here we recognize the great means and motive of the new, the distinctively Christian life. The Divine nature and mediation of Immanuel, so far from obscuring our belief in the unity of God, is the best and strongest and most effectual support of that doctrine. Even as Jesus himself said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” and “No man cometh unto the Father but by me.”T.

1Co 8:8, 1Co 8:9

Christian liberty.

No doubt Paul was regarded as the great champion of liberty. The apostles at Jerusalem were more under the influence of the old Judaism; Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, gained a larger spirit of tolerance through his association with men of various races and habits. The Spirit of God set him free from restraints by which many good men were fettered. To him the party of knowledge, of emancipation, of liberalism, would naturally look for countenance and encouragement, when scruples about trifling matters of outward observance perplexed the conscience and threatened to divide the Church. And, so far as his views of religion were concerned, Paul was with this party; yet, as this passage reminds us, in his view, religion had one side turned towards God, and another side turned towards men, and he would not have this second side overlooked.

I. THE INDIFFERENCE, AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE, OF OUTWARD OBSERVANCES.

1. The general doctrine. It is not what we eat or abstain from eating that God regards, that God will judge us by. The reasons for this doctrine are obvious.

(1) The nature of God, who is a Spirit, and in whose view what is spiritual is of overmastering and supreme interest. Priests in their pettiness may think matters all important which in God’s sight are trifles light as air.

(2) The nature of man, who is a reasonable and spiritual being, and whose highest welfare cannot consist in what food enters into his body and what food he refrains from partaking.

(3) The nature of Christianity, which is a spiritual religion, and seeks to take possession of human nature and so to influence human life. It is not ,a religion of feasts and fasts, but a religion of faith, hope, and love.

2. The special application of the doctrine. The query propounded by the Corinthians is fairly answered. It is as though Paul had said, “So far as God is concerned it makes no difference at all whether you belong to the scrupulous party, and refrain from eating meat which may possibly have been offered in idol sacrifice and worship, or to the liberal party, and, despising such distinctions, eat whatever is purchased in the market or placed upon the table. These habits of yours cannot make you either better or worse, cannot commend you to God or involve you in his displeasure; he looks at something very different from such things.” So with parallel cases; matters may have importance as regards the Church, as regards human society, which are utterly unimportant as regards our relation to God.

II. THE DANGER OF CARRYING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY SO FAR AS TO INJURE OUR FELLOW MEN. A Christian in these early days might be himself quite superior to the small scruples by which his neighbours were influenced. But, at the same time, he might be justly called upon to consider his weak brethren, and not to put an occasion of offence in the path of any. The best things may be abused, and it is often so with liberty. Paul cared not a whit for idol feasts and sacrifices, and, had he considered only himself, he would have eaten meat that had been presented in an idol temple; but he cared for his brethren, and he cared for them all the more if their knowledge was slight, their faith feeble, their apprehensions of spiritual realities obscure. He would not break the bruised reed; he would rather abstain than injure a brother’s conscience. It was a grand view of Christian duty this which Paul took; a noble resolution this which Paul formed. A lesson to the whole Church of God in all the various phases of experience and trial through which it is called to pass. Let Christians think first, indeed, of their own position in the sight of the heart searching God. But let them not omit to think of their relation to their brethren in Christ, and let them so act that none may be troubled in conscience or caused to fall by reason of any want of consideration and sympathy, by reason of any disposition to push liberty to too great an extreme. God is our Lord; yet his people, however feeble, are our brethren. Their interests are dear to our hearts, and our intercourse with them is to be guided not only by wisdom but by charity.T.

1Co 8:11

The brother’s claim.

It seems as though Paul treated of this case of conscience at inordinate length. Perhaps this would be so were it not that, in disposing of this difficulty, the apostle was really disposing of many other difficulties which should emerge in the course of the centuries. Principles are laid down in this “casuistical” portion of the Epistle which are applicable to Christian conduct in varying states of society and throughout all time.

I. THE DANGER TO CHRISTIAN BRETHREN OF THE UNRESTRAINED INDULGENCE OF LIBERTY. Let a Christian man consider only what will commend him to God, what is in accordance with his right and liberty; and what will be the result? This passage makes this very evident, showing that for an enlightened Christian to partake of food offered to idols may prove prejudicial to weak brethren, who take such conduct as a sanction of idol worship and of idolatrous practices generally. No doubt this is a misconception, but it is a misconception which is likely, which is certain, to happen. Thus the man of weak conscience, of little enlightenment, has his nature defiled and hardened, and, according to the very strong expression of this verse, is in danger of perishing. An awful, unforeseen, consequence to follow upon the indulgence in Christian liberty. The possibility of such a consequence is in itself sufficient to make a liberal Christian pause lest he should carry his liberty too far.

II. THE GREAT CHRISTIAN MOTIVE WHICH RESTRAINS THE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY. The apostle calls upon the enlightened Corinthians to consider who he is whose welfare and salvation are endangered by the course supposed.

1. He is a brother. Who will say, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” On the contrary, the spiritual bond that unites the people of Christ one to another is so close and precious that anything that threatens its permanence should be regarded with suspicion and dread.

2. Not only so; he is one for whom Christ died. Observe the contrast which is so powerfully presented in this language. The Lord of glory died to ransom and to save each disciple and friend of his; submitted for his sake, not to inconvenience and restraint, but to sufferings, to the cross, to the grave. And shall any follower of the Lord Jesus treat with contempt even the weakness and prejudice of one whom the Lord of glory so pitied that he gave up his own life to save? Who are we that we should act in a manner so contrary to the action of our Divine Lord and Leader? Let him be our Example, as in other things, so in this; let his self sacrifice be our model and motive, that with a sympathizing and affectionate disposition we hold dear the security and well being of every Christian brother, however ignorant and however feeble. So far from assisting in the ruin, be it ours to promote the salvation of every member of the spiritual family, every sheep, every weak and helpless lamb, of the vast flock of that good Shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep.T.

1Co 8:12

“Sin against Christ.”

It is a proof of the personal and intimate character of the relation between Christ and his people, as that relation was conceived in the primitive Churches, that it should be the very climax of reproach against any professed Christians because of any course of action they followed, to charge them with sin against Christ, It is surely obvious that language like this could not be used of any merely human teacher or leader. One who was on the one hand so closely united to the Divine Father and on the other hand so truly a Son of man, as Jesus, Immanuel, could alone be spoken of thus. It was not possible to go further in expostulation than by the use of such language as this, addressed to those who considered too little the conscience of a weak brother, “Ye sin against Christ.” To act without due sympathy, consideration, and charity towards a brother Christian is to sin against Christ, because it is

I. TO OFFEND AGAINST CHRIST‘S COMMANDMENT. Our Lord’s great commandment, his new commandment, his oft repeated commandment, was a commandment to his disciples to love one another. He even went so far as to make obedience to this law of charity a test and note of discipleship: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” A disregard for the feelings, the conscience, the spiritual health, of a Christian brother was an evident cud flagrant violation of the Lord’s great precept, and was therefore “sin against Christ.”

II. TO CONTRADICT CHRIST‘S EXAMPLE. Our Lord did not enjoin a spirit or conduct which he did not exemplify in his own life. Whoever reads the record of that life must observe that his spirit in dealing with his disciples was one of forbearance, consideration, pity, and benevolence. He washed his disciples’ feet; he bore with their infirmities and their slowness to understand him; he pitied and instructed their ignorance; he overlooked and forgave their cowardice and desertion; in a word, he laid himself out in every way for their spiritual good. How then could any Corinthian, how can any other professing Christian, be a follower of the blessed Lord, if he display an inconsiderate, contemptuous, unforgiving spirit towards a brother in Christ? In so doing he sins against the Master.

III. TO INJURE CHRIST IN THE PERSON OF ONE OF HIS LITTLE ONES. Jesus laid down this principle with great clearness when he identified himself with his own, assuring us that what was donegood or illto his little ones he should, in the judgment, regard as done unto himself. The Head is insulted when the member is injured; the King is aggrieved when his subject is attacked; the Shepherd is smitten when his sheep are scattered. Whosoever is indifferent to the welfare of the Lord’s servant sins against that Lord himself, and shall not be held guiltless. Christ expects all his people to act as if he were present in the person of every one whom he loves and for whom he died.T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL

1Co 8:1-11

The two guidesknowledge and love.

I. THEY ARE BOTH EXCELLENT. This requires no proof. The apostle who sat at the feet of Gamaliel, would have been the last to speak slightingly of real knowledge. We are made capable of an ever increasing knowledge. How much knowledge has been the means of accomplishing in this world I Ignorance is but a “fool’s paradise;” “Knowledge is power.” And how excellent is love. How dull and sad this world would be without it! How much more prolific in crime and evil even than it now is! One’s only regret about love is that there is so little of it. It is the world’s great want. Herein heaven and earth contrast, seeing that there is much love there and little here. The triumphs of knowledge are great, but greater are the victories of love.

II. THEY ARE COMPLEMENTARY. One is not without the other.

1. Knowledge without love leads to

(1) pride;

(2) intolerance;

(3) selfishness;

(4) injury to others;

(5) many blunders in thought, feeling, and action.

Knowledge is not enough for a people. We may have abundance of knowledge, and yet be very unwise, very injurious, and very unlovable.

2. Love without knowledge leads to moral catastrophe. It is impossible to predict what conduct may result from mere affection. Knowledge is necessary to determine within what limits we may rightly act. Knowledge can decide for us what is “lawful.” Love determines what, within the circle of the lawful, we should choose. Knowledge and love united lead to that more perfect, that penetrating, that true practical knowledge, the opposite of which Paul describes in 1Co 8:2. True love controlling sound knowledge leads to a deeper insightin other words, to a truer knowledge. For example, a man may know God as God; may have some conception of the Divine attributes, etc. But when he loves God his knowledge makes incalculable strides; he now knows God so much more fully and truly that his former knowledge hi little better really, and no better practically, than crass ignorance. Knowledge “puffeth up;” by itself it is sometimes worse than ignorance. Love, not acting without knowledge, but on the lines of knowledge, “buildeth up.”

III. A SPECIAL CASE IN ILLUSTRATION. The Corinthians had written to the apostle respecting their liberty to eat meats which had been offered to idols. The portion of victims not consumed upon the idol altars belonged partly to the priests and partly to the offerers. Much of this meat found its way to the public markets, or was consumed in private houses, at social gatherings, or at feasts in the temples. Christians would be often tempted to partake of these idol meats.

1. The apostle shows that knowledge alone would be a very unsafe guide in such a matter. An enlightened mind would perceive that meats were in themselves the same, whether offered or not offered to idols; and knowing also that “meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse;” would consider the matter as purely indifferent, and to be determined solely by inclination. But here mere knowledge would lead to error. Love, which concerns itself about others, steps in and says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” All do not realize the nothingness of the idol, or the fact that idol meats are unchanged by idol contact. Their immature and weak condition leads them to conclude that the idol is something, and to them the eating of idol meats is an act which identifies them with idol worship. Thus the partaking by the more enlightened may prove both a scandal and a temptation to the unenlightened. Knowledge says, “Do all that you have a right to do;” Love says, “Consider others, especially the weak.” Knowledge alone leads to contempt of the weak and ignorant, and to indifference as to how they are affected: but Love champions the cause of those who specially need consideration and help. Knowledge does not take into account the weak brother, but Love yearns over his welfare, and forgets not that Christ died for him. Love kindled at the cross flames forth in Christ like self sacrifice. Love, directing its glance around, sees that the highest interests of those for whom Christ died may be imperilled if the claims of liberty be too rigidly enforced; and so she leads men to the choice of that “better part,” self sacrifice for the welfare of others. This is the “shining way” once trodden by the feet of the Son of God. This is the path of the truest knowledge; for here we learn not only what we may do, but what in the highest sense we ought to do.

2. The apostle has here no occasion to show that love without knowledge would prove a faulty guide. But it evidently might. Love might lead the weak and ignorant to eat the idol meats, so as to please those more enlightened, and so as not to be a check upon their desires. We need, for safe guidance, the twin guides, knowledge and love.H.

1Co 8:6

“One God… one Lord.”

I. THE ONE GOD. The oneness of Deity is here emphasized. It is insisted upon throughout the Scriptures. The true Israel, ancient and modern, has been monotheistic. The conflict, contradiction, confusion, and absurdity, conspicuous enough in the polytheistic systems, find no place in Judaism or Christianity. The oneness of Deity is confirmed by

(1) nature,

(2) providence,

(3) the moral sense. The one God is:

1. The Source of all things. “Of whom are all things.” He is the great Originator; all things sprang from his creative touch. We know not howthe manner is not revealed to us, the fact is. God may have left much to man’s scientific instinct to discover; he may have intended not a little to remain enshrouded in mystery. We may travel reverently along the lines of true knowledge until they cease for us; then the great truth remains still for our enlightenment and comfort. The march backward of science is towards unity; revelation began with it.

2. The End of all things. “We unto [not ‘in’] him.” What is here asserted of some of God’s works (“we”) applies to all (see Col 1:16). All things were created “unto” God; the object of their existence terminates in God, they show forth his glory, they subserve his purposes. The whole universe looks God wards. So far as intelligent creatures do not find the end of their existence in God, so far as they do not seek the Divine glory, so far they fall out of harmony with the rest of creation and bring failure into their lives. We are not created for ourselves, but for God; we should therefore “glorify God. in our Bodies, and in our spirits, which are his” and for him.

II. THE ONE LORD. This is Jesus Christthe “Son of man” and the “Son of God.” We are here taught that the Head of the Christian Church was the active Power in creation. Of the Deity, as such, were all things; through the one Lord, the second person in the Deity, were all things. Some have been led by this verse to question the divinity of Christ: it appears to teach it in a very impressive and convincing manner. The administrative, mediating position occupied by Christ is indeed recognized, but the assertion that “through” him all things were seems scarcely susceptible of a fair interpretation if his divinity be excluded. Moreover, this very expression, “through him,” is applied elsewhere to God as such (see Rom 11:36; Heb 2:10). And the expression which we have here applied to God, “unto him,” is in Col 1:16 applied to Christ. The apostle is speaking to the Corinthians about idols as “gods and lords.” These were all regarded as deities. In carrying over the same terms to the realm of Christianity, there is nothing in the statements made which should lead us to regard “Lord” as less Divine than “God.”

III. THE SPECIAL RELATIONS SUBSISTING BETWEEN BELIEVERS AND THE ONE LORD AND ONE GOD.

1. Believers are “through” Jesus Christ. As creatures, they are amongst the “all things” which are said to be “through” him. But the additional statement, “we through him,” indicates a very special relationship. Believers are such through Christ; they believe on him. Through Christ they are separated from the “all things” and made a “peculiar people.” All that distinguishes them from others in condition and prospect is “through” him. He is their “Alpha and Omega.” He created all things, and they are his new creationa creation of a higher order and with sublimer ends. Apart from Christ believers are nothing; through him they become “heirs of God.” As through Christ in the realm of nature the chaos became order and beauty, so through Christ men pass from the disorders of a lost state into the excellences and glories of a redeemed and consecrated existence.

2. Believers are “unto” God. All things are, but believers are in a very special sense. This is “through” Jesus Christ. As all the creation under the administration of Jesus Christ is “unto God,” so in a peculiar and lofty sense are believers. They show forth the Divine glories as none other of the human race can. They reflect the Divine love manifested in the transcendent work of redemption. They are presented to God as the fruits of the Divine grace. Their “life is hid with Christ in God.” They are “not their own.” Their lives are devoted to the Divine service. They are “servants of God.” Once rebellious, they are now obedient; once defiled, now purified; once lost, now saved “unto God.” Here is pre-eminently the believer’s condition; he is emphatically “unto God.” Is this so with us? If we are saved by Christ, for what, to what, are we saved? Some seem to be saved for nothing in particular! Many are satisfied with being “saved,” and never ask,” Saved for what?”

3. God is the Father to believers. In a certain restricted sense he is the Father of all. We are all his offspring. But in a spiritual sense God is not the Father of all Of certain unbelievers Christ said, “Ye are of your father the devil.” God cannot be our Father unless we are his children. There must be the double relationship or none. Some are willing enough for God to be their Father, but not willing at all to be his children! But the true believer has received the adoption and cries, “Abba, Father.” High privilege indeed! How it speaks of care, and support, and protection, and guidance, and teaching, and love! How near to God we are brought when he becomes our Father! Our origination is in the mysterious Deity; we are fashioned by the hands of Christ; amid the infinities of creation receiving existence for the Divine glory, we seek our own, and become blots on the universe otherwise so fair; “through” Jesus Christ we become changed, redeemed; by him we are led back to God, and see as life’s supreme object the glory of God, now brought so much nearer to our grasp; and as we reach the dread presence of the Eternal, whence all things come, we lift up our eyes and behold “our Father.” This also is “through Christ.” God is the Father of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ has become our Brother. If Christ be our Brother, his Father is our Father.H.

1Co 8:13

The great argument for abstinence.

I. ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ABSTINENCE OFTEN RUN UPON SUCH LINES AS THE FOLLOWING:

1. That from which we are enjoined to abstain is asserted to he dangerous to ourselves, since we may be led to indulge to excess. Or:

2. Is injurious to ourselves, physically, morally, or spiritually. Or:

3. Is pure waste, bringing with it no real benefit. Or:

4. Is intrinsically wrong.

II. SUCH ARGUMENTS FREQUENTLY LACK COGENCY.

1. The fourth will have no application to the large class of things indifferent in themselves, and it is generally in respect of such that the war is waged.

2. The second and third will generally be open to question. The difficulty of proof is great. Facts, apparently conflicting, will be adduced, and where knowledge is limited and imperfect, the contest is likely to continue, the advantage now seemingly being on one side and then on the other.

3. The first seldom carries conviction, since every man deems it an impossibility for him to fall. Every one else may be weak, but we are certainly strong. The argument against often acts as a temptation, for when human nature is warned of peril it often delights to show how brave and steadfast it can be.

III. THE APOSTOLIC ARGUMENT.

1. The apostle enlarges the view so that others are included as well as ourselves. Abstinence is not for ourselves alone, sometimes not for ourselves at all, but for our fellows. “Look not every man on his own things, but also on the things of others.” Whether we realize it or not, we always decide for more than one. We are units, but united units. We cannot legislate merely for that little area which we ourselves occupy.

2. The apostle recognizes the influence of example. Mentally, we instantly assent to this; practically, we generally deny it. Our words are a spider’s web; our acts are a cable, Men do what we show them, not what we tell them. And we cannot persuade men that we are strong and that they are weak; they will believe the opposite with very little persuasion. Men are like sheep: though the shepherd calls and the dog barks, if one sheep leads the way the others will follow, though it be over a precipice.

3. The apostle asserts the obligation of self sacrifice for the welfare of others. That which is “indifferent” becomes anything rather than indifferent if our indulgence in it is likely to cause injury to our fellows. We are not only to think of others, but to deny ourselves for others. Our sacrifice will often seem very small indeed compared with their possible loss. Here is an argument which will stand where many others fall. It has special force for Christians.

(1) They have a great example of self sacrifice in their Master. They are to imitate him. “He saved others; himself he cannot save.” He “gave himself for us.” The apostle seems to suggest a comparison of Christ’s sacrifice with the sacrifice which he desired the Corinthians to make. Christ died to save men: you are called upon to sacrifice what that men may not fall away from salvation: how little compared with how much! And to those not making the required sacrifice: Christ died to save the weak brother; you, to gratify your appetite, are causing him to perish.

(2) They have a more impressive view of the issues involved in the fall of a fellow creature.

(3) Their non abstinence may be a sin against a fellow Christian (1Co 8:11). The fall may be, not of an unbeliever, but of a brother, associated in Christian fellowship and service. And thus be

(4) a sin against the brethren (1Co 8:12); against the Church, bringing scandal and disgrace through a brother’s fall. And also

(5) a sin against Christ (1Co 8:12). For Christ and Christians are onehe the Head and they the members.

(6) They have in their ears certain suggestive utterances of their Master’s; such as, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” (Mat 25:40); and, “Whoso shall offend [’cause to stumble,’ as in text] one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mat 18:6).H.

HOMILIES BY E. BREMNER

1Co 8:1-13

On the eating of sacrifices offered to idols: liberty and expediency.

Another of those questions which troubled the Christian community at Corinth comes up here for consideration. To understand the difficulties connected with it we must bear in mind that the religious worship of the pagans entered largely into their social life. The victims offered in sacrifice to the gods were not entirely consumed on the altar. A portion went to the priests, and the remainder was either given to the poor or sent to the public market. Thus not only the feasts in the temples, but also private meals, were brought into close connection with idolatrous worship; and the Christians could never be sure that the meat they purchased had not formed part of a sacrifice. It is easy to see how this interweaving of religious with social life would occasion complications and perplexities as to practical duty. To the Jewish converts the eating of things sacrificed to idols would be an abomination. Among the Gentile converts two classes may be discerned.

1. There were those who had been completely emancipated from their old ideas regarding the heathen divinities. To their view these divinities were mere creatures of the imagination, having no real existence; and accordingly they felt themselves quite free to partake of the sacrificial flesh when set before them.

2. There were those who could not get rid of the idea that an idol was a reality, and that consequently everything connected with the system they had abandoned was polluted. Thus the question became an important one, and the decision of it had an interest, not only for the Church at Corinth, but also for other Churches where the same difficulties had arisen (comp. Rom 14:1-23). But it may be askedHad this matter not been already settled by the council at Jerusalem (Act 15:1-41.)? The apostle himself was present on that occasion, and we naturally ask why he does not simply refer to the Jerusalem decree, instead of proceeding to give a judgment of his own in some respects opposed to it. The answer is to be found in a right view of the grounds on which that decree proceeded, which were grounds of expediency. The Gentile converts were enjoined to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, out of regard to the feelings of the Jewish converts among whom they were located. But this reason did not hold good in a Gentile community like Corinth; and consequently the whole subject had to be considered on its merits and in view of the altered circumstances. The question in itself is no longer a living question for the Church, but there emerge in connection with it great abiding principles which never lose their value.

I. KNOWLEDGE AND LOVE. The apostle prefaces his treatment of the question “concerning things sacrificed to idols,” by a statement regarding the relative value of knowledge and love.

1. Knowledge by itself puffeth up. Knowledge without love inflates the mind with conceit. Take the knowledge of God. You may read what is written on the pages of nature and of Holy Scripture, so as to know a good deal about him; but if there be no outgoing of heart towards him, you do not really know him. What you have learned of God will lead to a false exaltation, inasmuch as you rest in it as sufficient instead of advancing to a personal acquaintance with him. Or take the case in hand. The knowledge of the nullity of idols led many of the Corinthians to think themselves superior to their brethren, who could not shake themselves clear of the notion that an idol had a real existence. They were filled with conceit, which, being untempered by love to others, led them to please only themselves.

2. Love leads to true knowledge and true edification. The way to knowledge is through love. This is true of the knowledge of God. “If any man loveth God, the same is known of him” (1Co 8:3). “Every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (1Jn 4:7, 1Jn 4:8). Love gives itself away to the object beloved, opens out the nature to receive impressions, and puts all it has at the service of the loved one. Love to God brings us near to him, and gives us experience of his gracious dealing, while he in turn opens himself to us. It is only where mutual love exists that there is a mutual revelation of heart to heart; and this holds good, with necessary limitations, of our relation to God. We know him only in proportion as we love him, and even his knowledge of us turns upon love. “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2Ti 2:19), in a way that be knows no others. Our knowledge of God is more correctly his knowledge of us; for all we can know of him here is but the alphabet of that more perfect knowledge which comes with perfect love. Now, the knowledge that comes through love is not an empty thing, puffing up the soul as a bubble, but a solid thing, imparting strength and stability. It builds up the spiritual temple within with the stones of truth. The lesson isYou can know God only by loving him, and the measure of your love will be the measure of your knowledge.

3. Conceit of one’s knowledge is a sure evidence of ignorance. The man who is proud of what he knows has no adequate view of the greatness of the object. The more we really know the more humble do we become. This is true of secular knowledge, but especially of Divine knowledge. The glimpses we get of God lay us in the dust. He who is puffed up because he has gathered a few pebbles on the shore has never looked out on the great ocean of truth.

II. THE LIBERTY THAT COMES THROUGH KNOWLEDGE. (1Co 8:4-6.) Returning now to the question in hand, the apostle shows how the faith of the enlightened Christian suggests a ready answer.

1. The idols which the heathen, worship are mere nonentities. Their so called gods, with which they have filled the heaven and the earth, have no real existence. There is no Jupiter, no Mars, no Venus. They are simply creatures of the imagination, having nothing corresponding to them in the universe. This view of the pagan divinities finds frequent expression in the prophets, who ridicule them as mere vanities (comp. Isa 44:9; Jer 10:3; Psa 115:4). How melancholy a picture does this present of the condition of those who know not the true God! Men must worship, and so strong is this impulse that they first create the objects of worship and then bow down before them. It is the blind groping of the human mind after the Most Higha creature, with dreamy recollections of a lost glory, stretching out suppliant hands towards a silent heaven.

2. There is but one living and true God. This is the Christian’s simple creed.

(1) Instead of “gods many,” “to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him.” This Supreme Being is the Creator and Primal Source of all things, our Father in heaven, for whose glory we exist. This is the fundamental doctrine on which all true religion rests, and which at once takes the ground from pagan polytheism. It also strikes against all modern idolatries which are practised in Christian lands: hero worship, mammon worship, etc.

(2) Instead of “lords many,” there is “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.” There is but one Governor of the universe, into whose hands all power has been committed, Jesus the Messiah, by whose agency all things were created, and in whom we are made new creatures. This is the second article of our holy faith. Instead of the endless series of gods and demigods, who were supposed to hold sway over different parts of the universe, “there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus” (1Ti 2:5).

3. From this the inference is plain that eating or not eating of things offered to idols is a matter of indifference. If an idol has no real existence, it cannot defile that which is presented to the image in the temple. The flesh which formed part of a sacrifice is neither better nor worse on this account, and may be used without scruple. Thus the enlightened Christian is freed from the entanglement of such petty questions, which belong to the bondage of legalism rather than the liberty that is in Christ. How important is a full acquaintance with Divine truth! How good it is to be free from prejudice, and to receive the whole truth as to our standing in Jesus Christ! But such knowledge is dangerous if it stands alone.

III. LIMITATIONS TO LIBERTY ARISING FROM CHRISTIAN LOVE. (1Co 8:7-13.) An enlightened view of the nature of heathen divinities delivers the Christian from questions as to the lawfulness of eating what had first done duty as a sacrifice; but all Christians are not thus enlightened. There were at Corinth believers, converts from heathenism, who could not get rid of the idea that the idols they had formerly worshipped had a real existence, and who consequently regarded the flesh used in sacrifice as polluted. A due regard to the case of these weaker brethren will modify the use of their Christian liberty by the stronger.

1. Consider their case. Their conscience was weak, inasmuch as it could net rise to the conviction that an idol is nothing, and was therefore troubled with scruples as to the lawfulness of partaking of a thing sacrificed to an idol. Hence such persons could not eat without defiling their conscience, i.e. without the feeling that they had done wrong. This carries with it principles that have an important bearing upon Christian ethics. It is wrong for a man to do what his conscience tells him is wrong, or what it does not clearly approve. The thing in itself may be good, but if you are in doubt about it you are thereby debarred from doing it. The dictates of conscience are always imperative, but with this there goes the duty of seeing that conscience is instructed. Comp. Rom 14:23, where Paul is treating of the same subject: “He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Apply this to some forms of amusement, doubtful practices in trade, extravagant living, etc. It is not enough to plead the example of others, if you are in doubt regarding their rightness. “Let each man be fully assured in his own mind.” Do not disregard the faithful voice within your bosom, even when it speaks in whispers.

2. The eating of such things has no religious significance. Neither the use nor the abstinence from use commends us to God or affects our standing before him. To abstain from eating for the sake of weak brethren is not to surrender any spiritual benefit. It is a matter of indifference. “The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking” (Rom 14:17). Observe the class of matters to which alone the apostle’s reasoning is meant to apply. They must be such as involve no religious principlecases where accommodation to the weakness of others does not imply the sacrifice of truth or duty. In such cases we are free to consider the condition of our brethren, and to regulate our conduct by a regard to them.

3. The strong must not use their liberty so as to put a stumbling block in the path of the weak. If a weak brother, who had doubts about the eating of sacrificial flesh, should by the example of another be emboldened to eat also, in that case he would sin and his conscience be defiled. The more enlightened Christian would thus be the occasion of stumbling to his brother, bringing him into danger of perishing altogether, and would thereby sin against Christ who died for him. Rather than do anything that might lead to this result, the apostle declares, “If meat maketh my brother to stumble,” etc. This is the principle of Christian expediency, of which Paul is the great exponent, and which enters so largely into the believer’s practical life. It has its root in love, which leads us to “bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). It is an outcome of that spirit of self denial which dwelt in him. “Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbour for that which, is good, unto edifying. For Christ also pleased not himself” (Rom 15:1-3). In applying this principle, note:

(1) It applies only to things in themselves indifferent. Where true Christian liberty was in danger, Paul refused to yield (Gal 2:3-5).

(2) It is not to be confounded with mere time serving or man pleasing.

(3) Each Christian must judge for himself how this principle requires him to act in special circumstances. Total abstinence from strong drink for the sake of others is a good example of its application.B.

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

1Co 8:1

Knowledge and love.

There is a great difference between being “puffed up” and being “built up.” The one implies something pretentious and plausible, but hollow and unreal. It means show without substance, size without solidity, inflation without real enlargement. The other implies the gradual accumulation of substantial materials, on a firm basis, to some useful and enduring result. Now, the apostle would have the Corinthian Christians determine the question of personal duty concerning attendance at feasts in honour of idols, or eating of meat offered in sacrifice, on far other ground. than any supposed sagacity of their own. All, no doubt, had “knowledge.” But there is a higher criterion of judgment than this. Love is a better guide in such matters than knowledge. In all these things let it be that delicate regard for the feelings and interests of others which love implies, rather than any abstract ideas about their own liberty, that determines their conduct. Hence the broad principle, “Knowledge puffeth up, love edifieth.” Consider

I. THE KNOWLEDGE THAT PUFFETH UP. The case contemplated is one in which the purely intellectual element in the determination of moral questions is divorced from right feeling. It is a knowledge ideal and speculative, not vital and spiritual The knowledge of the theologian, the logician, the casuist; not that of the man whose reason and conscience and heart are alike alive unto God. The characteristic of this knowledge is that it makes men vain, conceited, self asserting, “thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to think.” A true knowledge of the things of God has no such tendency as this. “If a man thinketh that he knoweth anything,” etc. (1Co 8:2). Real knowledge in the spiritual sphere is beyond the reach of one who is destitute of humility and love. Even in the realm of purely secular science, true knowledge does not make men vain. The lives of such men as Newton, Herschel, Faraday, etc., illustrate the truth of this. They were men of lowly, childlike spirit. They stood reverently, as with bared head and unsandalled feet, before the infinite mystery of the universe. It is the novice, the mere tyro in learning, the man of shallow thought and narrow view, who is proud of his attainments, dogmatic and self asserting. How much more will it be so in matters purely spiritual, belonging to a region into which our science cannot climb! Take St. Paul himself as an example. While he moved within the narrow circle of Jewish tradition and prejudice, he was probably the very type of personal vanity. His Pharisaic pride was not only that of legal blamelessness, but of theological culture. Had he not sat at the feet of Gamaliel? Who could teach him what he did not know? It is a portrait of himself that he paints in those half sarcastic words: “If thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the Law,” etc. (Rom 2:17-20). But when the light from heaven shone upon him, how was the loftiness of his pride laid low! He “became a fool that he might be wise.” Moreover, this mere theoretic knowledge is as profitless in its effect on others as it is to one’s self. It becomes disputatious, “gendering strifes about words,” etc. There is no “edifying” quality in it. It does not make men one whit the nobler, purer, more gracious in heart and life. It in no way promotes the reign of those Divine principles of “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost,” in which the kingdom of God consists.

II. THE LOVE THAT BUILDETH UP. Take love here in the highest and broadest sense, as including love to God and love to man. These are but two sides and aspects of the same affection. It is an essentially religious affection. There are tender sensibilities and generous sentiments which give a natural grace to human character quite apart from all religious thought and feeling. They may prepare the way for the awakening of this Divine affection, but are not to be confounded with it. Only by personal fellowship with Christ can we rise into the atmosphere of a pure, unselfish, all embracing love like his. Love builds up the temple of God. The separate personality of every Christian, and the complex, many membered personality of the whole redeemed Church, are the dwelling place of God, prepared by gradual enlargement and adornment to be the fitting shrine of his glory; and it is the office of love to promote this process. It is the effective power in the development and perfecting of personal Christian character and social Christian life. In confirmation of this, think of it:

1. As the essential spirit of all other graces. It gives them their highest, richest quality. It is the life, the beauty, the strength, the very soul, of them all. Consider the position love occupies in the circle of the Divine attributes. Truth, justice, purity, goodness, etc., are attributes of the Divine character; but “God is love.” A similar position does love occupy in the ideal character of his true children. We are such poor, fragmentary, distorted reflections of the Divine beauty that even in the best of us this truth is too often obscured. Personal Christianity assumes many formsthe gentle and the severe, the reserved and the demonstrative, the meditative and the practical, the punctilious and the free; but this is the essential spirit of all its forms. It is true to the Divine ideal only so far as this spirit breathes through all its moods.

2. As the bond of Christian unity. Keenness of spiritual insight, zeal for truth, fidelity to conscience, may of themselves have a separating effect; but love draws and cements men together in a real fellowship of life. Differences in opinion, modes of thought, ecclesiastical usage, etc., become of comparatively small account, “so love at heart prevail.”

3. As an incentive to all real Christian activity. It is the distinction of Christianity as a Divine method of moral culture that it bases practical and social virtue on this foundation, casts it freely on the prompting and sustaining power of love. “Love is the end of the commandment, the fulfilling of the Law.” Get your soul filled with love, and you will never want for an effectual motive to all noble living. As the materials of the building arrange themselves and rise into their finished form in obedience to the thought and will of the architect; as the notes fall, as if by an instinct of their own, into their due place according to the inspiration of the musician; as the words flow in rhythmic cadence in answer to the mood of the poet’s genius; as the grass and the flowers and the corn grow by the spontaneous energy of the creative and formative mind that animates them all;so will you rear for yourself the structure of a beautiful and useful Christian life, if your heart is filled with love.

4. As the mightiest of all instruments of blessing to others. By the sweet constraint of his love Christ wins the hearts of those for whom he died. By the almightiness of his love he will ultimately conquer the world and build up that glorious temple to his praisea redeemed humanity, a creation ransomed from the curse. Let his love be the inspiration of our life, and we wield a moral force akin to his; we share his work, his triumph, and his joy.W.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

1Co 8:1

Knowledge and love.

Revised Version, “Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth;” Greek, “buildeth up.” This remark is made at the outset of the consideration of a new topic, it embodies a principle upon which Christians may safely act in any of the practical difficulties that may arise. The precise matter which engaged the apostle’s attention only concerns us historically. It hardly represents any kind of difficulty that is likely to arise in modern society. “In Corinth and other cities meat was offered for sale which had been used for sacrificial purposes in the heathen temples, having been sold to the dealers by the priests, who received a large share of the sacrifices for themselves, or by the individuals who offered them, and had more remaining of their own share than they could use themselves. Thus a Christian might unconsciously eat of meat, either at the house of a friend or by purchasing it himself in the public shambles, which had been previously brought in contact by sacrificial use with an idol.” Exactly how to treat such a matter it was not easy to say. Some had no compunctions in partaking of such food. Others had very troublesome scruples; and only too readily contentions might arise over such a small and insignificant question. Some would say strongly, “We know that an idol is nothing, and so he cannot defile the meat.” Such persons would be likely to laugh to scorn the feebleness and superstitions (as they would call them) of the weaker brethren. Their knowledge would “puff them up,” and make them positive and inconsiderate; whereas the “charity” which “endureth all things, and thinketh no evil,” would make them gentle and considerate, ready to put their own ideas aside if pressing them unduly seemed to offend the weaker brethren. This is the point to which our attention is directed.

I. KNOWLEDGE TENDS TO PUFF UP. This is a fact, attested by the experience of all ages, and well within our own observation at the present time. There is often a positiveness, a dogmatism, and a contempt of others about persons who have a little knowledge, which may properly call for an apostle’s reproof. We must, however, remember that fulness of knowledge is almost always attended with humility, considerateness, and cheerful readiness to serve. It is a little knowledge that has the injurious influence. A man may pride himself on the limited pond in his own grounds, but he must feel humbled when he stands before the boundless ocean, and knows that powers are too small and life too short for him to exhaust the infinite stores. But the point which St. Paul helps us to impress is that knowledge puffs up because it keeps a man thinking about himself. It is always what I have read, what I know; and the egotistic sphere is the most dangerous for any of us to dwell in. “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

II. LOVE TENDS TO BUILD UP. This may be applied both to the man and to the Church. Self seeking and self worship so engross a man’s attentions that the interest of others cannot be served, little things are easily magnified into difficulties, and dissension and dispute are fostered. But “love,” “charity,” cares more for others than for self; concerns itself about the general well being; asks about everythingwhat influence it will have for good or for evil; and puts strong restraints upon personal feelings and preferences, if pressing them against the opinions of others would cause contention. Love is set upon “edifying,” upon “culturing,” upon “up building,’ upon preserving that “peace” in which alone souls can thrive and grow. So St. Paul earnestly urges that love ought to rule and decide in all our Church relations and practical difficulties.R.T.

1Co 8:3

Knowing God, and being known of God.

The construction of this sentence is peculiar. We expect the apostle to say that the man who loves God is alone the man who can be said to know God. There is, however, in his words the under thought of the identity between knowing God and being known of him. Olshausen says, “The knowledge of God presupposes the being known of him: the soul will not vivify with life from above until God has drawn nigh.” It may be noticed that St. Paul, in “dealing with inquisitive and argumentative people like the Corinthians and Galatians, takes care to invert the phrase, so as to exclude all glorifying on the part of man.” The statements of the Apostle John, in 1Jn 4:7, 1Jn 4:8, should be compared with this. Fixing attention on the two terms, “knowing God;” “being known of God,” observe

I. HOW THESE ARE RELATED. Are they two parallel things, or does the one follow after and result from the other? If we take this latter view, which of the two comes first? Show that the knowledge of God is an impossibility for unaided man. This impossibility is shown

(1) from the facts of man’s depraved and distorted nature;

(2) from the statements of Holy Scripture, “No man, by searching, can find out God,” etc.; and

(3) from the actual experiences of men, as individuals or as nations. Four thousand years of experiment left God still virtually the “unknown God.” God must graciously come near to us, reveal himself to us, manifestly concern himself for us, and show that he knows us, or we can never get to apprehend him. And this he has done in the manifestation of his Son. And this he does still in a gracious individual response to the open and trusting soul. If we are known of God, taken into his special regard, and favour; if he “lifts upon us the light of his countenance,”then we can be said to know him. But the knowledge comes always by Divine condescension to us, not by the unaided efforts of our intellect. Our Lord put this truth under another figure when he said, “No man can come unto me except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Those whom God knows, in the sense of “approves,” “reveals himself to,” are those alone who, in any high, proper, spiritual sense, can be said to “know God.”

II. WHEREON BOTH THESE ARE BASED. “If any man love God.” Our best knowledge comes by love, not by intellect. The mutual knowledge of husband and wife, of mother and child, come not by mental study of each other, but by the relations and revealings of love. And so alone can we know our heavenly Father. Let him come near to us in gracious communions, and our hearts will surely find out how precious he is. “We shall see him as he is.” Bodily vision will not be needed, for souls can see. Intellect may stand back, for love can see and feel and know. It will be observed that the love of which St. Paul here speaks is seen, not on its sentimental but on its practical side. It is the charity which takes due account of the frailties of others, and acts with the desire to help them. Charity is the varied expression of the love cherished in the heart; somewhat as obedience is the expression of faith. Faith is seen in good works, and love is seen in charity. John Tauler, the mystic, suggestively says, “Rightly is God called the ‘Master of love,’ for he rewards love; he rewards with love; and he rewards out of love.” See the Revised Version on Luk 2:14, “On earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased,” or “men of good will”of love, or charity. Impress how earnestly we should seek that disposition and character which will bring God near to us, and so give to us the saving apprehension of him. “We love him because he first loved us.” And we can judge of our love to God by our if cling concerning our brother; for “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar;,” “And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”R.T.

1Co 8:5, 1Co 8:6

Not gods, but God.

Two primary and foundation truths of religion were committed to the keeping of the Jews as a nation. They were revealed to, and fully apprehended by, Abraham, and were the reason for his separation from his polytheistic surroundings in the country of the Chaldees, and for the subsequent remarkable isolation of his descendants in the small, compact, yet central country of Palestine. Those two truths werethe unity and the spirituality of God. “God is one;” “God is a Spirit.” It is the first of these truths which St. Paul here reaffirms, in view of the pagan conception of many deities and divinities; and there can be no doubt concerning the clear cut testimony which Christianity makes to the truth of the Divine unity. There is only one God, whose favour and reconciliation we have to seek, and whose claim to obedience and service we must meet. It is true that Mohammedanism also affirms the unity of God, but it adds the questionable statement, “and Mahomet is his prophet.” Christianity does indeed declare that there are “three persons in one God;” and that “Jesus Christ is the Son of God;” but both these truths are to be held, and can be held, consistently with our faith in the Divine unity. We have to avoid the perils of tritheism, and of conceptions of the divinity of Christ which fall short of his essential Deity; for “the Word was God;” “God manifest in the flesh.” In the verses before us we have

I. THE COMMON NOTION OF GODS AND LORDS. “As there be gods many, and lords many.” Paganism peopled earth and sea and sky with different orders of divinities, and imagined gods presiding over mountains, streams, and flowers; over flood and. pestilence and fire; over virtue and over vice; over families and nations. Illustrate by the impressions made upon St. Paul when he first entered Athens. The place seemed to him crowded with idols, “given over to idolatry.” There was a regular hierarchy; and probably a dim notion of one supreme god. to whom the rest were subordinate, but as these lesser gods and lords stood in direct and close relations with men, it was inevitable that they should get all the worship. Illustrate from what is observed in heathen lands now; especially where heathenism is associated with learning and civilization, as in India. Show what complicated social questions arise in that country out of the conflicting claims of the multitudinous gods and lords; and the painful uncertainty which men in idolatrous countries must feel as to whether they have propitiated the right god, or left an offended one still to execute his vengeance. In contrast with elaborate heathenism, the worship and service of the one God is simple and satisfying. Fear God, and there is no one else to fear.

II. THE CHRISTIAN NOTION OF “GOD” AND “LORD.” The two words may be taken to include the Divine Being as an Object of worship, and as our practical Ruler. Our God is at once the highest Being we can conceive, who rightly claims our reverence; and the very centre of all authority, to whose will we must wholly bow. But the two terms may be used to indicate the oneness, yet distinction, of the Father and the Son. The term “lord” suggests the immediacy of Christ’s relations to us. So the word “God” may stand for the essential being; and the word “Lord” for the mediatorial being.

1. The essential beingGod. Four points are here noticed by St. Paul.

(1) God is one.

(2) He is the Fatherthat relation being the most suitable for representing him, because it includes the personal interest of his love for each one of his creatures, which such words as “King,” “Ruler,” “Judge,” “Moral Governor,” do not.

(3) All things are of him. He is the one and only Creator of things and of men. And

(4) we are witnesses for him, who are bound to hold firmly, and show forth fully, this first truth of the one Father God.

2. His mediatorial being. Under this term we apprehend the one God as the Lord Jesus Christ, and we are to see that he is practically

(1) our present Lord and Ruler;

(2) our only Mediator in his manifestation of himself in our flesh and upon our earth; and

(3) our Christian standing and Christian hope are only in him and by him. Fully embracing this truth of the Divine unity, we shall be wholly delivered from the fear of offending the “gods many or lords many,” whether they be fellow men or imagined divinities.R.T.

1Co 8:9

Our dealings with weak brethren.

Our liberty may become a stumbling block to others, and against this we must be constantly on our guard. There will always be around us some “weak brethren.”

1. They may be intellectually weak, really unable to grasp more than the simplicities of the truth, and readily thinking that what they can neither understand nor appreciate must be error. There is also such a thing as mental bias, which prevents men from appreciating or receiving more than some particular side of truth. And this mental bias is often the affliction of men who are otherwise intelligent; and it becomes the occasion of much religious bigotry.

2. They may be weak in conscience. Instead of firmly attesting what is right and what is wrong, their conscience may only present scruples and questions and doubts. It is the same thing to say that they have little power of decision; and feel restless and uncertain, and weakly full of fears, when a decision is made.

3. They may be weak through the relics of old habits. A man cannot immediately separate himself from all his surroundings; and it was very difficult for Gentile Christians to shake off their heathen notions. Missionaries now, in heathen lands, are gravely perplexed by the lingering sentiments and habits of their converts. And in Corinth many could not get out of the idea that meat offered to an idol must be defiled and unfit for their eating Christians. So it may be shown that there are “weak brethren” with us still; some who are offended with higher truths, which they are intellectually unable to reach; others who have scruples about what is permissible to Christians in social life, and yet others who fix narrow limits to the observance of the sabbath, and other details of Christian conduct. Now, St. Paul lays down some of the principles on which we should deal with these “weak brethren.”

I. THE PRINCIPLE OF FIRMNESS. More especially if our brother’s weakness in any way imperils the truth. Concessions to our weaker brethren may go to the fullest length so long as they concern only our personal relations with them. But we may concede nothing if our brother’s weakness puts in peril vital truth. Then we must be firm and stand our ground, and claim our full liberty to receive whatever truth God may be pleased to give us. And it is even found, in practical life, that our brother’s weakness in matters of detail is best met by a firm and intelligent resistance. We need to be especially careful that our dealings with our brethren shall in no way foster and encourage their weakness. Modes of keeping sabbath, or relations of Christians to public amusements, will furnish necessary illustrations.

II. THE PRINCIPLE OF HELPFULNESS; wherever we stand in such relations to the “weak brethren” as may give us a power of influence upon them. If we condescend to them, it can only be that we may lift them out of their weakness into strength. Such helpful influence we may exert

(1) by direct teachings;

(2) by our own personal example. Others may see that what they call “our liberty” in no way injures our spiritual life, and seeing that may best help them to correct their mistakes.

III. THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF SACRIFICING CHARITY. Actually depriving ourselves of pleasures, and what we think to be both permissible and good things, in order that we may be no hindrance or injury to others. Illustrate in the case with which St. Paul is dealing here; and show how many good Christians nowadays abstain from such things as balls and theatres because they are anxious not to set a stumbling block in the way of others. Our practical difficulties in life apply to things indifferent; and in such matters it is proper that we should regulate our conduct by the effects which it may have on others. The true Christian spirit would lead us to say, “Rather let me suffer by abstaining from what I should enjoy, and could do without any personal injury, than let my brother suffer, either by the judgment which he would form of my doings, or by his imitating my example to his own serious hurt.”R.T.

1Co 8:13

The law of Christian self restraint.

No more perplexing questions are presented to the Christian than those which deal with the limitations of his Christian liberty. Were the Christian man alone in the world, or were he assured that his actions would in no way influence those around him, there are many personal enjoyments in which he could freely indulge, and he would have little call to self restraint. He would at least be a “law unto himself,” and need make no laws for himself upon consideration of others. But none of us can live under such conditions. We are not only a “spectacle unto men and angels,” but every act of ours bears influence on some one, affecting others either for good or for evil. And this fact we must take into solemn account. The relationships of life are main sources of our pleasure, but they bring us all our responsibilities, and, though our conduct in all essential things is to be determined only by what is right, in all matters that are left to our decision we are bound to consider how others will regard our conduct; and we should even take into account how they may misunderstand and misrepresent, and so make mischief out of our actions. It is true that “the fear of man bringeth a snare,” but it is also true that the love of man, and sincere desire for the blessing of others, wilt always help us to form good judgments concerning what is prudent and advisable. Sincere hearts are full of anxiety lest, by any personal indulgences or needless displays of superior moral strength, they should “sin against the weaker brethren.” It should be observed that upon things doubtful God lays down no direct rules. The Christian man is expected to make his own wise laws of self restraint. If he be sincere and earnest he will make for himself two supreme laws.

I. THE LAW OF CHARITY TOWARDS OUR BROTHER. That is, in every disputable or doubtful case he will give the advantage to his brother, and act taking into account even his weaknesses. It should be clearly understood:

1. That when, in a spirit of charity, a Christian man puts himself under strong restraints, he does not alter his views of the weakness of his brother’s difficulty or of the possibility of his own acting or enjoying without personal injury. The very point of his Christian virtue is that, while recognizing the rightness of the thing for himself, he refrains for the sake of others. There would be no virtue in his self restraint if he changed his opinion as to the rightness of the act. He holds his own opinion, but in Christian love he yields to the opinion of another.

2. We may also see that, when the Christian puts himself under restraint for the sake of a weak brother, it is that he may gain influence upon him that shall lift him up out of his weakness. It can be no part of Christian duty to condescend to a brother’s weakness, and leave him weak. If St. Paul refrained from eating the meat that had been offered to idols, it was in the hope of presently getting the weak brethren to see that, since an idol is “nothing at all,” he cannot defile any meat. Our charity does not concern the particular case, but the entire well being of our weaker brother.

3. It may further be shown that the restraints under which the Christian man puts himself, by the persuasions of his brotherly love, may be severe and trying at first, but become easier after a while, and will often turn into blessing for himself at the last. This may be efficiently illustrated in the case of a man giving up all alcoholic drink for the sake of helping a brother who is in peril from the enticements of the drink demon. If he be of a social disposition, it may cost him a great deal to give up long settled habits, but he may prove, in both health and means, that the self restraint of Christian charity can become a blessing to him who manifests it, as well as to him for whose sake the sacrifices have been made. God ever graciously secures to us the rewards of right doing, and makes “charity twice blessed.”

II. THE LAW OF LOYALTY TO CHRIST. Our one supreme purpose must be to serve him, and he has told us that what is done unto “the least of the brethren” is “done unto him.” We think that, in the greatness of our loyalty, we would do anything for Christ, and put ourselves under any kind of restraints, were he really here with us in the flesh. But he puts our loyalty under a severe test when he says, “Do to your weak brother, do for your weak brother’s sake, just what you would have done for me.” We think we could go without meat, or put away drink, at once and forever, if Jesus wished. It is Christ’s wish that is expressed to us when we are led to see that our “liberty” is injuring a brother; and our Lord counts it loyalty to him when we restrain ourselves for a brother’s sake. St. Paul makes this plain. To offend against a weak brother, to refuse proper limitations of our own liberty when such limitations would help a brother, is to sin against Christ, even against Christ whoat the uttermost self sacrificeeven died that he might save and sanctify the weak brother. Conclude by showing that the appeal may be made to us, in relation to this matter, which is made by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in a more general way, “Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.” In how few of us the self restraints of Christian charity can be said yet to have reached the sublime heights of self sacrifice!R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Co 8:1. Now as touching things, &c. This chapter is concerning the eating of things offered to idols: wherein one may guess by St. Paul’s answer, that they had written to him; that they knew their Christian liberty herein; that they knew that an idol was nothing, and therefore argued that they did well to shew their knowledge of the nullity of the heathen gods, and their disregard of them, by eating promiscuously, and without scruple, things offered to them. Upon which the design of the Apostle here seems to be, to take down their opinion of their knowledge, by shewing them, that notwithstanding all that knowledge on which they presumed, and with which they were puffed up, yet the eating of those sacrifices did not recommend them to God, 1Co 8:8 and that they sinned through want of charity, by offending their weak brother.

This seems plainly, from 1Co 8:1-3 and 1Co 8:11-12 to be the design of the Apostle’s answer, and not to resolve the case of eating things offered to idols in its full latitude; for then he would have prosecuted it more at large, and not have deferred the doing so to ch. 10 where, under another head, he treats of it more particularly. See Locke; who observes, that to continue the thread of the Apostle’s discourse, the 7th verse must be considered as joined to the 1st, and all the rest looked on as a parenthesis. Elsner, with many other commentators, allow that there is a parenthesishere; but they think it begins in the middle of 1Co 8:1 and ends after the first clause of the 4th.We all have knowledge;we know that an idol is nothing, &c.We know that we all have knowledge, means, “We know that we all, as Christians, have that general knowledge of the vanity of those fictitious deities, of which some are ready to boast as if it were an extraordinary matter, and which they are at some times in danger of abusing, by making it the foundation of liberties which may be very detrimental. But let it be remembered, that knowledge often puffeth up, and is the occasion of great self-conceit and arrogance; whereas it is considerate love and gentle tenderness which edifies, and has such a happy effect in building up the church of Christ.” See Locke, Doddridge, Elsner, and Bos.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 8:1 . ] marks the transition to a new subject, which the queries from Corinth led the apostle to discuss.

.] Since this is taken up again in 1Co 8:4 , it is clear that 1Co 8:1-3 cannot form an independent series of thoughts (Hofmann), but that 1Co 8:3 is the close of a logical parenthesis (not a grammatical one, because at what is its true beginning the construction undergoes no interruption). It is not to be made to begin at ( for ) , as is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Valckenaer, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maier; for the fact that stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense of in 1Co 8:4 ( that ), are decisive against this. The true commencement is only at (so, with older commentators, Pott, Rckert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander; Billroth is undecided on the point), so that the preceding has very naturally given occasion to the warnings which begin with .

, things offered to idols , , 4Ma 5:1 , are those parts of the animals offered in heathen sacrifices, which remained over after the priests had received their share, and which were either consumed in the temple or at home in connection with sacrificial feasts (Dougt. Anal. I. p. 234 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. xxviii. 22), or else (by poor or miserly persons) sold in the flesh market. Comp on Act 15:20 . [1303] The Christians might thus easily come to eat such meat, either through being invited to a feast by heathen acquaintances (1Co 10:27 ), or, again, by buying it in the market (1Co 10:25 ), and thereby offence would be given to scrupulous consciences; while, on the other hand, those of a freer spirit, and with more of Paul’s own mode of thinking, might be apt to make light of the matter, and withal forget how a Christian ought to spare the weak. To assign the strong and the weak to one or other of the four parties respectively, is, to say the least of it, a very uncertain process, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (Olshausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Rbiger). As regards the weak, see 1Co 8:7 , and the remark subjoined to it.

] should not be joined directly with . . [1304] , but the latter clause is to be taken as in 1Co 7:1 : Now, as respects meat offered to idols, we know that , etc. Hofmann, following Semler, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads ( I know, indeed , that), by which he gains nothing but a solitarium , which would be all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause, where he ought to find , follows immediately. There is still less reason here for writing it as two words than in Rom 7:14 , where it is, in point of fact, succeeded by a . The subject of consists of all those, besides the apostle himself, of whom the holds good, that is to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) more enlightened Christians: I and those like myself in this. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp Chrysostom): , . Since and must have one and the same subject, Rckert is wrong in taking the first indefinitely: it is well known . Olshausen understands it of all Christians , and seeks to remove the contradiction between that and 1Co 8:7 in this way: he distinguishes and , making the former to be a certain ground of knowledge in general; the latter, the specific knowledge of how the form and the power of idolatry stand related to each other . But the in 1Co 8:1 , although without the article, has been already defined very exactly as regards its contents by . ., and still more by 1Co 8:4 , so that in 1Co 8:7 can mean nothing else but the under discussion ; consequently the contradiction would remain. De Wette’s exposition is better; he holds that in 1Co 8:1 Paul is speaking quite generally, and, as it were, theoretically (comp also Ewald), while in 1Co 8:7 he refers specially to the Corinthians. But such a theoretic generality would have needed to be expressed by the first person alone without , if the in 1Co 8:7 were to have any logical pertinence; while, on the other hand, if we are to maintain that general meaning in 1Co 8:1 as is stands, we should have arbitrarily to insert into the there the unexpressed idea, “ properly speaking, all Christians as such ” (Ewald), or to give to the the sense of “ should have.” [1307] Others, following Er. Schmid (“we at Corinth are all wise enough”), regard the Corinthians as the subject, and take (Nsselt, Opuscula , II. p. 152, Rosenmller, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt) the words , and then in 1Co 8:4 on to 1Co 8:6 , as quotations from the Corinthian letter, the refutation of which begins with 1Co 8:7 . But this is unnatural; for in that case Paul would have brought the passage . . [1308] , on to 1Co 8:3 , into his refutation as well. Further, it is contrary to the apostle’s habitual way of writing, for he always marks out the words of an opponent as such by some formula; and lastly, it is quite unnecessary, seeing that the supposed contradiction between 1Co 8:1 and 1Co 8:7 vanishes on considering the change of person (from the first in 1Co 8:1 to the third in 1Co 8:7 ).

] have knowledge; of what ? is plain from the context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols should be regarded . The contents of the statement are more fully expressed in 1Co 8:4 .

[1303] Paul, however, makes no reference to the decree of the apostles either here or elsewhere, which is in keeping with his consciousness of his own direct and independent apostolic dignity. Comp. on Acts loc. cit. , and on Gal., Introd. 3. Moreover, this very chapter, along with chap. 10, shows plainly that, in virtue of his independent position as an apostle, he had early enough shaken himself clear of all applications of the temporary agreement come to at Jerusalem which might conflict, upon points in themselves indifferent, with the principles elsewhere enunciated by him, although coupling this with a wise forbearance towards those who were weak to the faith.

[1304] . . . .

[1307] So Elwert, Progr., Quaestiones ad philol. sacram. N. T. , Tbing. 1860, p. 17.

[1308] . . . .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

1Co 8:1-3 . Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to .

The article turns the abstract into a noun appellative.

The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (1Co 4:6 , 1Co 5:2 ); but the love (to the brethren; comp Rom 14:14-15 ) edifieth (1Co 10:23 ), furthers the progress of the church (viewed as , see 1Co 3:9 ) towards Christian perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary to the effectively sympathetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp chap. 13, especially 1Co 8:4 . 1Co 8:2-3 explain the preceding statement, both from the wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love to God.

Since the in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (1Co 3:18 ), Paul characterizes here what he before designated by as a ; and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of believers, he now characterizes the former as . One can hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles.

] anything whatever , any object of the . Pott and Flatt interpret: something wonderful ; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious character of the verse.

. . [1311] ] he knows nothing at all as yet in such a way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character. In order to the we must of necessity have love, which regulates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically salutary. Comp 1Co 13:2 . As regards the repetition of the negative (Luk 23:53 ; Joh 19:41 ; Act 8:16 ), comp Schmann, a [1314] Is. p. 469; Stallbaum, a [1315] Plat. Crat. p. 398 E). 1Co 8:3 . ] with emphasis: he , to the exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge.

] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: “ God recognises Himself in him ;” but it means simply: this man is known by Him . The statement is a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete by saying: “it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the true sense, but also that he is known of God,” the apostle states simply the latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accordance with its holiness ; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. The idea, therefore, is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis , [1316] so that God in thus knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was purposed in His own counsel, Psa 1:6 ; Gal 4:9 ; 2Ti 2:19 . Comp Hofmann, Schriftbeweis , I. p. 258 ff. See also on 1Co 13:12 . Other interpreters supply the thought ut suum discipulum (Erasmus) or inter filios (Calvin), and the like. Comp Usteri, Lehrbegriff , p. 283. But that is to insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est (Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, al [1319] , following Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 762). But this is as much against linguistic usage (see on Rom 7:15 ) as Augustine’s edoctus est (so, too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nsselt, Rosenmller, Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a Hophal. Olshausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, which demands the simple conception of knowing ; he finds in (as in , see on Mat 1:25 ) the bridal (?) relation of the soul to God.

[1311] . . . .

[1314] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1315] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1316] Comp. Constit. ap. v. 16. 3 : , . .

[1319] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

THE RELATION OF THE STRONG AND LIBERAL-MINDED TOWARDS THE WEAK, IN THINGS INDIFFERENT

1Co 8:1-13

A.Not knowledge, but love the rule

1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. 2Knowledge puffeth up, but charity [love] edifieth. And [om. And1 ] if any man think that he knoweth [has known2 ] anything, he knoweth [has known3 ] nothing yet4 as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other5 God but one. 5For though there he that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there he gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 7are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience6 of the idol unto this hour7 eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth [will not affect8 ] us not to [before] God: for [om. for9 ] neither, if we eat, are we the better 9[worse]; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse [better10 ]. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.11 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idols temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened [edified, ] to 11eat those things which are offered to idols; And [For] through12 thy knowledge shall [om. shall] the weak brother [om. brother13 ] perish, [perishes14the brother] for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The instructions and exhortations contained in this paragraph, relate to a still further question proposed to the Apostle in the letter from Corinth, and to the conflict which had arisen in consequence, between two parties in the Church. On the one side were those who, as they believed in the nothingness of idolatry, and were fully conscious of their Christian liberty in reference to all that which was not in conflict with the nature of their calling, maintained their perfect right to buy and eat the meat offered for sale in the market, which had been sacrificed to idols, and also to partake of that which was set before them at table in the houses of heathenyea, even to participate at their sacrificial feasts,15 because, as they affirmed, this flesh was like all other flesh, and that in partaking of it they came into no injurious connection with idols, since idols were nothing in themselves, and so, incapable of harm. On the other side were those who utterly reprobated such conduct, and deemed it pollution; for they still believed idols to be veritable, active agents, that exerted a malign and defiling influence on those who in any way came in contact with themas, for example, those seemed to, who ate of the flesh of beasts sacrificed to them. That the latter were heathen and not Jewish converts, is to be inferred from 1Co 8:7 th, where the expression: unto this hour, points to the continuance of an earlier state, and implies, that those spoken of had been heathen, and were still held captive by their old heathenish notions about the reality of idol gods whom they had come to regard as subject to the one supreme God. This inference cannot be disputed; although it must be conceded also that even by the Jews (Jewish converts) idols were regarded as demons, that were exerting a veritable power in heathendom, and exercised a baleful and defiling influence upon all those who in any way came in contact with heathen forms of life. [To offer polluted bread upon the altar of the Lord, or to eat the meat of idolatrous princes, had been condemned by the warning of Malachi (1Co 1:7-12), the good example of Daniel (1Co 1:8), and Tobit (1Co 1:10-11), and the evil example of Israel at Baalpeor (Num 25:2; Psa 106:28). Stanley]. And this class also must be supposed to have felt a holy horror at the polluted meat, and shown no little solicitude as to the manner it was to be dealt with. The dispute which thus originated, we have no reason to believe had anything to do with the party divisions spoken of in chap. 1. There is no propriety, therefore, in supposing that the more stringent, scrupulous ones, belonged to the party calling themselves after Cephas or after Christ; although it were more plausible to regard the more liberal-minded as belonging rather to the Paulinists, or Apollinarians.

In his theoretic convictions Paul, as we shall see, sides with the liberals. But he rebukes their reckless application of these principles, and also that pride of knowledge which they manifested; and for the regulation of their conduct in this case, he enjoins the exercise of a self-denying love, that subordinated the use of its liberty, to a regard for weak brethren, and gladly renounced its rights in order to avoid all occasions for scandal. And in support of his injunction he points to his own example as set forth in his official labors, (chap. 9th).

[The importance of the controversy which thus arose is obvious. Closely as the whole social life of the ancient world was interwoven with its religious worship, the decision of this question affected the whole relations of the Christian society with its heathen neighbors; and, in fact, involved all the similar, though more complicated questions, discussed in the first four centuries of the Christian Church, respecting the lawfulness of attending on the spectacles or receiving the honors of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, this, although the chief, is not the only passage in which the point is discussed. See Rom 14:2; Rom 14:21; Rev 2:14-15; Act 15:29. Stanley].

1Co 8:1-6. Now concerning.[Here we have the introduction of a new topic with , just as in chap. 7],idol sacrifices,. This is a topic which we see to have already been brought up in discussion, and a decision rendered upon it in the first council at Jerusalem (Act 15:29). To that decision it is remarkable that Paul makes no allusion. [Probably this is to be traced to his wish to establish his position as an independent Apostle, endowed with the Holy Spirit sufficiently himself to regulate such matters. Alford].We know that we all have knowledge.[Many commentators regard these words as quoted from the Epistle to the Corinthians, and assented to, at the start, in a general way, and in a conciliatory manner. They are not, therefore, to be interpreted strictly, nor is all to be emphasized. Kling questions this view (see below), but hardly on sufficient grounds. It is quite in the spirit of Paul]. From 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 8:3, there is a logical parenthesis, as may be seen from the resumption of these words in 1Co 8:4. Before the contents of the knowledge here alluded to are brought out, he introduces an observation respecting knowledge and love, designed to furnish a rule for the whole subject. This parenthesis some [Luther, Bengel, Griesb., Winer, Bloom., Olsh.], regard as beginning with the words: , which is then construed as a casual sentence, and the meaning would be: We know,(because, or for, () we all have knowledge, [we as well as you). Olsh.]. But, in such a case, the clause following ought to read: , but knowledge, etc. It is also opposed by 1Co 8:4, where the following , we know, plainly means, as it does here, that. The parenthesis, then, must begin with the clause: knowledge puffeth upa thought suggested by what just precedes. [So Chrys., Beza, Grot.,Calv., Meyer, Alford]. The things offered to idols were the remnants of victims, whose bitter portions only had been offered in sacrifice, the rest falling partly to the priests, and partly to the offerer. These were sometimes sent to market for public sale, and sometimes appropriated to festivals, either at the temple, or in private houses. And it was about the propriety of Christians eating of these that the question arose. The knowledge Paul speaks of, must be understood to denote a practical insight into the real nature and effects of the things offered (1Co 8:4); from which, however, it by no means follows that is grammatically dependent on . And certainly it is remarkable that while claiming this knowledge for all in 1Co 8:1, he says precisely the opposite of this in 1Co 8:7 : but all have not this knowledge. By way of reconciling this contradiction, some suppose that these words, as also the clause beginning at 1Co 8:4 : that an idol is nothingunto the end of 1Co 8:6, were taken from the letter of the Corinthian Church, and that Paul contradicts these in 1Co 8:7. But in this case Paul would not have introduced these words without some formula of citation; [but is this necessary when some sentiment of another is simply re-affirmed?] and he would have included the observation (1Co 8:1-3) in his counter statement; [not necessarily, for that was directly suggested by the word , and should follow upon it]. Others make a distinction between and , taking the former to mean a certain degree of knowledge in general, and the latter a definite insight into the relation between the form and the influence of idolatry. (Olsh.). But this is arbitrary, since , knowledge, is already defined as to its contents in 1Co 8:1; 1Co 8:4. Another supposition is, that the Apostle is speaking generally and theoretically in 1Co 8:1, and then in 1Co 8:7, with direct reference to the Corinthians (De Wette [Stanley, Hodge, Alford]). But with this the in 1Co 8:1, compared with 1Co 8:7, does not suit. [But why not? As Alford says: The common sense view of two such statements would, in ordinary preaching or writing be, that the first was said of what is professed and confessed, the second of what is actually and practically apprehended by each man. Thus we may say of our people in the former sense, all are Christians; all believe in Christ; but in the latter, all are not Christians; all do not believe]. Still again, a fourth device is to apply , in all, to strangers coming to Corinth (Schrader); but of this the text gives no hint. Finally, the existence of the knowledge in all, is distinguished from the having knowledge, as being more thorough-going, while the latter is supposed to imply a more superficial knowledge; but this is arbitrary. The simplest solution of the difficulty is [?], that in 1Co 8:1 Paul is speaking of himself, together with the more liberal-minded; but in 1Co 8:7, where he speaks in the third person of all, he takes the word in a wider sense; so Theoph. and Meyer. In this case there would be no necessity for resorting to the supposition of an ironical statement (Grotius), which would be inconsistent with the general tenor of what is said in the following verse.

The disposition to pride oneself on this possessionof knowledge, he earnestly opposes, by condemning those aspects in which it showed itself, as among the liberals of the Corinthian Church.Knowledge puffeth up.[The parenthesis is introduced without any particle of connection. This abruptness of transition is characteristic of Paul, and indicates the rapid rush of his thought. It makes an impression of force, which must not be weakened by any attempt to supply the lack. , knowledge, abstract,scil, when alone, or improperly predominant, knowledge, barely. Alford]. This higher insight so much prizedthis knowledge which professes to rise superior to all manner of prejudices, wherever it prevails for its own sake alone, proves an element far removed from Christian perfection,yea, injurious to it through the influence it exerts on the person possessing it. Its effect is to fill the mind with pride, and so to undermine the foundation of that perfection, and disqualify the possessor for furthering the same among others; since for this work there is required, above all things, condescension of spirit,a disposition to enter humbly into the position and necessities of those whom we would instruct. This, however, is just what love () begets,but love edifieth.In opposition to the self-exaltation, manifested by those who, with their higher insight, look down upon others as narrow and bigoted, love empties a person of self, and prompts him to enter into anothers condition, and makes him ready for every service, even to the offering up of his own for others benefit. Accordingly, while knowledge works injuriously and destructively upon the Christian life of others (comp. 1Co 8:9-12), love works edifyingly, building up that life either in the salvation of a brother, or in the well-being of the Church (comp. , 1Co 14:24; Rom 14:19; Eph 4:12; and Osiander, in hoc loco). The thought and expression in , edifieth, is altogether peculiar to Pauls mode of looking at and speaking of things. The whole Christian life is contemplated by him as a building, resting on the one foundation, Jesus Christa figure which finds a point of connection with our Lords statement concerning the house built on the rock and on the sand. The edification here meant combines the theoretical and practical elements, and comprises every thing which serves to advance the Christian life. Neander. The contrast thus briefly indicated,If any one thinks that he has known any thing.In place of , he here puts, () ; and to a person of this sort he denies any such knowledge of a thing as one ought to possess.He as yet knows nothing as he ought to know it( ). By this he means that full, deep, penetrating, exhaustive, morally effective knowledge, which, as a moral necessity in the sphere of true religion, exists in Christianity, and to which Christianity, wherever it has its full moral effect, inevitably leads (oportet). Some adopting the reading, , take as the objective clause to : he has not the substance of that knowledge which belongs to it; he has not apprehended it; but this is contrary to the usage of . The full, entire morally effective knowledge, exists only where love is (comp 1Co 13:2). [Hodges comments on the profoundness of this seemingly incidental aphorism of Paul are excellent. He concludes: The relation between the cognitive and emotional faculties, is one of the most difficult problems in philosophy. In many systems they are regarded as distinct. Paul here teaches that with regard to a large class of objects, knowledge without feeling is nothing; it supposes the most essential characteristics of the object to be unperceived. And in the following verse he teaches that love is the highest form of knowledge. To know God is to love him; and to love him is to know him. love is intelligent, and knowledge is emotional. Hence, the Apostle says, If a man thinketh that he knoweth any thing; that is, if he is proud or conceited, he is ignorant]. From this we should now expect the statement to follow: but if any one loves, he knows as he ought to know. But Paul at once mounts higher. Proceeding from the love of neighbor to its root in the love of God, and from human knowledge to its fountain-head, even Divine knowledge, he says:But if any man loves God, the same is known by him.Where love for God exists,of which love his affection for his neighbor is the essential consequence and expression (comp. 1Jn 4:20),there the individual is known by God. God has, in knowing him, taken him up into Himself, and by this he is translated into the sphere of the spiritual light and life of God, whence there streams into him the very light of knowledge. Thus the being known by God has intelligence for its essential results, even as the love of God begets in us the love of neighbor, (brotherly love). The active knowledge of God follows the passive knowledge. He was known, and, therefore, he knoweth. Bengel. (Comp. Osiander: the assimilation of love and knowledge with their objects). Without recognizing this inward connection, Meyer says, Ed. 1 Corinthians 3 : This is a case of pregnant construction. Instead of saying in full:such a person not simply has knowledge of the right sort, but is also himself known of God, Paul simply states the latter, the more important thing, from which the former is understood of itself. The fact of being known by God, exhibits the high worth of love, for if God knows a man, there is presupposed in this no indifferent and ineffective relation of God to man, but an activity of God which passes over upon the man, so that he, as the object of the Divine knowledge, experiences also the efficacy of that kindly feeling in which and with which God knows him, and hence becomes a partaker of His love, and of His kindly care, etc. The idea consequently is that of an effective knowledge on the part of God, which becomes an inward experience on the part of man, a knowledge which is causa salutis, so that God in knowing the man, carries out in him that salvation which had been decreed in His own counsels. That the Divine knowledge includes in itself a loving participation and complacency, is clear also from other passages (Joh 10:14; 2Ti 2:19; Gal 4:9; Mat 7:23; Psa 1:6). This is all evacuated in the explanation: approbatus est (Grot. and others); and that given by Calvin: inter filios censeri, goes beyond the meaning of the word. But the Hophal construction: edoctus est, is taught by Him, adopted by Nssett and others [Augustine, Beza, Locke, Mackn., Hodge, Bloomf.], and also by the Church fathers, is directly contrary both to the usages of the New Testament and of the classic Greek. [Yet it was very natural to one accustomed to the Hebrew forms of thought and speech, as Paul was]. Billroth hits the truth more nearly when he translates the phrase: God perceives Himself in him; but he puts it in a speculative, pantheistic form. The mystical view of Olshausen, that in , the bridal relation of the soul to God is indicated, goes both too far and not far enoughtoo far, in as much as the context alone affords the analogy; not far enough, in as much as the relation, not of the bride, but of the bridegroom is indicated by the word ,when taken in a sexual sense.

In 1Co 8:4. the Apostle turns to the exposition of the subject in hand, which is at once denned more particularlyconcerning therefore the eating of things offered to idols.[The , therefore is epanaleptic, and simply resumes the thread of discourse].And the thing known is,that no idol exists in the world ( ).Judging from the position of the words, and from the parallel clause, we can hardly separate from the subject, and make it a predicate as if it were: is nothing: [as in the E. V., comp. 1Co 10:19; Joh 21:24; Jer 10:3]. He means that there is no such thing as an idol in the whole world of realities. Of course it will be understood that by the word idol, not the image, but the object represented by itthe idol god is meant. To this he denies all reality, within the sphere of existing things. But according to 1Co 8:5, and 1Co 10:20, this cannot be taken to mean the veritable non-existence of the objects of heathen worship, but only that they do not actually exist in the form conceived and honored by the heathen, e. g., in the forms of a Jupiter, Apollo, etc.,that these as divinities dwelling in the images are but heathen fantasies, and that there is no god, but the One. The is to be referred simply to .

This statement, that there is no other god but One, he at once proceeds to explain and confirm in 1Co 8:5-6.For even supposing that., which, when the main clause confirms and intensifies the hypothetical one, means, if indeed, if otherwise, if namely, in those instances where the latter is contrasted with the former, is to be translated, even if, or although indeed (Passow I., 2, 197).there are. from its antecedent position, carries the emphasis, and in both clauses denotes not merely ideal existence in the opinion of the heathen, but real existence as is evident from the subsequent confirmatory .those called gods.By the epithet called () he here limits the seeming concession, and brings his statement into harmony with 1Co 8:4,they are only called gods, and are not the Divine powers which the heathen imagine.whether in heaven, or whether upon earth.The terms embrace the whole sphere of pagan divinities, [who were scattered about, occupying distinct realms above and below, and thus stood in marked contrast with the Christians God, who filled all things]. This clause is not to be connected with the following, and so made to imply that by gods were meant the good angels resident in heaven, and by lords the demons precipitated to earth, as some suppose.as there are gods many and lords many.[There is a question as to the real import of this parenthesis. Does it concede the fact that there are supernatural powers that are entitled to the name of gods and lords, carrying the chief emphasis in the word are? or are we to supply the word so called, and regard it as merely stating that the imaginary deities of the heathen were many in number? The latter is the more common view, adopted by de Wette, Stanley, Barnes, Scott, etc. But the former is best maintained as being most in accordance with the position of the words, and entirely in harmony with Scripture doctrine. Hodge referring to Deu 10:17; Jos 22:22; Dan 2:47, says: These passages show that the words god and lord are applied in a wide sense to other beings than to the true God. And while it must be affirmed that the whole heathen mythology is a fablethere are demons in abundance, of various ranks and powers, called gods. The two things which the Apostle means to deny are: 1. The existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be. 2. The real divinity of those supernatural beings, who do really exist, and are called gods; they are mere creatures. Such is essentially the interpretation of Meyer and Alford. But Kling says]: It might be inferred from 1Co 10:20, that the beings intended were demons, the of Eph 6:12; comp. 1Co 2:2. But it is by no means necessary in this verse to look for a declaration respecting the reality of the objects of heathen worship; since, as we have seen the words may also express a hypothetical putting of a case, where the speaker plants himself upon a position of doubt. Neander says: , are, expresses nothing but a subjective reality. The subjective stand-points of the religious consciousness are merely put into objective statement; q. d.: with the heathen heaven and earth are peopled with divinities; we, however, recognize but one God and Lord;in general there are many gods, but only for the heathen.By not connecting the clause: whether in heaven or earth, with this, so as to carry the implication that the term gods referred to the good angels still found above, and the term lords to those who had been precipitated to earth and there become demons, we might be left at liberty to refer both these terms to the angels, who are called gods, on account of their participation in the Divine majesty and worth, as the types and representatives of the same, and lords on account of the influence they exerted in their own spheres and their active relations to each other (in their higher and lower orders), as well to mankind and subordinate creatures (Psa 109:4; Dan 10:13). Comp. Osiander, who at the most concedes a secondary reference to the demons here, in so far as they had an original part with the good, and also a show of divinity with a certain degree of reality still cleaving to them.

1Co 8:6 contains now the positive declaration, corresponding to the . The connection is: although so-called gods exist, yet they have nothing to do with us Christians; they stand in no relation to us, and exert therefore no influence upon us,are for us, as if they were not.But for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, also we through him.Since we in faith hold communion with the one God, the Father, who is the source of all things, and on whom all things depend,yea even those gods many whom the heathen worship, and who is the goal of our existence,for whose glory we live and in whose service we therefore stand; and since we hold communion with the one Lord who mediates the being and condition of all things,yea, even of the lords many, whom the heathen fear, and who is the mediator of our existence, viz., of that by virtue of which, the one God the Father has become our end, and therefore of our new divinely consecrated life: therefore are we delivered from all the power and all the controlling influences of those gods and lords; and those things, which the heathen suppose to be related to them and to mediate their influencesuch as the flesh offered in sacrifice,have for us none of this significance; they belong to the all things, which are from God and through Christ, and can inflict no injury upon our new life, which has God for its object, and is mediated through Christ. The as 1Co 4:15.

The expression the Father, indicates that which Christians have in God. It brings out prominently the contrast between the standpoints of the heathen and the Christian; for the heathen have no father in this sense. God has become a Father to Christians only, by redemption. Neander. From this proceeds their spiritual childhood; hence it was not necessary to add: and we from Him and the statement: we unto Him; has its foundation already. By the words, from Him ( ) God is set forth as the creative principle; but these are to be no more construed according to the Pantheistic theory of emanation, than the words, unto Him ( ) can be taken to denote a corresponding absorption of all things in Him. But the all things, must in both clauses be alike understood, of the sum total of the universe, and be referred to the natural creation, whose mediator is the Son of God (comp. Col 1:16), just as much as He is the Mediator of the new spiritual creation, which is implied in we through Him (comp. Eph 2:10). In , as well as in , the phraseology turns into the demonstrative, as in 1Co 7:13. To take , unto Him, as equivalent to , in Him, is by no means required by the relation of the two phrases, and is contrary to usage. It designates here the destination or tendency to communion with God, and with this to the recognition and the honor of God. But by we in this connection, we are to understand, not men in general, but believers.And by the term lord as distinguished from God, he intends as little to deny the divine equality, or the essential divinity of Jesus, as he does by the phrase through Him, as distinguished from from Him: since the all-embracing character of His mediatorial work, far more than the title Lord (comp. 1Co 1:2.) points conclusively to this very thing (comp. Osiander h. l. and Gess. pp. 88 and 51). Among the Jews who spoke Greek, , Lord, was a designation of Jehovah himself. In this text the whole theistic, Christian consciousness is brought out. Billroth and Olshausen here find an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity; Meyer disputes it. Certainly we do violence to the words if we insist on detecting here an intention to set forth this doctrine; its fundamental relations, however, are all here denoted. God is the original ground of all existence, Christ is the mediating principle, and God again becomes the final cause of all through the operation of the Holy Spirit. Neander. In what follows the apostle turns to consider the practical side of the question, in regard to refraining from eating for the sake of the weaker brethren.

1Co 8:7. From what has been said it is plain that the eating of sacrificial flesh has for Christians, by reason of their higher stand-point of faith, no religious significance whatever, and can be accordingly nothing defiling. But, he continues, this consciousness, this knowledge, is not in all. There are some whose Christian faith is not yet so emancipated from the religious convictions of their old heathen state, and who are still in the bonds of their former conscience, moulded by heathen ideas. This was in fact an infirmity of their new life, and of their Christian conscience,yet an infirmity which was to be treated with mildness and consideration:Howbeit there is not in all this knowledge.In reference to the seeming contradiction between this and 1Co 8:1, compare what is said on 1Co 8:1. The article before , knowledge, indicates it as one which has just been spoken of, and is equivalent to this.The antithetic positive statement is introduced by , and introduced in such a manner that the reason of the weakness of some, perhaps a small portion of the church, conspicuously appears.But some in conscience of the idol even until now eat as a thing offered to an idol,therefore, not as common flesh, which as a creature of God is good (1Ti 4:4, comp. 1Co 10:26), but as something that would bring them into real connection with idolatry, (Osiander). According to the order in the received text, the words until now belong to the verb eat; but for critical reasons, these words ought to be placed before , the idol, and thus taken to qualify , in conscience, to which it is attached without the article, according to classic usage, and as in 2Co 11:23; Php 1:26. (comp. Meyer, [Hodge]). does not mean opinion in general, or judgment, or conviction, but, as uniformly in the New Testament, it means conscience, a persons consciousness in its moral and religious aspect. , then, denotes this consciousness as having for its contents or object, an idol, and that too, according to the context, as a real influential power, just as in 1Pe 2:19, , means a conscience testifying of God. Here it denotes a conscience possessed with the idea that an idol is a real being; so that this idea influences his judgment in regard to his conduct: and in this case it stamps the eating of that flesh, as an immoral, sinful act, altering the whole religious state and relations of the Christian who eats, because it is the eating of something connected with a veritable idol, and therefore defiling in its nature.and their conscience being weak.The weakness is found in the fact that it cannot deliver itself from these false notions; nor assure the person of the entire nullification of his relations to idols and to all their defiling influences by his fellowship with Christ, or of the restoration of his true relations to God, and consequently also to the totality of all things, as dependent on God alone and belonging to Him (Rom 14:23). By reason of this, its weakness, itis defiledi.e., by eating. The defilement consists in a conviction of guilt, the conscience being troubled by a sense of the Divine displeasure pervading it. Consciencethe moral sentiment of honorthe watchman of our moral purity, is itself pure so long as it remains true to its own determinations; hence , to be defiled, is a striking expression, denoting the desecration of that which according to its nature and intent is holy. Osiander. If we take the reading ,which may be a correction for on the ground that it was unsuitable, or else a glossthe sense would be: by their habitual wontedness to idols, i.e., because they had hitherto accustomed themselves to idols, had held intercourse with them, the idea of their presence, especially in the eating of the sacrificial flesh, was to them a common one. In any case the Dative shows the ground on which the defilement takes place.After this exposition of the real facts in the case, he proceeds to exhort the Corinthians in reference to the conduct which the more liberal-minded among them, ought to adopt. And first of all he points to the utter indifference of the matter of eating or not eating in a religious point of view, and cuts off all pretext for their unwillingness to adapt themselves. to the weak.

1Co 8:8. But meat will not affect our relations to God; for neither if we eat are we the worse; neither if we eat not are we the better.It is not to be assumed that Paul is here citing the language of the Corinthians themselves in vindication of their eating of idol sacrifices [Barnes], since there is no formula of citation. Nor does the supposition of Osiander, that he is here obviating the scruples of the narrow-minded agree with Osianders own exposition further onward. [Rather, he is laying down a broad principle, applicable to all parties, showing the weak the error of their scruples, and the strong why they ought to accommodate themselves to the weak, and not insist on their rights. This is shown in the selection of words, and in the more critically approved order of the two latter clauses]. The is not adversative, but progressive. By many is construed as precisely equivalent to , to recommend (which also appears in the gloss ); but this has no foundation in usage. The idea is not that of a presentment before God as a punitive judge (context), nor that of an offering in sacrifice (on account of the subject , if nothing else), nor yet that of a presentation of ones self for service (for the sane reason); rather it is that of placing in specific relation, as vox media, so that the two following clauses may be subsumed under it. Accordingly, the meaning is: meat will in no way affect our relations to God; neither so that we shall lose standing with Him in case we eat not, nor so that we shall be better in His sight in case we eat. [So Alford; though Olsh., Robinson, Hodge, Bloomf., keep to the common rendering. The one given above has, however, the decided advantage, as it suits with the following clauses alike]. This explanation of , however, may, perhaps, be too abstract, and we might underlay it with a conception of God as Judge, and regard the presentation as taking place before Him in that capacity; yet it must be in such a way as to anticipate alike a favorable as well as an unfavorable judgment. The sense would then be, that meat had no influence upon Gods judgment concerning us, to determine it in one direction or the other (akin to Rom 14:17). So Bengel: neither to please him in judgment, nor yet to displease him. Paul reminds those who ate idol sacrifices out of opposition, in order to demonstrate their liberal-mindedness, that they by this means were not rendered purer and better. Neander.

1Co 8:9-13. Here follows the warning itself against all reckless use of the liberty [above asserted], or of superior intelligence [in regard to it], grounded upon the injury which would thereby accrue to the weaker brethren, resulting in great coldness of affection, and in severe offences against Christ Himself.But.The is not merely transitional, but also adversative, q. d., eating and not eating are, in themselves, morally indifferent, but, etc.take heed lest your power.=power to do or let aloneliberty of choice springing from the indifferent character of any act in a religious point of viewbecome a stumbling-block to the weak., any thing over which a person stumbles and falls; here, an occasion to sin by awakening an inclination to imitate conduct that is in conflict with conscience,[a practice above all others dangerous to a Christian1. Alford]. (Com. Rom 14:13; Rom 14:20). This he at once explains more fully.For if any man,i.e., any one who is weak in the sense above mentioned.see thee who hast knowledge (comp. 1Co 8:4) [This seems to imply that the weak brother is aware of this, and looks up to thee as such, Alf.].sit at meat, [ lit. recumbent, the usual posture at meals].in an idols temple., an idol temple, just as in 1Ma 1:50; 1Ma 10:83. [This is a term used only by Jewish writers, apparently to avoid designating heathen temples by the sacred word , used to express the temple at Jerusalem. It is a kind of parody on the names of temples as derived from the divinities to which they are dedicated. Stanley]. This extreme exercise of liberty he here touches upon only in reference to its prejudicial consequences. It is in 1Co 10:14 that he first comes to oppose it with earnest dissuasions, after he has cast light upon it from another side. Some expositors, for the sake of abating the scandal of such procedures, construe with a local signification, making it mean only a feast furnished with idol sacrifices; but this is contrary to usage. Others (Osiander) take it to denote a sort of domestic chapel, where sacrificial feasts were held; which is not impossible, but very doubtful. As a rule, the sacrificial festivals were certainly observed in the temple. The consequences of beholding a Christian at such places, are introduced with an earnest interrogative.Shall not the conscience of him who is weak be edified?The verb is not equivalent to impelli, or confirmari, to be determined thereto, to be betrayed, or, to be strengthened, i.e., in the purpose to do something not allowable; but, as in the New Testament throughout, to be edified,only that it is here used antiphrastically, in an ironic sense. [So Alf., Stan., Mey., de Wette. But Hodge, without good grounds, says the interpretation is out of keeping with the whole tone of the passage]. It is an dificatio ruinosa, as Calvin expresses it, a being furthered to something which is destructive to a person that is weak in the faith (comp. 1Co 8:11)a bad way of enlarging the spiritual edifice, inasmuch as it comes to the doing of something heretofore avoided, and that, too, without any conviction of its rectitude, but simply after the precedent of another who has no scruples in the matter, by reason of his superior insight, and in comparison with whom one is unwilling to seem contracted. Any conjectural change of reading is needless. Also the surrender of the interrogative form (on account of , and because then should be equivalent to is ungrammatical. The assumption that there is a play upon words in the Epistle to the Corinthians is gratuitous.

1Co 8:11, whether we read with the Rec. , or , might be construed as continuing the question, [as in the E. V.]. But it would be more emphatic to suppose here a new affirmative sentence,for there perishes.But the most probable text is , for there perishes. And since the for created difficulty, some put , therefore, instead of it; others, since they found both and in different manuscripts, rejected the one as well as the other, and wrote before . [so Lach. and Stanley]. The serves for the solving of the antiphrastic irony involved in , and that, too, in a fearfully emphatic way, q. d., a fine way of edifying, indeed! for, instead of building up, this is a tumbling to utter ruin. The destruction () here meant is the same as in 1Co 1:18, viz., the forfeiture of salvation, that everlasting destruction which comes from acting without faith and against conscience; not, as Bengel says, the loss of faith itself; and still less, a gradual apostasy or moral depravation, or a loss of inward peace. If the word is taken passively, is ruined, the guilt of the person causing this ruin by the abuse of his liberty, will appear still more prominentover this thy knowledge.Whether we read , or , the sense is the same. We have here the cause of the ruin. This is a reckless and unloving use of knowledge. , this thy, i. e., which thou hast, and in which thou boastest. The guilt involved appears enhanced still further by three particulars, which stand out yet more distinctly in the proper collocation of words now critically verified ( after ).the weak one,the one who, of all others, ought to be treated with considerate forbearance, and from whom nothing should be exacted beyond his strength.the brother,a person bound to thee by the closest tie, and who ought to look to thee for assistance in the way of salvation, rather than for a stumbling-block over which to fall and perish. [The isolated and final position thus given to the brother gives a pathetic close to the whole sentence. Stanley].for whom Christ died.And this is the most aggravating circumstance of allthy conduct frustrates the purposes of Christs atoning death (comp. Romans 14), since thou, in behalf of him, for whom this great sacrifice was made, hast shown thyself unwilling to make the petty sacrifice of surrendering thine own right [(comp. Rom 15:1-3). There is a pathos and power in these words not to be overlooked. But mark the possibility impliedthat persons, for whom Christ died, may perish. But whether they ever will or not, will be decided by each one according to the type of his theology]. The result of such conduct next follows.In so sinning against the brethren.He here passes over into plural, and gives them also to understand that he is now treating of no indifferent matter. [The manner in which they had used their liberty, had rendered the otherwise allowable act positively sinful]. As explanatory of this, he adds:and wounding their weak consciences.,striking, and thereby painfully affecting, inasmuch as the conscience thereby is rendered evil and impure. [The word is used to exhibit more forcibly the meanness of the conduct in question; for what is meaner than to strike a thing that is weak]?Ye sin against Christ.Here is where the act culminates and exhibits its exceeding guiltiness. In what way this is done, is shown in the previous clauses. It thwarts the ends of the Saviours death. It is true that Christ, as the head of the body, suffers also in the affliction of his members; but this is not the thought here brought out, (is not even indicated in the words: the brethren). As in the main clause, the third item mentioned in 1Co 8:11 is again taken up, so are the first two, in the participial clauses. Osiander. This unloving use of liberty he shames to the very lowest, in expressing, as the result of these deliberations, his own purpose of self-denial.Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend.The verb , found in 2Co 11:29; Rom 14:21, and frequently in the Gospels, means literally, to cause a person to fall by laying a snare in his path; hence, to seduce or betray into sin, especially by bad example.I will not eat flesh:, the particular food of which he is speaking.for ever; : while the world standetha strong hyperbole, intensifying the strong negative . Here, in 1Co 8:13 the ethical principle for regulating the use of things indifferent, is shown to be love. Neander. [The whole argument closely resembles Rom 14:19-22, even to the particular phrases employed. Stanley].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Knowledge and love are essentially identical. For all true knowledge implies, above all things, a going out from self, and all selfish aims and selfish isolation, and an entrance into something else, in order to apprehend it, and to unite it with ourselves, and ourselves with it; and to assimilate it to ourselves while we assimilate ourselves to it, or, in other words, penetrate into its essential idea, give ourselves up to it, and then recast it, as it were, within ourselves. This is an act of the Spirit, in which all rigidity of mind is subdued, in which the individual descends from the isolated heights of his own separate individuality, surrenders or annihilates all mere self-serving; and at the same time confesses that he is not sufficient for himself, but stands in need of another, and only in connection with that other can find true satisfaction and the fulfilment of his own destiny. Thus humility appears as an essential element of all true knowledge; and from this it follows, that where there is self-exaltationwhere a person means to aggrandize himself by his knowledge, there true knowledge cannot exist. Aside from this also, experience teaches us that those, who have gone down into the profundities of knowledge, are always truly humble; that with them, in presence of the greatness of the object studied (which, the more it is explored, exhibits the more its inexhaustible fulness and depth), their own individuality gradually dwindles and is lost from sight.But it is precisely in this also that love consists. In its exercises, self passes out of its exclusiveness, and enters into some other object; and for the sake of this, it opens all its inner treasures in order to impart themto have them no more for itself alone, but to enjoy them in fellowship with it. And this, in the sphere of personal life, by reason of the reciprocity and communion implied in love, is followed by a supplementary action; since the person beloved loves in turn, and requites his lover with all he has. In such self-renunciation, humility is an essential element; it implies a readiness to be abaseda willingness to live for others, for their service and the furtherance of their welfare. And this is so even with the more gifted as well as with those less endowed; as is seen in the simplicity with which the latter accept, and the former impart gifts; and also in the readiness with which the former refuse to avail themselves of their superior insight and larger liberty in the enjoyment of things morally indifferent, and in the assurance which the latter feel that the others may be acting rightly even where they, contemplating the matter from their position, do not feel at liberty to consent to the same, and to imitate them.Such humble love includes a sound reciprocal knowledge; as, on the other hand, sound knowledge involves such love. But the root of both lies in the knowledge and love of God. The soul that opens itself God ward, that apprehends Gods truthHis living creative thoughts, is thereby made able and willing to search for the imprint of these thoughts in the rational as well as in material creation, to pass out of self into them, to become absorbed in them, and by appropriating them to become itself enlarged, or to fill with them all forms of existence that, by virtue of their resemblance to God, carry in themselves the types of creaturely life.And this is an activity in which the individual can no longer remain egotistical, self-seeking and self-satisfied. But in carrying it out, he must renounce himself more and more, losing himself, as it were, in the depths of God and His creation, yet by this very means becoming more truly great, and rich, and glorious.But such an opening of the intelligence towards God is at the same time an opening of the loving heart towards Him, which carries with it an opening of the heart towards all creaturely life that is grounded in the life of God, and is loved and cherished by Him,especially that personal life which bears Gods image, and was formed for communion with Him; and, consequently, it implies a personal devotion to it for the sake of communicating some good to it in humility and self-denialBut where there is such a love for God, there the person is known of God; and this involves a being loved by Him. And this is the primal source of all human knowing and loving. While God opens Himself lovingly toward the creature which He hath made out of sheer lovefor an urgent desire to impart His own fulness to something needing it, He by this means draws it closely to Himself; and the more it follows this Divine attraction in hearty devotion, and thus loves God in return, the more is it recognized by Him as Hisas belonging to Him by a voluntary determination, and taken up into the light of His Divine life, and illuminated by this light so that it becomes truly intelligent and knowing.

[For the connection of knowledge and love, see 1Jn 4:7-8 : Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God; he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.For the identification of Gods knowledge with His love, comp. Exo 33:17; Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. Also Joh 10:3 : He calleth His own sheep by name.For the identification of Gods knowledge of man with mans knowledge of God, comp. the similar blending of the spirit of man with the Spirit of God in Rom 8:15-16; 1Co 2:11; also Joh 10:15 : As the Father knoweth me so know I the Father.And then for the general turn of the whole expression, as implying that every part of our redemption, but especially our knowledge of God, is more properly His act than ours, see 1Co 13:12 : Then I shall know, even as also I am known; Gal 4:9 : Now having known God, or rather having been known by Him; Php 3:12 : If I may apprehend that for which I am apprehended by Christ. Stanley].

2. Christian liberty, its nature and limitations. According to Luthers spirited exposition in his tract entitled The freedom of a Christian, a Christian through faith becomes free from all men, but through love is made the servant of all. This truth finds application also here as well as in 1Co 7:29 (see Doctrinal and Ethical in loco). In the consciousness of his fellowship with God the Father through Jesus Christ the believer knows himself to be exalted above all things. His Father is the one God who is the ground of all things and on whom all things depend; and the mediator of this new life in fellowship with God is the one Lord through whom are all things. In this their relation to God through Christ, then he ought to regard and use all things. However these may be regarded and used by others, to him they are nothing else than the works and gifts of God; through them, the Supporter of their being and existence becomes the Supporter of his life in the family of God; to him are they furnished for free use and enjoyment, entirely apart from all other associations which they may awaken in the consciousness of others. Thus to the Christian the flesh of those beasts, which have been offered to idols, is only the component part of a creature of God, the enjoyment of which is granted him by the Creator; and so far as he partakes of it with thanksgiving for the goodness therein shown, it is to him pure and harmless (comp. 1Ti 4:3).But although free through faith, the believer is, on the other hand, bound through love, and comes into dependence on his brethren. If the use of the creature in question is a matter of indifference as it respects his fellowship with God and his worth in Gods sight, while yet, on the other hand, in the view of his weaker brethren, who have not acquired that fulness of faith, and whose religious convictions on the point are still wavering, such conduct is questionable, by reason of its seeming contact with idolatry, and if they are not yet sufficiently independent to refrain from following the example of a person held in repute for superior discernment, then love demands that we pay regard to such characters, and not set before them an example which will betray them into sin, nor do aught that will prove a stumbling-block in their path. To be reckless on this point and to enjoy our liberty regardless of how we defile the consciences of others, undermine their relation to God, and hazard their eternal salvation, is to evince an utter lack of love by reason of which not only is the weak brother injured, and fraternal obligations violated, but also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who for the sake of this very brother offered up His own life, is aggrieved in the frustration of the ends for which His sacrifice was made. Hence it follows that the love of Christthis love which embraces alike the weak and the strong and by faith becomes an indwelling and controlling power in the heart of every true Christian, must prompt the strong to condescend toward the weak, and to become as weak to the weak (1Co 9:22), and in their conduct relatively to them to seek to avoid whatever for themselves may be of indifferent character whenever there is reason to fear that the religious life of the weak may be endangered.

[This is a principle, however, the application of which must be left to every mans conscience in the fear of God. No rule of conduct, founded on expediency, can be enforced by church discipline. It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for fear of causing others to offend; but he could not have been justly exposed to discipline had he seen fit to eat it. He circumcised Timothy and refused to circumcise Titus. Whenever a thing is right or wrong according to circumstances, every man must have the right to judge of those circumstances. Hodge. The same holds good in regard to the drinking of wine, engaging in amusements, observance of the Sabbath and the like].

3. [The intelligent conviction of right is essential to all right action. The demands of a sound morality are not satisfied by the blind copying of anothers example, however highly the person may be esteemed. As beings endowed with moral discernment, and subjected to conscience, it becomes us to go farther, and endeavor to ascertain the fundamental principles which should rule in the conduct, and which make a thing right in itself, and right for us, and then govern ourselves by these. It is to these principlesenthroned in the conscience, informing and enlightening itthat our prime allegiance is due. The mature will can acknowledge no other sovereignty without being false to itself, and losing its own integrity.And still less can we go against the dictates of conscience in following some other assumed rule. The authority of conscience is paramount over all other, and its veto is a sufficient interdict upon all differing standards of action. Even that which is right in itself, becomes wrong for any individual when his conscience pronounces it wrong. Yea, paradoxical as it may seem, it must be affirmed that although it may sometimes be sinful for us to obey consciencesince it may sinfully enjoin wrongit is always sinful for us to disobey it. Accordingly, when it prohibits wine-drinking, and theatre-going, and indulgence in games of chance, and the giving of sumptuous entertainments, and extravagance of attire and the like, then must these things be avoided, even though sanctioned by the practice of thousands of Christians deemed reputable. But while it is our imperative duty to obey conscience as it is, it is our business to do all we can to enlighten and instruct it in the truth. This private monitor, like the watch we carry for our constant convenience, may be inwardly deranged, and go wrong; and, like that, it needs to be regulated by some absolute standard. And this standard is the Sun of righteousness, as it shines upon us through the Divine Word and Spirit. These, therefore, must be consulted more and more, until conscience be purified from all errors, and obedience to it become perfect righteousness].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Augustine:

1Co 8:1. What art thou, O man, thou who art inflated with conceit! Let it suffice thee that thou art full (Eph 1:23)! He who is full, is rich; who is puffed up, is empty.

Bernhard:

1Co 8:3. So much as thou lovest, so much thou knowest.

Starke:

1Co 8:1-3 (Hed.). Pride corrupts all, even the best things. Knowledge is good; but with pride, poison; a bubble in its iridescence is beautiful to look upon, yet full of wind. The knowledge even of divine things, not possessed with humility, nor applied to right uses, is vanity in the sight of God.Love must be the queen of life; heart, of the understanding; aim, of the undertaking. Love is the infallible token of those in favor with God.1Co 8:4-6. There is, indeed, only one God. But does not every sinner make to himself as many gods as there are creatures he loves, and so erect idols in his heart? Let each search and see (Col 3:5; Php 3:19). O joy! many lords, yet only One; they have the title, but the One alone has the right and the might of lordship; and He is Christ unto whom it becomes us to live and to die (Rom 14:8).

1Co 8:7. Were Christians more clear and settled in divine knowledge, they would drop much which they consider right, and do many things they now condemn as sinful.As the smallest grain of sand causes to the eye great pain, so does the slightest deviation from Gods law cause to the wakeful conscience great disquiet.

1Co 8:8. Food belongs to the outer man; therefore, of itself can have no effect on our Christianity.1Co 8:9-10. The strong in faith must take heed to his conduct for the sake of the weak, lest they see and hear of something which may cause them to stumble and perish (Mat 18:6).

1Co 8:11-13. Even the weakest brother is of great account; since for him Christ died no less than for the strong; and those whom Christ honors are not to be lightly esteemed. The contempt put on such falls on Christ (Mat 18:10 ff.). All sins against our neighbor are also sins against God, who has commanded us to love our neighbor. And this statement holds good of all such acts which, though not in themselves sins, yet cause others to offend, such as associations, amusements, fashions, and the like. Who says, Why should I care? Let him be scandalized who will? God knows my heart, that I do not cling to these things, let such a person understand that he has neither repentance, nor faith, nor love in his heart. God knows that he clings not only to these things, but to the world, and the devil, too. What! Thou wilt not yield a hair, and carest not whether thy neighbor find life or death in thy doings!

Berlen. Bible:

1Co 8:1-3. A great outrage is committed when people say: We have clearer knowledge; we have no scruples; we know the matter is of no consequence. A Christian must do nothing except on good grounds, and for this he himself must be grounded in love. Gospel knowledge consists not in vain, lifeless notions, which inflate the mind, but it is a quickening power [which, while it illumines, also sanctifies. Life is the light of men]. Knowledge alone intoxicates; but love sobers. A sound knowledge is essential to Christianity; and this begins to show itself as soon as one loves the right. For as soon as a person turns to God in penitence, God turns and shines on him. He who desires only to love, and for this will humble himself to the very ground, will be instructed of God. As he unites love with knowledge, God will accept him; and being approved by God in his knowledge, he will then, for the first time, rightly know, viz., in the love and power of God; since he will then have the power of the Spirit in his own soul, and feel and possess the Spirits presence and operations. Of this kind of knowledge, humanly taught scholastics know nothing.

1Co 8:4-6. An idol does, indeed, exist only in the fancy of its worshippers, yet we are not on this account to deal with it at random. Often are we obliged to be on our guard, even when we see nothing.Is God verily to us the sole God? The faith which is held is not sufficient; there must also be a faith which holds. God must be to us the all in all. It is then we honor the Father as the father of all that bear the name of children; and who is also our Father; and to whom we shall again return suitably to the purpose of our creation. Christ has battled for us unto blood; hence, He has become anew our Lord, after the flesh. Apart from this, He was our Lord from all eternity.

1Co 8:7. What is not done with assurance of faith, is done lightly or wantonly.

1Co 8:8. Boldness in eating [i. e., in the maintenance of our liberty as to matters indifferent] is no indication of growth in Christianity.

1Co 8:9-11. It does not follow that because an act is in itself allowable and harmless, it may be done without reflection. Nothing that does not accord with the rules of faith and love ought to be practised. A freedman of the Lord does not seek his enjoyment in a lawless liberty.Many eagerly long for, and quickly grasp at, liberty. But to be truly free, a person must be able and willing at times to give up his freedom. A love that is free looks not to its own advantage, but to the good of others; especially to those whose spiritual foundations are disturbed by the liberty they see taken by their fellows. That is a poor sort of edificationa building upon the sand, when a person blindly abandons himself to anothers guidance, and imitates him on the presumption that he is a wise man.Take heed that thou provest not the means of destroying the smallest heartfelt obedience in the humblest Christian novice. Consider how near that person stands to thee for whom Christ died.Vv.12, 13. To look more to ones self than to others to sin against those to whom we owe affection, to break the bruised reedthis is to sin against Christthat Saviour who was ever moved to pity and uphold others.It is a delicate thing to have to deal with a tender conscience. A truly Apostolic spirit voluntarily makes himself the servant of all. Even when in the right, love makes us surrender our rights whenever and because the mind of Christ is in us.

Rieger:

1Co 8:1-7. To be known of God as His, and so to become assured of our knowledge, that it is exercised in the fear and love of God, this is the main thing. God is the origin of all knowledge. In this fact lies the foundation of all humility; and the end and aim of all knowledge [on earth] is the edification of our neighbor.Through the light of the Gospel shining from the sole Godhead in heaven and upon earth, all false fears and all vain confidences are banished; and we have only to keep our hearts collected in faith, and prayer, and worship, towards this one God, and towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and to maintain fellowship one with another.

Heubner:

1Co 8:1-3. Knowledge is subject to a double danger, viz., that it be without love, and become an end in itself, and that it step beyond Scripture limits, and beget vain self-conceit and contempt toward others.The conceit of superior wisdom is a mark of folly; true wisdom humbles us, and teaches us how little we know, and brings us to recognize the right end and aim of knowledge in the glory of God and in the salvation of our neighbor.The humble person, in whose heart love dwells, has the faculty for clear discernment.

1Co 8:4-6. There is only one God; but His worship is injured if we fasten our affection on vanities as if they were realities. Much, in itself innocent, becomes criminal by reason of the thoughts and intentions connected therewith. Even the creations of our fancy may become sin. The vanity of idol-worship should teach us the infinite worth of worshipping the true God, and the great merit of Christianity in that it eradicates this deeply-rooted and widespread superstition. The sum of Christianity, as distinguished from Heathenism and Judaism, is this, that the one God, the Creator, has revealed Himself as the Father through Jesus Christ.

1Co 8:7. The lack of liberal insight is no sin, and can involve no disgrace: but to act against ones own conscience, and to betray others into doing the likethis is sin. By this rule is every enjoyment to be judged. The question is not, What is it in itself? but, How does it appear to others? Hence, the injunction: spare weak consciences.

1Co 8:8. Freely to allow all things, makes no one better; self-restraint, renunciation, obligation, dishonors not. But the fear of appearing weak and piousthis is what makes truly weak.

1Co 8:9. True strength and genuine freedom are best shown in being able to limit our freedom through love to God, and in behalf of others. The stronger, the tenderer, and the more sparing! If thy freedom betrays others, thou fallest thyself! Unfortunate knowledge, which occasions others the loss of a good conscience! Conscience is the holiest, the tenderest thing in man, and it suffers from the slightest touch. Also Christs heart is wounded, if we wound one of His believing ones. The enjoyment of our liberty at random, and the offence committed, stand in no comparison with each other. The former is vain, worthless, needless; the latter is corrupting and criminal.

Besser:

1Co 8:1. The first person puffed up was the devil. All refined opinions, which keep superstition far aloof, all correct views of Gods being and word, are empty as wind clouds which bring no rain, when they bring not forth the fruits of love.

1Co 8:2. Not one single item of divine truth has attained to power in us as it should, if it does not divest us of our conceit and selfishness.

1Co 8:4. In the world an idol is nothing; for the world is Gods work, wherein nothing has being which mans thoughts have created. But in the heart of man, ah! there the idols are, indeed, a frightful something, and no joke, as Luther says.

1Co 8:8. Thanks be to Thy mercy, O God, that Thou furnishest to us in Thy Gospel the precious truth (Heb 13:9), that that heart becomes established which is made so not by meats, but through grace.

1Co 8:11. Not merely a conscious obstinacy in disobedience to Gods commands, but also a trifling readiness for any thing which stains the conscience, because it is weak, is sufficient to destroy faith in the heart. So intimate and tender is the bond of fellowship between believing souls and Christ, that it is broken just so soon as any portion of our outward life is withdrawn from the control of the Spirit of grace.

1Co 8:12. Not only do the strong and mature belong to Christ, but also the weak and novices no less.

1Co 8:13. To yield to the arrogant, is to deny Christ; not to spare the weak is to sin against Christ. He who walks in love, avoids both.

[Barnes:

1Co 8:6. Christians, though truly converted, yet may have many erroneous views and feelings in regard to many things. The morning dawn is, at first, very obscure. And so it may be in conversion. This should lead us to charity, towards imperfections; to carefulness not to mislead; and to moderation in our expectations from young converts, especially those in heathen lands.

1Co 8:1-9. Love is a safer and more useful guide than knowledge.

1Co 8:10-11. Nothing is of more value than a correct Christian example, particularly in those occupying the more elevated ranks in life. The ignorant look to them for guidance, and their conduct should be such as will conduct safely.

1Co 8:13. A noble instance of Pauls principles. If all Christians had Pauls delicate sensibilities, and Pauls strength of Christian virtue, and Pauls willingness to deny himself, in order to benefit others, how soon would the aspect of the Christian world change! How many practices now freely indulged in, would be abandoned! (Ad sensum)].

Footnotes:

[1]1Co 8:2.The Rec. has after [according to D. E. F. G. K. L. Syr. and many Gr. fathers] but this is a connection not found in good codices [A. B.] and is rejected by the best critics [Meyer, Lach., Alf., Stanley].

[2]1Co 8:2.Rec. and Meyer [and Alford] read [according to J. K. and some Greek fathers] but Tisch. [Stanley] and others, , which is more strongly supported [A. B. D. E. F. G.] but is regarded by Meyer as a sort of Gloss made to suit what goes before and after.

[3]1Co 8:2.Lach. [Stan.] read [with A. B. D.1 F. G. But is preferred by Meyer, Alf., and others, according to D. 3 E. J. K.]. The was probably dropped out in consequence of the eye of the transcriber passing from of the to of the following.

[4]1Co 8:2.Lach. and others [Stanley] read , according to good authorities, A. B. and others, but Meyer deems it as probably not original.[not found D. E. F. G. J. K. and Alf., says that probably after the erasure of as unnecessary, thus standing alone was altered to .]

[5]1Co 8:4. is rejected by Lach. [Stan.] according to important authorities. But the rejection can be better explained than the insertion. [It is found in J. K. most Syr. MSS. and in the Greek fathers] (comp. Meyer).

[6]1Co 8:7.Lach. [Tischen. Stan.] and others read , in intercourse with, not without good support, [A. B. and many versions]; but is the more difficult reading [found in D. E. F. G. J., in most MSS., and the Gr. fathers. The great weight of authority is in favor of the common reading. Hodge].

[7]1Co 8:7.In the Rec. , until now, comes after a change on account of the difficult structure; but it is poorly sustained. [The true reading is , with conscience until now of the idol, and so also Alf., who says the transposition was made, apparently for the purpose of bringing the clauses logically connected more closely together].

[8]1Co 8:8.The of the Rec. was occasioned by the present tenses of the following clauses, [and is found in D. E. J. The true reading , occurs in A. B. several cursivesand Gr. fathers, and is adopted by Tisch., Lach., Alf., Stan.].

[9]1Co 8:8.The after is an interpolation [not found in A. B. and other good authorities].

[10]1Co 8:8.[Kling inverts the order of these two clauses according to D. E. F. G. J. therein following Tisch., Meyer, Lach. Ed.].

[11]1Co 8:9.[The Rec. is apparently a correction to suit below; is found in A. B. D. E. F. G. Alf.].

[12]1Co 8:11. instead of is well authorized; Meyer regards it a gloss for the less common ; [see note].

[13]1Co 8:11.The of Rec. is feebly supported [not being found in A. B. D. E. F. G., and is omitted by all the later critical editions. , however, appears after in A. B. D. F. Cod. Sin.]

[14]1Co 8:11.The Fut. of the Rec. was made to correspond with the foregoing . [and is found in D.3. E. F. G. J. The pres. appears in A. B. D.1 and in several ancient versions. Alf. says: The sentence has probably been tampered with to get rid of the apparent awkwardness of the question being carried on through 1Co 8:11. Some authorities put before , which Kling calls a gloss for understood; others have , and others still, after ]

[15][On this point Stanley remarks: Most public entertainments and many private meals were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice; most animals killed for butchers meat had fallen by the hand of the sacrificer; the very word for feast in Hebrew was identical with sacrifice, and from thence in Hellenistic Greek, the word originally used for killing in sacrifice (), was diverted to the general signification of killing (Act 10:13). This identification of sacrifice and feast was carried to the highest pitch among the Greeks. Sacrifices are enumerated by Aristotle (Eth. 8, 9, 5) and Thucydides (II:38) among the chief means of social enjoyment; and, in this later age of Greece, it may well be conceived that the religious element was even still more entirely thrown into the shade by the festive character of the meal which followed,These feasts, it must be remembered, were ordinarily held in the temples themselves. (See Jdg 9:27; Enead. VII Book 174; Herodot. 1Co 1:31)].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The Apostle in this Chapter, is treating on the Subject of Meats offered unto Idols. He very blessedly states the Privileges of the Lord’s People, in their Christian Liberty; but shews, with what Caution a Child of God ought to walk, so as not to wound a weak Brother.

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

(1) Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (2) And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. (3) But if any man love God, the same is known of him. (4) As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. (5) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) (6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

It should seem, from the opening of this Chapter, that the Apostle had been written to by the Corinthians on the subject, how far it became sinful to eat of the flesh which was offered unto idols. It should be remembered, that the Corinthians, by nature, and by practice, were idolaters : and as many of the Lord’s people, now formed into a Church at Corinth, had been before their conversion addicted to idolatry, and many with whom they were connected, were still under this delusion; their minds, no doubt, were solemnly exercised upon the subject, and they therefore had written to the Apostle, to have his opinion upon it.

I beg the Reader to notice, and it is well worthy his attention, what occasion the Apostle took, from the question, and enquiry of the Corinthians, to settle this grand and fundamental point, of the glory of God in a threefold character of Person. He first shews that there is, there can be, no such thing in reality as an idol. Men may, and men do, frame to themselves a fiction of their brain, and call it an idol, or a god. But it only shews the darkened and depraved state of the human heart, in its present fallen state, which can take up with an idea, so ignorant, and stupid. The Apostle then proceeds to speak with all possible reverence, of the Lord God, in his revealed character, and offices, as existing in a threefold character of Persons. Beautifully he describes them, according to the revelation of Scripture: and particularly with an eye to their several distinct offices in the Covenant of grace. I need not dwell upon the subject, neither swell the pages of the Poor Man’s Commentary in going over in this place, What more or less, is the sum and substance of the whole Bible. I rather refer to some of the more striking passages, which are in proof. See Mat 3:17 and Commentary; Mat 28:20 ; 1Jn 5:7 .

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

1Co 8:1

This was a favourite text of Bacon’s. Thus, in Valerius Terminus he observes: ‘Evermore it must be remembered that the least part of knowledge passed to man by this so large charter from God must be subject to that use for which God hath granted it; which is the benefit and relief of the state and society of man; for otherwise all manner of knowledge becometh malign and serpentine, and therefore as carrying the quality of the serpent’s sting and malice it maketh the mind of man to swell; as the Scripture saith excellently, knowledge floweth up, but charity buildeth up.’ A similar application occurs in The Advancement of Learning (I. 3). Curiously enough, F. W. Robertson, in one of his letters, connects this very text with Bacon himself. After quoting it, he remarks: ‘Cultivated understanding has no necessary connection with strengthened, much less purified, will, in which moral excellence lies, and in which alone Bacon was

The wisest, greatest, meanest of mankind.’

Compare Froude’s remarks ( Short Studies, IV. pp. 268-269) upon Keble. If he ‘had remained a quiet country clergyman, unconscious that he was a groat man, and uncalled on to guide the opinions of his age, he would have commanded perhaps more enduring admiration. The knot of followers who specially attached themselves to him, show traces of his influence in a disposition not only to think the views which they hold sound in themselves, but to regard those who think differently as their intellectual inferiors.’

This then is the prima-facie advantage of the pursuit of knowledge; it is the drawing the mind off from things which will harm it to subjects which are worthy a rational being; and, though it does not raise it above nature, nor has any tendency to make us pleasing to our Maker, yet is it nothing to substitute what is in itself harmless for what is, to say the least, inexpressibly dangerous? is it a little thing to exchange a circle of ideas which are certainly sinful, for others which are certainly not so? You will say, perhaps, in the words of the Apostle, ‘Knowledge puffeth up’: and doubtless this mental cultivation… may be from the first nothing more than the substitution of pride for sensuality. I grant it; but this is not a necessary result, it is but an incidental evil, a danger which may be realised or may be averted.

Newman, Idea of a University, p. 186.

Thinkers too often are apt to despise those who go through life without thinking. Thought is doubtless of high value; our first endeavour should be to think as often and as well as we can, but nevertheless we are wrong in believing that the possession, or the lack of a certain faculty for handling general ideas can actually separate men. After all, the difference between the greatest thinker and the humblest country yokel is often only the difference between a truth that at times finds expression, and another that never is able to crystallise into form.

Maeterlinck.

References. VIII. 1. W. Richmond, A Lent in London, p. 41. Archbishop Benson, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 136. Archbishop Magee, The Gospel and the Age, p. 241. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. liv. p. 129. Expositor (6th Series), vol. i. p. 93.

Knowledge and Love

1Co 8:1-3

Knowledge puffeth up, charity edifieth. Knowledge passeth away, charity abides for ever. Knowledge sees through coloured glass darkly, love sees face to face. Knowledge may be greatest in devils, love makes angels and saints. Knowledge is temporal and earthly, ever changing with the fashions of earth; love is Godlike, heavenly, immortal, enduring like the mercy of the Lord for ever. Thus Paul sings in diverse tones to one clear harp.

I. Now, if any other of the Apostles had written in this way about knowledge, men would have been found ready to quote against him the old fable of sop about the grapes. Untutored peasants and fishermen lifting up their voices in disparagement of knowledge would have furnished the intellectual scorner with a convenient sarcasm. Ah, yes, these men were ignorant. Singularly enough, however, it is St. Paul, the one learned man in the apostolic band, who talks in this way.

II. Knowledge puffeth up. Yes, from the raw schoolgirl to the man of greatest literary attainments, this is the effect of knowledge when it is found without the warm and generous and tender emotions of the heart Oh, how well did Paul express the jaunty airs and supercilious pride of loveless and unsanctified knowledge when he wrote these words, ‘Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth’.

III. We are always boasting that knowledge is power, that knowledge has enriched the world, that knowledge has done wonderful things for humanity. It is the idlest of delusions. Knowledge by itself has done very little. Heart rather than head has given to humanity its noble inheritance; love rather than knowledge.

IV. And who are doing the best work in the world now its purifying, saving, uplifting work? Not the men who call themselves the cultured class. It is love, not knowledge, that generates all the power of sweet activities. It is to the pure, gentle, tender heart that God tells His secrets. And the loving heart, too, understands the mystery of sorrow and pain as the head does not and never can. The loving heart always knows what knowledge cannot tell it, that though the winter be here and the chill frosts of sorrow, yet behind the hills not far off are the flowers and fruits of an everlasting summer, and the sunny atmosphere of a love that can never die.

J. G. Greenhough, The Cross in Modern Life, p. 31.

References. VIII. 1-9. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 65. VIII. 1-13. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 374. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 125. VIII. 2. W. M. Sinclair, Christ and our Times, p. 63. T. Arnold, The Interpretation of Scripture, p. 204. VIII. 2, 3. Expositor (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 157. VIII. 4-6. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 39. VIII. 5. J. B. Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons, p. 80. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 227. VIII. 6. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 65; ibid. vol. x. p. 40; ibid. (5th Series), vol. x. p. 425; ibid. (6th Series), p. 368. VIII. 9-13. W. H. Parr, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliv. p. 344. VIII. 10. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ii. p. 431; ibid. vol. iii. p. 99. VIII. 11. W. C. E. Newbolt, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvi. p. 13.

1Co 8:13

All other requisites are unimportant compared with this primary requisite, that each shall so live as neither to burden his fellows nor injure his fellows.

Spencer, Sociology (ch. xiv.).

References. VIII. 13. Asa Mahan, Penny Pulpit, No. 1487, p. 33. VIII. 29. J. Keble, Sermons for Easter to Ascension Day, p. 251. IX. 1. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 345; ibid. (7th Series), vol. v. p. 146. IX. 1-6. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. vii. p. 269. IX. 5. Ibid. (6th Series), vol. v. p. 413; ibid. vol. vi. p. 223; ibid. vol. viii. p. 74; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. pp. 20, 40, 181. IX. 7, 11, 13, 14. W. M. Sinclair, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlvii. p. 172. IX. 9. Expositor (5th Series), vol. vi. p. 213. IX. 10. G. L. Richardson, Sermons for Harvest, p. 40. IX. 11. Expositor (5th Series), vol. x. p. 196. IX. 14. F. W. Farrar, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lii. p. 356. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vii. p. 389; ibid. vol. xi. p. 45.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Peculiar Questions

1 Corinthians 7-9

“I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” “I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” “I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” Let us see what kind of quality we have to deal with, apart altogether from the mystery of inspiration, when we are dealing with such a man as the Apostle Paul. What was he out of the chair? Of what quality are God’s princes? Unrobed and unmitred and unchaired, how does this man walk abroad? Will he be weak as other men? Will his want of mental capacity be painfully obvious? Or is he a great instrument, a man of immense and dominating faculty, even when left to his own judgment, and the movement of his own mind? The answers will be found in these chapters. The Church at Corinth had been turned into a debating club. Questions of more or less interest had arisen as between the members of that community. They referred the matter to the Apostle Paul, and in these chapters he addresses himself to “the things whereof ye wrote unto me.”

The first question was one of marriage. The Apostle is not speaking about the general question of marriage, otherwise he would be contradicting in this portion of his epistolary theology what he so distinctly affirms in other portions. The questions are peculiar as to themselves, and specially peculiar as to the season at which they were discussed. The Apostle is not talking about a Christian man marrying a non-Christian woman, or a Christian woman marrying a non-professor of Christianity, although these verses are often quoted in that sense and with that limitation. Such quotation is a positive perversion of the apostolic meaning. The case is this: Here are two people, husband and wife; one of them has been converted to Christ, what is to be done? Can they live together? Must they separate? The Apostle will not allow for a moment that the Christian has any difficulty about this. He looks upon a Christian as an ever-enlarging soul, taking in more and more points of life, and acquiring more and more intellectual and spiritual territory, and holding it in the name of his Lord. He does not therefore imagine a little pedantic Christian saying, Now that I have become a Christian, what am I to do with this heathen woman? Blessed be God, the Apostle never thought of asking any such question. Christians must not be pedants. The moment a Christian sets up his little morality and says, But what must I do? he has lost Christ. But the Apostle clearly saw that the heathen woman might object; she might say, My husband is no longer the same to me he used to be, he is a fanatic, he is a fool, he has given himself up to a superstition, he has gone away with people who are evidently mad: I cannot tolerate such a life as this, therefore I must leave him. Paul says that question may very naturally come up: now what is to be done with it? It arose at home, and it must be settled at home. With wondrous fatherly insight he says, Now first of all, before you put one another away, think of the children. Then the heathen woman says, Certainly, that is a point that ought to be considered: the heathen man says, Yes, we cannot afford to treat that question lightly. Why, says Paul, do not forget this, that if one of you is a Christian, the children are sanctified by that very fact; they are no longer common children, they come into rights and relations and prospects which are peculiar and incommunicable: the children do not suffer for the heathenism, but they profit by the Christianity. What does the Apostle mean by being “sanctified”? He does not mean being made “holy,” but he means marked, specialised, separated: consider, therefore, the children before you pedantically or superstitiously give up one another. But if the unbelieving husband will depart from the believing wife, let him go; God hath called us to peace, but if the pagan will make off with himself, we cannot retain him. On the other hand, “What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” Thy pagan partner is a home mission field: here is a set of circumstances that may be handled profitably for Christ and for yourselves. Let us therefore have no pedantry in the Church; small, moral little Christians, leaving their wives and families because they are too good to live with them. Paul said, Out upon such hypocrisy and cant! Even the veriest bed of corruption cannot taint the sun. The Christian can afford to live under circumstances which are of a discouraging and, in some instances, of a humiliating nature. The Apostle Paul therefore says, Christian husband, stand to your guns; Christian wife, keep at home: if the pagan woman wants to leave, of course she must leave; if the pagan husband wants to go, of course he must go. That Roman law was not so stern as some other law. The Roman law gave rights hear it, O heavens, and be astonished, O society! to the wife. When the Apostle says that he was speaking on this subject by “permission,” and not by “commandment,” he meant, I speak permissively, not commandingly; I accord liberty, I do not define right. That is the meaning of the Apostle’s words words which have been very often perverted and misunderstood.

Now he turns and generalises the whole situation. His principle is thus laid down ( 1Co 7:20 ): “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” How often are these words perverted! The word “calling” is made to signify profession, situation, condition in life; and the Apostle is quoted as saying to all men, how poor and miserable soever, Men, be quiet; be content with that station in life in which it hath pleased God to place you. Nothing of the kind. I say to every man, Be as discontent as you can with your present attainments, whatever they are, if in advancing farther you can carry up a broader, nobler, more generous, and more beneficent manhood. The word calling in this verse and throughout the context has a Divine relation and not a human limitation. Thus: God calls men, and in obeying the Divine call we are to pay no attention to our circumstances; it is the call we obey, it is not the social situation which we feel, either as a burden or a crown. The social situation has nothing to do with it; there is a great call of love resounding through the ages, saying, Return, O wanderer, to thy home! The rich man says, I will go: the slave says, I will go: the uncircumcised says, I will go: the circumcised says, I will go: and the Apostle says, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” and not make any difficulty about his situation or his circumstances. Thus: I was uncircumcised, what must I do? Come! But must I not first remove the stigma, the brand, or the sign of my circumcision? No. Another man says, I am only a slave, I have on the manacles and the fetters; what am I to do? Put off all these old clothes, and come in the splendid attire of a meek and a quiet spirit. Is the Apostle upholding slavery? On the contrary, he is destroying it. The Apostle was too great a man to fight any question in mere detail. He said to the slave, You lead such a lite as will make slavery impossible; be so noble, so grand, so majestic, that you will make it felt that you are not a slave in reality, whatever you may be in name. This is the subtle spirit, this is the fundamental action of Christianity, that it does not vex itself with merely passing details, but lays down sovereign principles, which, being carried out, end in liberty, growth, progress.

But the argument of the Apostle related not only to the peculiarity of the case but to the seasons which he distinguishes by the words “the present distress” The Apostle was evidently looking forward to the close of the dispensation. Many critics try to show us that the Apostle was really not looking forward to the immediate closing of the dispensation, but in my judgment they fail. I have studied their arguments, and balanced all their reasonings, and I have said, All this amounts to a theological post hoc ; these people want to prove something which they have assumed, and they want to make certain words fit in with certain foregone conclusions, and it will not do. I cannot read the Pauline epistles or other epistles without feeling that the Apostles were looking forward to the almost immediate coming of their Lord: whether that event took place in the destruction of Jerusalem, is a question which theologians may argue, more or less profitably; but it is impossible from my point of view to avoid the conclusion that these men always wrote in haste, as if they were not sure they would be able to sign their own letter before the heavens rent, and the Son of Man returned to the vision and the touch of the world. This being so, the letter is explained. The Apostle would seem to say, Brethren, you are talking about marrying, and giving one another in marriage, and what is to be done in the household under such-and-such circumstances, why, all these things are hardly worth arguing at all, already the axe is laid unto the root of the tree, already I hear a sound as of advancing footsteps, and whilst we are arguing these little local domestic matters we may be summoned to the consummation of things. Thus: This house has but one year to run in its lease: is it worth our while spending a thousand pounds in connection with it? The voice of prudence says, Certainly not; you have but a year to remain, why then should you go to this expenditure? We have but a certain time to remain in the country, shall we adjust certain questions that are now exciting the anger or the prejudice of the multitude? No, it is not worth while.

Thus we are always reasoning outside theological lines, and the Apostle says upon all these questions about eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage, and all these questions about circumcision, and slavery, and male and female, Why, the whole controversy will be settled presently; there will be one gleam of light through the air, and in the twinkling of an eye the whole firmament will be filled with midday, and the Lord will come, the new relationship will be established, the new sovereignty will advene, and then where will be our little questions about marrying and giving in marriage? “Brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.” A singular word is this “abusing,” in 1Co 7:31 (ch. 7). What should we say to be the meaning of the word “abusing”? Probably we should say he abuses the world who misuses it. That is not the Apostle’s meaning. The Apostle’s meaning would be better expressed thus: “And they that use this world, as not over-using it,” not being too fussy, and making too much of nothing; playing with clay, trying to find eternity in time. Men over-use the world and get their hands too deeply into it; they play the fool with it.

The next point that is touched upon in the inquiry made by the Corinthians was about meat offered to idols, and about eating that meat. The question is a very simple one. The heathen priests took meat into the temples, and offered it to the idols, and having done this they went and sold it to the dealers who offered it in the shambles; and there was a conscience that said, Now about this meat: it has been handled by pagan priests, it has been offered on pagan altars, and it has been bought out of the heathen temples, and is now in the general shambles offered for sale: what is to be done with this meat? Some say, We cannot touch it, because it has been offered to idols. Others said, An idol! why, an idol is nothing at all; the meat is not tinged or tainted by its having been offered to nothing at all; the meat is as good as any other meat: produce it, enjoy it. The Corinthian casuist said to the Apostle under these circumstances, What shall we do? And the Apostle delivers the judgment which is recorded in the eighth chapter: and having given his own judgment upon the subject he says, After all, we must consider the weak conscience. Weakness governs the world; it is always the minority that rules, although if you were to say so in a public meeting you would be hooted from the platform. But it is always the minority that rules. It is weakness that stops the house, it is the baby that keeps the family at home; it is the lame limb that detains all the sound faculties and says, Stop! What! am I to stop because I have one lame limb? I am sound in all my other limbs, and sound in all my mental faculties, and am I to be humbled in this way? Yes, you are, and you cannot get out of it. So the Apostle says, Here is a lame man in the Church, and the Church must wait for him; and the Church says, This is the singular pass we have come to, all waiting for one lame man. The Apostle says, That is the very idea of the Church. The whole universe may be waiting for one little lame world called the earth: nobody can tell how fast the universe might get on but for this cripple called the earth. Nobody knows how great the family might have been and how wonderful in fame and influence but for the sick-chamber. The Apostle says, Here is one poor man; call him weak, do not let him be under the impression that he is strong; let him know exactly what he is, and tell him that it is to his weakness we make this obeisance. What is the use of your standing over a little baby, and pouring upon its unconscious head a whole Niagara of rhetorical expostulation? The thing is impossible. So the Apostle said, We must wait for this man: he is a man, he is not much of a man, he is about as little of a man as it is possible to be and yet be a man; but Christ died for him, therefore we must wait. Now, says the Apostle, I will tell you what I will do; I dare not say anything to anybody else, but this is my position. I can eat this meat; it is nothing to me that the meat has been offered by some heathen priest to a heathen idol; I do not care for that for one moment: but there is a man just there, who says he would be hurt in his soul if I took it. I say, Very well, I will not take it. That is the ground on which all total abstainers from innocent things must rest, if the action is to be widely influential. Many a man says, I could take this wine, I should know exactly when to give over, it would do me no harm, I could take it with a good conscience; but if I did take it, there is a poor soul that could not even inhale the odour of the wine, without the appetite fired as from hell. I say, Very well, I throw it on the ground, I will not touch it, for your sake. That argument can never be overturned; and if there be a man who never does anything for any other man’s sake, let him not name the name of Christ.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Ver. 1. Now as touching things ] Another case that they had propounded to him in their letter, 1Co 7:1 .

We know ] So all pretend. Sed nummos habuerunt Athenienses ad numerandum, et scientiam ad sciendum.

That we all have knowledge ] But that is not sufficient, unless we have love too. There be many things concur to the making up of a good work, a lawful action.

Knowledge puffeth up ] A metaphor from a pair of bellows, blown up and filled with wind. The French fitly call fools Fols, a follibus, qui nihil continent nisi aerem, from bellows which contains nothing unless filled with air. Such are all proud fools.

Knowledge puffeth up ] Swelling us above measure, unless humility, laid on as a weight, keep us down, and charity regulate our knowledge for the good of others. Knowledge without love is as rain in the middle region. But how foolish were they of whom Austin maketh mention, that neglected the means of knowledge, because knowledge puffeth up, and so would be ignorant, that they might be humble, and lack knowledge, that they might lack pride. This was to be like Democritus, who plucked out his eyes, to avoid the danger of uncleanness. Or that silly friar, to whom Sir Thomas Moore wrote this distich;

” Tu bene cavisti, ne te ulla occidere possit

Littera: nam nota est littera nulla tibi. “

Thou takest good care the letter kill thee not:

Thy skill is such, thou knowest not B from Bot.

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

1 13 .] Though ( 1Co 8:1-6 ) for those who are strong in the faith, an idol having no existence, the question has no importance, this is not so with all ( 1Co 8:7 ); and the infirmities of the weak must in such a matter be regarded in our conduct ( 1Co 8:8-13 ).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1 .] , transitional , as in ch. 1Co 7:1 , al. fr.

As regards the construction, we may observe, that . ., is again taken up 1Co 8:4 , . ., after a parenthesis. We may also observe that in the latter case is restated , bearing therefore, it is reasonable to suppose, the same meaning as before, viz. we know, that . This to my mind is decisive against beginning the parenthesis with , and rendering ‘ for ,’ as Luther, Bengel, Valckn., al.: ‘ we know ( for we all have knowledge ),’ &c. Are we then to begin it with , leaving broken off, corresponding to the words resumed in 1Co 8:4 ? We should thus leave within the parenthesis a very broken and harsh sentence: ( what ? if . about the ., it should be joined with the preceding; if . in general , it should be , see ch. 1Co 13:2 , which would be absurd; if some . on some subjects , as , Jas 2:18 , it would here be irrelevant), . , . . . . The first logical break in the sense is where the concrete , that . , is forsaken, and the abstract treated of . Here therefore, with Chrys., &c., Beza, Grot., Calv., Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer, I begin the parenthesis, we are aware that we all (see below) have knowledge; knowledge , &c.; not however placing it in brackets , for it is already provided for in the construction by the resumption of below; and is not a grammatical but only a logical parenthesis.

The were those portions of the animals offered in sacrifice which were not laid on the altar, and which belonged partly to the priests, partly to those who had offered them. These remnants were sometimes eaten at feasts holden in the temples (see 1Co 8:10 ), or in private houses (ch. 1Co 10:27 , f.), sometimes sold in the markets, by the priests, or by the poor, or by the niggardly. Theophrastus, Charact. xviii., describes it as characteristic of the , , , , . They were sometimes also reserved for future use: Theophr. mentions it as belonging to the , , . Christians were thus in continual danger of meeting with such remnants. Partaking of them was an abomination among the Jews: see Num 25:2 ; Psa 106:28 ; Rev 2:14 ; Tob 1:10-12 ; and was forbidden by the Apostles and elders assembled at Jerusalem, Act 15:29 ; Act 21:25 . That Paul in the whole of this passage makes no allusion to that decree, but deals with the question on its own merits, probably is to be traced to his wish to establish his position as an independent Apostle, endowed with God’s Holy Spirit sufficiently himself to regulate such matters. But it also shews, how little such decisions were at that time regarded as lastingly binding on the whole church : and how fully competent it was, even during the lifetime of the Apostles, to Christians to open and question, on its own merits, a matter which they had, for a special purpose, once already decided.

There should be a comma at , as the resumed sentence ( 1Co 8:4 ) shews.

] Who are ? Meyer says, Paul himself and the enlightened among the Corinthians: Estius, al., these latter alone ; and some think it said ironically , some concessively , of them: Grot., “pars maxima nostrum, ut Rom 3:12 .” But it is manifest from 1Co 8:4-6 , which is said in the widest possible reference to the faith of all Christians , that all Christians must be intended here also: and so Chrys., Theophyl., cum., Calov., al., and De Wette. But then, 1Co 8:7 , he says, [obviously pointing at the weak Christian brother]: and how are the two to be reconciled? By taking, I believe, the common-sense view of two such statements, which would be, in ordinary preaching or writing, that the first was said of what is professed and confessed, the second of what is actually and practically apprehended by each man . Thus we may say of our people, in the former sense, ‘ all are Christians; all believe in Christ :’ but in the latter, ‘all are not Christians; all do not believe.’

, scil. .

From . to end of 1Co 8:3 (see above) is a logical parenthesis.

, knowledge , abstract, scil. when alone , or improperly predominant: it is the attribute of , ‘ barely ’ [to puff up].

] viz. ‘ towards the brethren ,’ see Rom 14:15 , and ch. 1Co 10:23 .

. ] helps to build up (God’s spiritual temple), ch. 1Co 3:9 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 . ] ON THE PARTAKING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND ASSISTING AT FEASTS HELD IN HONOUR OF IDOLS.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 8:1-6 . 25. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ONE GOD AND ONE LORD. In inquiring from their Ap. “about the ,” the Cor [1217] had intimated their “knowledge” of the falsity of the entire system of idolatry. Here Paul checks them at the outset. The pretension betrays their one-sided intellectualism. Such matters are never settled by knowledge; love is the true arbiter (1Co 8:2 f.). After this caution, he takes up the statement of the Cor [1218] creed made in the Church Letter, with its implications respecting idolatry (1Co 8:4 ff.).

[1217] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1218] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 8:1 a . : another topic of the Church Letter, to which the Apostle continues his reply (see note on 1Co 7:1 ; also Introd ., chap. 2). The word (see parls.), “the idol -sacrifice,” substituted for the (1Co 10:28 ) of the heathen vocabulary, conveys an implicit judgment on the question in hand; see note on , 1Co 8:4 , and on 1Co 10:19 f.; also Act 15:20 , . : the common rendering, “We know that we all have knowledge” yields a weak tautology, and misses the irony of the passage; otherwise than in of 1Co 8:4 , this is the causal (so Bg [1219] , Hn [1220] , Ed [1221] ). The Cor [1222] in making their inquiry virtually answered it themselves; they wrote (1Co 8:4 ); and P. takes them up at the first word with his arresting comment: “ ‘We know’ (say you?) because ‘we all have knowledge’! Knowledge puffs up,” etc. For , cf. 1Co 8:10 ; the phrase breathes the pride of the Cor [1223] illuminati; in this Church felt itself rich (1Co 1:5 , 1Co 4:10 ); its wealth was its peril.

[1219] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[1220] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1221] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[1222] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1223] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

1Co 8:1 b . The Ap. gives to Cor [1224] vanity a sudden, sharp rebuke by his epigram, , : “Knowledge puffs up, but Love builds up”. Hn [1225] aptly compares Aristotle’s axiom, , ( Nic. Eth. , i., 1). For , to inflate , see note on 1Co 4:6 . The appeal of the Church to Knowledge as decisive in the controversy about “meats” disclosed the great flaw in its character its poverty of love (1Co 13:1 ff.). The tacit obj [1226] of is the Church, the (1Co 3:9 ; 1Co 3:16 ); Eph 4:15 f. describes the edifying power of love; see also Mat 22:37-40 , 1Jn 4:16-21 . For the Biblical use of , see note to 1Co 13:1 . The divisive question at issue Love would turn into a means of strengthening the bonds of Church life; Knowledge operating alone makes it an engine of destruction (1Co 8:11 f.).

[1224] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1225] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[1226] grammatical object.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1 Corinthians Chapter 8

The apostle now turns to another subject which presented dangers to the saints in Corinth.

“But concerning the things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge: knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. If* any one thinketh that he knoweth” anything, not yet knoweth he as he ought to know; but if any one loveth God, he is known by him. Concerning the eating, then, of the things sacrificed to idols, we know that [there is] no idol in [the] world, and that [there is] no|| God save one. For even if there are [so]-called gods, whether in heaven, or on earth, as there are gods many and lords many; yet to us [there is] one God the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him. Howbeit not in all [is] the knowledge, but some with conscience of the idol until now eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat shall not commend us to God ;** neither if we eat have we the advantage, nor if we eat not do we come short. But see lest in anywise this your authority become a stumbling-block to the weak. For if any one see thee who hast knowledge sitting at table in an idol’s temple, shall not his conscience, as he is weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed to idols? And he that is weak perisheth*** by thy knowledge, the brother for whom Christ died? But thus sinning against the brethren, and wounding their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore if meat stumble my brother, I will in nowise eat flesh for ever, that I may not stumble my brother.” (Chap. 8: 1-18.)

* in Text. Rec. is not in B P) several cursives, and ancient versions.

A B D E F G P and several cursives, etc., but K L and most cursives : the former, objective knowledge, the latter, inward conscious knowledge, as remarked by another.

A B P, six cursives, etc., the mass. The best do not add .

A B Dp.m. F G P, seven cursives, etc.

|| is not in p.m. A B D E F G P, many cursives, etc.

p.m. A B, several cursives, versions, etc., instead of (“commendeth”) corr D E L P, and most cursives, Ital., Vulg., etc.

** , added in Text. Rec., is not in A B) etc., several ancient versions, but in most MSS and versions. There is a difference of order also in the copies as to the clauses.

*** For Text. Rec.. with most of the witnesses. B and a few other authorities read many giving the present who read .

A B D E F G P, etc. (“for”) Text. Rec. L and most cursives, etc.

The construction of the opening sentence has led to some difference of judgment and arrangement. Griesbach and Scholz, among editors, insert marks of parenthesis from after “we know,” in verse 1, to the end of verse 8, which involves translating “for,” or “because.” This was the view of Luther, Bengel, Valcknaer, and others; but it is liable to the objection that in the resumed sentence “,” after the second , certainly means “that.” I am therefore disposed to take it so in the former case. Mr. T. S. Green, etc., would begin the parenthesis with which necessitates singular abruptness in the structure. According to that which most commends itself to me, the apostle does not dispute that we Christians as such have knowledge; but he soon proceeds to show how empty it is without that love which brings in the consideration of others, and, above all, God Himself. This leads him to compare knowledge, in which they boasted, with love, which they overlooked, or ignored. The one puffs up, the other builds up. Love is only known in God’s presence, where self is judged. Knowledge in one’s own opinion is not love, which is inseparable from the new nature. For he who is born of God loves, having the nature of Him who is love. The apostle however says not that he who loves God knows Him, but that he is known by Him. The turn may be unexpected, and has embarrassed the critics, but its propriety is unquestionable. Not that the believer does not know Him, as indeed it is eternal life (cf. Joh 17:3 ; 1Jn 4:6-18 ), but that it was seasonable for the consciences of the Corinthians to weigh that he is known of Him – a serious but blessed and blessing consideration. There is no sufficient or right ground therefore for taking in a Hophal sense – “hath been caused to know.” It is really the converse (see Gal 4:9 ). Nor is there need to give it the sense of approval. The best meaning is its ordinary one.

It would seem also that the parallelism in the last clause of verse 4 favours our translating as “there is no idol,” rather than, “an idol is nothing in the world,” though in itself equally legitimate. It is quite true, as the prophets assert, that the idols of the Gentiles are vanities and impotence; but here the apostle appears to affirm that they had no existence in the world. There were no such beings as they associated with their idols. Later on he shows there were demons behind, as indeed the law intimated. (Deu 32:17 .)

The apostle, as all can see, refers not to the decrees of the apostles, though we know that he and his companions instructed the assemblies they visited to observe them. He meets the question on intrinsic grounds, according to the principle of his own apostleship, in no way as leading men to think that the apostolic decrees were not binding on the whole church. It is monstrous to infer the competency of Christians, even then, or at any time, to open and question a matter thus decided. Such an idea could only lead to lawlessness and presumption, especially in presence of the solemn claims of what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostles. Their determination however was not at all impaired, but confirmed, by the apostle’s dealing with the question on its own merits, and settling it similarly. He allows then, that there was no such thing as the heathen conceived in an idol, and no God save one. He insists that, whatever the multiplicity of so-called gods and lords in heaven or on earth, to us there is but one God, the Father, source of the universe and object* of our being and obedience, and one everything was absolutely indifferent and open. Love Lord, Jesus Christ, who has taken the place of administrator of all and mediator of redemption. But it would be rash and precarious to reason hence that takes account of things and beings as seen in the light of God; it seeks not its own things but the things of others – of Jesus Christ above all.

* The text of the English Bible “in” is quite wrong, as are many commentators, such as Calvin, etc.; the marginal correction “for” is right.

But conscientious men are apt to be slow in apprehension, often much more so than those who are less exercised. For them the apostle would have us feel. Howbeit knowledge, or that knowledge, is not in all: but some, with conscience of the idol until now, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. They were not at all assured of the nonentity of these false gods. The Sinaitic, Vatican, Alexandrian, and Porphyrian uncials, four or five cursives, and several of the most ancient versions, etc., read , “through custom,” not conscience, that is, from their habituation; and so Lachmann and Tischendorf. Doubting thus, they were condemned when they ate; and Satan thus took advantage of them through guilty fears. The apostle admits that food will not commend us to God. Those who pleaded their title should see that its exercise did not stumble the weak. What if the weak one imitated it with a conscience not free and emboldened or edified the wrong way, and the brother for whom Christ died perished? For scripture characterizes an act according to its tendency, without palliating it by the resources of grace in arresting the issue. To sin thus against the brethren, to wound their weak conscience, is to sin against Christ. The apostle closes this part of his subject by a fervid declaration of his refusal of a thing otherwise open to him, if it were the occasion of stumbling to his brother. Such is love according to Christ.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

1 Corinthians

‘LOVE BUILDETH UP’

1Co 8:1 – 1Co 8:13 .

It is difficult for us to realise the close connection which existed between idol-worship and daily life. Something of the same sort is found in all mission fields. It was almost impossible for Christians to take any part in society and not seem to sanction idolatry. Would that Christianity were as completely interwoven with our lives as heathen religions are into those of their devotees! Paul seems to have had referred to him a pressing case of conscience, which divided the Corinthian Church, as to whether a Christian could join in the usual feasts or sacrifices. His answer is in this passage.

The longest way round is sometimes the shortest way home. The Apostle begins far away from the subject in hand by running a contrast between knowledge and love, and setting the latter first. But his contrast is very relevant to his purpose. Small questions should be solved on great principles.

The first principle laid down by Paul is the superiority of love over knowledge, the bearing of which on the question in hand will appear presently. We note that there is first a distinct admission of the Corinthians’ intelligence, though there is probably a tinge of irony in the language ‘We know that we all have knowledge.’ ‘You Corinthians are fully aware that you are very superior people. Whatever else you know, you know that, and I fully recognise it.’

The admission is followed by a sudden, sharp comment, to which the Corinthians’ knowledge that they knew laid them open. Swift as the thrust of a spear comes flashing ‘Knowledge puffeth up.’ Puffed-up things are swollen by wind only, and the more they are inflated the hollower and emptier they are; and such a sharp point as Paul’s saying shrivels them. The statement is not meant as the assertion of a necessary or uniform result of knowledge, but it does put plainly a very usual result of it, if it is unaccompanied by love. It is a strange, sad result of superior intelligence or acquirements, that it so often leads to conceit, to a false estimate of the worth and power of knowing, to a ridiculous over-valuing of certain acquirements, and to an insolent contempt and cruel disregard of those who have them not. Paul’s dictum has been only too well confirmed by experience.

‘Love builds up,’ or ‘edifies.’ Probably the main direction in which that building up is conceived of as taking effect, is in aiding the progress of our neighbours, especially in the religious life. But the tendency of love to rear a fair fabric of personal character is not to be overlooked. In regard to effect on character, the palm must be given to love, which produces solid excellence far beyond what mere knowledge can effect. Further, that pluming one’s self on knowledge is a sure proof of ignorance. The more real our acquirements, the more they disclose our deficiencies. All self-conceit hinders us from growing intellectually or morally, and intellectual conceit is the worst kind of it.

Very significantly, love to God, and not the simple emotion of love without reference to its object, is opposed to knowledge; for love so directed is the foundation of all excellence, and of all real love to men. Love to God is not the antithesis of true knowledge, but it is the only victorious antagonist of the conceit of knowing. Very significantly, too, does Paul vary his conclusion in 1Co 8:3 by saying that the man who loves God ‘is known of Him,’ instead of, as we might have expected, ‘knows Him.’ The latter is true, but the statement in the verse puts more strongly the thought of the man’s being an object of God’s care. In regard, then, to their effects on character, in producing consideration and helpfulness to others, and in securing God’s protection, love stands first, and knowledge second.

What has all this to do with the question in hand? This, that if looked at from the standpoint of knowledge, it may be solved in one way, but if from that of love, it will be answered in another. So, in 1Co 8:4 – 1Co 8:6 , Paul treats the matter on the ground of knowledge. The fundamental truth of Christianity, that there is one God, who is revealed and works through Jesus Christ, was accepted by all the Corinthians. Paul states it here broadly, denying that there were any objective realities answering to the popular conceptions or poetic fancies or fair artistic presentments of the many gods and lords of the Greek pantheon, and asserting that all Christians recognise one God, the Father, from whom the universe of worlds and living things has origin, and to whom we as Christians specially belong, and one Lord, the channel through whom all divine operations of creation, providence, and grace flow, and by whose redeeming work we Christians are endowed with our best life. If a believer was fully convinced of these truths, he could partake of sacrificial feasts without danger to himself, and without either sanctioning idolatry or being tempted to return to it.

No doubt it was on this ground that an idol was nothing that the laxer party defended their action in eating meat offered to idols; and Paul fully recognises that they had a strong case, and that, if there were no other considerations to come in, the answer to the question of conscience submitted to him would be wholly in favour of the less scrupulous section. But there is something better than knowledge; namely, love. And its decision must be taken before the whole material for a judgment is in evidence.

Therefore, in the remainder of the chapter, Paul dwells on loving regard for brethren. In 1Co 8:7 , he reminds the ‘knowing’ Corinthians that new convictions do not obliterate the power of old associations. The awful fascination of early belief still exercises influence. The chains are not wholly broken off. Every mission field shows examples of this. Every man knows that habits are not so suddenly overcome, that there is no hankering after them or liability to relapse. It would be a dangerous thing for a weak believer to risk sharing in an idol feast; for he would be very likely to slide down to his old level of belief, and Zeus or Pallas to seem to him real powers once more.

The considerations in 1Co 8:7 would naturally be followed by the further thoughts in 1Co 8:9 , etc. But, before dealing with these, Paul interposes another thought in 1Co 8:8 , to the effect that partaking of or abstinence from any kind of food will not, in itself, either help or hinder the religious life. The bearing of that principle on his argument seems to be to reduce the importance of the whole question, and to suggest that, since eating of idol sacrifices could not be called a duty or a means of spiritual progress, the way was open to take account of others’ weakness as determining our action in regard to it. A modern application may illustrate the point. Suppose that a Christian does not see total abstinence from intoxicants to be obligatory on him. Well, he cannot say that drinking is so, or that it is a religious duty, and so the way is clear for urging regard to others’ weakness as an element in the case.

That being premised, Paul comes to his final point; namely, that Christian men are bound to restrict their liberty so that they shall not tempt weaker brethren on to a path on which they cannot walk without stumbling. He has just shown the danger to such of partaking of the sacrificial feasts. He now completes his position by showing, in 1Co 8:10 , that the stronger man’s example may lead the weaker to do what he cannot do innocently. What is harmless to us may be fatal to others, and, if we have led them to it, their blood is on our heads.

The terrible discordance of such conduct with our Lord’s example, which should be our law, is forcibly set forth in 1Co 8:11 , which has three strongly emphasised thoughts-the man’s fate-he perishes; his relation to his slayer-a brother; what Christ did for the man whom a Christian has sent to destruction-died for him. These solemn thoughts are deepened in 1Co 8:12 , which reminds us of the intimate union between the weakest and Christ, by which He so identifies Himself with them that any blow struck on them touches Him.

There is no greater sin than to tempt weak or ignorant Christians to thoughts or acts which their ignorance or weakness cannot entertain or do without damage to their religion. There is much need for laying that truth to heart in these days. Both in the field of speculation and of conduct, Christians, who think that they know so much better than ignorant believers, need to be reminded of it.

So Paul, in 1Co 8:13 , at last answers the question. His sudden turning to his own conduct is beautiful. He will not so much command others, as proclaim his own determination. He does so with characteristic vehemence and hyperbole. No doubt the liberal party in Corinth were ready to complain against the proposal to restrict their freedom because of others’ weakness; and they would be disarmed, or at least silenced, and might be stimulated to like noble resolution, by Paul’s example.

The principle plainly laid down here is as distinctly applicable to the modern question of abstinence from intoxicants. No one can doubt that ‘moderation’ in their use by some tempts others to use which soon becomes fatally immoderate. The Church has been robbed of promising members thereby, over and over again. How can a Christian man cling to a ‘moderate’ use of these things, and run the risk of destroying by his example a brother for whom Christ died?

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 8:1-3

1Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.

1Co 8:1 “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols” This is another question (cf. 1Co 7:1; 1Co 7:25; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 12:1; 1Co 16:1; 1Co 16:12) that was asked by the Corinthian church in a letter which they wrote to Paul, brought by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (cf. 1Co 16:17).

NASB”things sacrificed to idols”

NKJV”things offered to idols”

NRSV”food sacrificed to idols”

TEV”food offered to idols”

NJB”food which has been dedicated to false gods”

This is a compound term from eidlon, which means a shape, figure, image, or statue; and thu, which means to kill or to offer a sacrifice. This very term was used to prohibit eating meat offered to an idol in the letter sent to Gentile churches from the Jerusalem Council in Act 15:29 (cf. Act 21:25).

“we know that we all have knowledge” Possibly this is

1. a quote from the letter that the Corinthian church wrote to Paul

2. a slogan of one of the factious groups

3. a quote from Paul’s earlier preaching, which the Corinthian church had misunderstood

“Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies” Paul agrees with the statements contained in the Corinthian church’s letter, but limits the concepts and shows their true meaning and application (this is also true of the false teachers’ slogans in chapters 6-7).

Knowledge was one of the aspects of Greek culture in which some in the Corinthian church prided themselves. The problem with knowledge is that it tends to make one competitive and prideful (cf. 1Co 4:6; 1Co 4:18-19; 1Co 5:2; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 13:4; 2Co 12:20). See full note at 1Co 4:6. It focuses on the individual, not on the family, the body, the church.

The term “edify” is a building metaphor. Paul often speaks of “building up” or “edifying” the church or individual Christians (cf. Rom 14:19; Rom 15:2; 1Co 8:1; 1Co 10:23; 1Co 14:3; 1Co 14:5; 1Co 14:12; 1Co 14:26; 2Co 10:8; 2Co 12:19; 2Co 13:10; Eph 4:12; Eph 4:29; 1Th 5:11).

Love is crucial in our Christian freedom. Knowledge will not solve the problem of pride; only self-limiting love can do this. Believers are to pursue that which builds up the church, not that which glorifies gifted individual Christians.

SPECIAL TOPIC: EDIFY

1Co 8:2 “If” This is a first class conditional sentence, which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes (cf. 1Co 8:3; 1Co 8:5).

“anyone supposes that he knows anything” This is a perfect active indicative followed by a perfect infinitive. This reflects the settled arrogance of the Corinthian church (cf. 1Co 3:18).

NASB”he has not yet known as he ought to know”

NKJV”he knows nothing yet as he ought to know”

NRSV”does not yet have the necessary knowledge”

TEV”really don’t know as they ought to know”

NJB”and yet not know it as well as he should”

Paul reveals their lack of spiritual knowledge. Worldly wisdom (i.e., human philosophy) causes divisions and arrogance, but God’s knowledge of us (cf. 1Co 13:12; Gal 4:9) and our knowledge of the gospel free us to serve Him and His people.

1Co 8:3 “but if anyone loves God” This is a first class conditional sentence. There were those at Corinth who loved God. Notice Paul’s emphasis is on love (i.e., present active indicative), not on knowledge (cf. 1Co 13:1-13).

“he is known by Him” This may be another example of the slogans of those who claimed to be more enlightened and spiritual. It is very similar to a later Gnostic phrase found in Gospel of Truth 19.33. The truly enlightened ones know that there are not divisions between humans, not between

1. Jesus – Gentile

2. slaves – free

3. males – females

4. strong – weak

All barriers are “down” in Christ!

Our knowledge of God is important, but knowledge about God is no substitute for a personal relationship, initiated by God, that issues in our love for one another which expresses our love for Him (cf. Gal 4:6; 2Ti 2:19; 1Jn 4:19).

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

as touching = concerning. App-104.

things, &c. = the things offered to idols. Greek. eidolothutos. See Act 15:29. This was another subject about which they had written.

know. App-132.

all. i.e. the greater part. Figure of speech Idioma. App-6.

knowledge. App-132.

puffeth up. Greek. phusioo. See 1Co 4:6. This sentence and the next two verses form a parenthesis.

charity = love. App-135.

edifieth = buildeth up. Greek. orkodomeo. See Act 9:31. Contrast between a bubble and a building.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-13.] Though (1Co 8:1-6) for those who are strong in the faith, an idol having no existence, the question has no importance, this is not so with all (1Co 8:7); and the infirmities of the weak must in such a matter be regarded in our conduct (1Co 8:8-13).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Chapter 8

Now, the second issue:

Now as touching the things offered unto idols, we know that we have all knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up ( 1Co 8:1 ).

A contrast between knowledge and love. We know we have all knowledge. Now, there was a problem in those days, because idolatry was so prevalent, most of the meat that you would buy in the marketplace had first a portion of it been offered unto the idols, the pagan gods. When they would butcher their meat they would take portions of it and offer it as a burnt offering unto their gods, and then the priests would get their part and the rest would be given back to the person, and oftentimes it would be taken to the market and sold in the market.

Now, many Christians had great difficulty with their own conscience in eating meat that had been offered as a sacrifice to a pagan god. This really troubled them. But there were others in Corinth who boasted of their knowledge, “Well, that is nothing. That is just a stone and not a god, so it doesn’t make any difference. I have enough knowledge to realize that that is nothing at all and therefore I can eat the meat without being troubled in my conscience over it.”

Now, Paul is sort of addressing himself to these that are taking that liberty, because of their knowledge, and offending the weaker brethren.

So touching those things offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge ( 1Co 8:1 ).

We know that the idol is nothing.

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up ( 1Co 8:1 ).

One is filled with air, the other has something solid.

And if any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know ( 1Co 8:2 ).

And this is so true. The man who thinks he knows the most usually knows the least, because the more you know, the more you know you don’t know.

Shakespeare said, “Man, poor man, so ignorant in that which he knows best.” What do you know best? What area of knowledge are you most proficient in? Sciences, mathematics, linguistics? Say your area of proficiency is the area of science. How much of all that can be known in science do you know? Say your proficiency is in mathematics. Of all that can be known in mathematics, how much do you know? My proficiency is the Bible, but I will tell you what, there is much more about the Bible that I don’t know than I do know. I know enough to know that I don’t know. I know enough to know that there is so much to be known I will never know it all.

Now, the person who comes along and sort of puffed up and says, “Hey, I’m an expert and I can give you all the answers,” he knows the least. If any man thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing as he ought to know, because if you really know, you know you don’t know. So, if you think you know, it is a pretty good indication that you don’t know very much about it. Man, poor man, so ignorant in that which he knows best.

But if any man loves God ( 1Co 8:3 ),

Remember, knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered and sacrificed unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be many that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him ( 1Co 8:3-6 ).

So we know that these idols are nothing. We know that there is only one true living God, one Lord.

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; and their conscience being weak is defiled ( 1Co 8:7 ).

Now, coming in Corinth, growing up in Corinth, you grew up in a pagan situation. You grew up worshipping this idol. You grew up eating meat in the temple of the idol. They would have restaurants there, and they would offer meat in a ceremony and sacrifice to the idol, and then they would roast it and you would go in and eat the meat in the temple and fellowship, or worship, the idol or the god. Now, you have embraced Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, but having come out of the pagan practice of eating the meat offered in sacrifices to these idols, you have great difficulty continuing that, because for so long you did eat it thinking you were eating in worship to this particular idol, so that as a Christian now it offends your conscience. It bothers you to do it. It gets your conscience. So, Paul said, “Unto this time there are those that are having trouble with this in their conscience, and because their conscience is weak, they are defiled.”

But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we any the better; neither, if we eat not, are we any the worse ( 1Co 8:8 ).

Eating meat or not eating meat has absolutely nothing to do with my spirituality or my relationship with God. And we can carry this further.

But let us take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to those that are weak. For if any man sees thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idols temple, shall not the conscience of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols ( 1Co 8:9-10 );

Now, let us say that I felt that there was absolutely nothing wrong with my having an occasional martini. Now, that is a hypothesis, because I do feel that there is something wrong, even with an occasional. For me, very wrong. My conscience would wipe me out. I have a weak conscience in that regard. But, let us say that I had one, for it is not what goes in that defiles a man, but what comes out. And so I felt that I could drink. And unfortunately, there are many prominent ministers that do feel this, they have the liberty to drink if they so desire. But, let us say that I was one of those fellows and I felt a great liberty to drink, if I so desired. And here is a fellow who has been an alcoholic, has accepted Christ, has been delivered from his alcoholism, and he goes into a restaurant. And there sitting at the bar is Chuck drinking. “Hey, he’s my pastor. And if he can drink, then I guess it is all right for me to drink.” But yet, he knows it is wrong, because he knows the problem he has with it, but he is emboldened to go ahead and do it, because he sees my liberty. And yet, when he does it, he has this conscience that is just tormenting him. And I say, “Well, I have superior spiritual knowledge. I understand the scriptures. And I understand this,” and I go on and say, “Hey, look, I have the freedom to do it,” and so on. I could actually be an instrument to destroy this weaker brother because of my exercising of my knowledge or liberty that I have.

And through thy knowledge [Paul said] shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you are actually sinning against Christ. Wherefore, if meat makes my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stands, lest I would be an offense to my brother ( 1Co 8:11-13 ).

Now, that is love, and that is walking in love. And love seeks to build up. Knowledge puffs up. And here were these Corinthians, and it was that kind of a situation. They said, “Hey, the idols are nothing.” And they were going into the idols’ temples and there they had good prices and good barbecues. And so they were saying, “The idol is nothing. So what! It is nothing. We can go in there and eat.” They were going in and eating. But the weak brothers who were really troubled over this issue would see them sitting there in the idols eating the meat, and it would bother them. But they thought, “He’s the deacon in the church, or he’s an elder in the church, and if he can do it then I guess I can do it,” but they couldn’t.

This thing called conscience, you really can’t violate it. I don’t care what a person may tell you. To him that esteems the thing to be wrong, to him it is wrong. And you better obey that conscience that you have, because if you don’t, it can get you into serious trouble.

The psychologists are mistaken when they think that they can talk a person out of a particular conviction. I do not seek to talk people out of their honest convictions. I’ll sometimes seek to determine whether or not it is an honest conviction of their own, or something someone else has put on them. If it is an honest conviction of their own, though it be weird, I will not try and talk them out of it. I won’t say, “Hey, that is stupid. That is weird. Nothing wrong with that!”

If a person has a true conscience against doing something, then they better not do it, because you can’t violate your conscience without paying the consequences. And thus, I should not flaunt my liberties, emboldening other people to do the same things because they saw him do it. And yet, as they do it, they do it and it bothers their conscience and drives them away from the Lord. Then I am really destroying this weaker brother, because of my insistence of exercising my great freedom and liberty in Jesus. That is not walking in love. And as Paul said the loving thing is not to even eat meat as long as the world stands, if it causes a weaker brother to be offended.

So, in walking in love, I seek not to offend.

Now, there are limitations to this. Some people are offended with the fact that there is mixed bathing at the beach. And they feel that it is a sin to go down to the beach, because of the mixed bathing there. They have a strong conscience against it. Now, does that mean then that I should never go surfing because there are people who get offended? No, it means that they shouldn’t go there if it bothers them, and then they will never see me there. But the thing is that open flaunting of your liberty, that is not walking in love. The deliberate flaunting of that freedom.

Paul said, “Do you have freedom? Have it to yourself. Don’t use it as a stumblingblock to a weak brother, but walk in love.” Knowledge is good to have, it is good to know, it is good to be freed, but knowledge can puff up, and we should seek to build up. Love builds up. Seek to build up one another in the love of Jesus Christ.

So next week we’ll continue into chapters 9 and 10 as we continue through this first epistle of Corinthians.

Father, we ask Your help that we might walk in love, in consideration for those who are weaker in the faith. That we would seek, Lord, to help one another, to build up one another. And so, Lord, help us to put into practice the injunctions given to us in Your Word. In Jesus’ name we pray. Amen!

May the Lord be with you, bless and keep you in His love, fill you with His Spirit, guide you with His counsels, strengthen you in your walk and in your fellowship with Him. May you go in the love and the power of the Spirit to do His work this week, knowing that we are all servants of Jesus Christ. May we render unto Him pleasing service. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

1Co 8:1. -, as touching-we know) This topic is taken up again at 1Co 8:4, when the parenthesis, which follows, has been concluded.-) that. This explains the we know.-, knowledge) The article is not added,[62]) that he may not concede too much.-, we have) He speaks in the first person of himself and others, more established in the faith; when speaking more generally, he uses the third, 1Co 8:7. Thus we easily reconcile the all [1Co 8:1] and not in all [1Co 8:7].- , knowledge) without love. [Although the fundamental doctrines and those most necessary and difficult are spoken of. V. g.]-, puffeth up) when a man pleases himself; comp. thinks, 1Co 8:2.- , but love) the right use of knowledge, love, towards God, 1Co 8:3, and towards our neighbour.-, edifieth) when a man pleases his neighbour. Knowledge only says, all things are lawful for me; love adds, but all things do not edify.

[62] Therefore, also, in the Germ. Vers., the article ought to be wanting in this passage.-E. B.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 8:1

1Co 8:1

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols:-Here Paul introduces eating meats offered to idols, and the treatment of idolaters. The style of introducing the subject indicates that the Corinthians had asked him questions concerning what was right in regard to these matters. The Christians at Corinth and throughout the Gentile countries had been reared in idolatry, and revered and worshiped idols. Idols were worshiped by sacrificing animals to them. [When an animal was offered in sacrifice to an idol, or to a false god represented by an idol, only a small part, such as the legs wrapped in fat, or the intestines, was consumed by the fire on the altar. The remainder was eaten by the sacrificer and his friends, or those who were invited to the sacrificial feast, which took place either in the temple or in the adjoining grove, and to these feasts Christians were invited (verse 10); or the remainder of the flesh, after what was burnt in honor of the idol, as their perquisite by the priests, would be sold by them in the markets, and the heathen would partake of it as meat of peculiar sanctity.]

It became a question at once: How shall Christians regard and treat these idols and meats offered to them? In the consultation, held by the apostles at Jerusalem, in reference to the circumcising of the Gentiles, they wrote to the Gentile Christians to abstain from things sacrificed to idols. (Act 15:29). When they were first converted to Christ, it seems that they were commanded to abstain from meats offered to them, because while they were yet fresh from the worship of idols, and their consciences were tender in regard to them, the eating of meats offered would tend to revive their reverence for them, and lead them back into idolatry. So they were commanded to abstain from it. As they grew stronger in Christ, and came to know that an idol was nothing, they might eat without their conscience being defiled by eating. The question arose: Shall those who can eat without defiling their consciences be prohibited in its use?

[At this day we can scarcely realize how closely this question affected the whole life of the early Christians. For not only was the worship of the Gentiles sacrificial, but this worship was not confined to the temple precincts, but extended itself to their social gatherings, and even domestic meals.]

We know that we all have knowledge.-All Christians had knowledge that there is but one God, and that idols are nothing.

Knowledge puffeth up,-Knowledge, without the love of God, puffeth up with pride, makes one conceited, self-sufficient, and disregardful of the rights of others. [As a matter of fact, too well known to be denied, men of keen insight into moral and spiritual truths are sometimes prone to despise the less enlightened that stumble among scruples that constantly come before them. The knowledge that is not guarded by humility and love does harm both to its possessor and to other Christians. It puffs up its possessor with scorn, and it alienates and embitters the less enlightened. Knowledge which does not take into consideration the difficulties and scruples of brethren in Christ cannot be admired or commended, for though in itself a good thing and capable of being used for the advancement of the cause of Christ, divorced from love can do good neither to him who possesses it nor to the cause of Christ. It is too often the case that possessors of such knowledge glory in themselves as the men of deep spiritual insight and valiant soldiers of the cross. It is not by knowledge alone that the church can solidly grow. Such knowledge does sometimes produce an appearance of growth, a puffed up, and unhealthy, mushroom growth.]

but love edifieth.-Love to God makes one strong in faith and Christian character, helpful to others, and leads him to look to the good of others, even at the sacrifice of his own rights. This shows that learning without religion, the only basis of love, is not helpful to the world.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The apostle next dealt with the subject of “things sacrificed to idols.” The question evidently was whether the members of the Church in Corinth ought under any circumstances to eat parts of the heathen sacrifices which were sold in the market places for general consumption as food. In dealing with the question the apostle, by contrasting knowledge and love, laid down a principle that is of far wider application than the subject itself demands. He shows that “knowledge puffeth up,” while “love edifieth,” or “buildeth up”; and thus at once reveals love rather than knowledge as the true principle of action.

If knowledge is the simple principle and as an idol is nothing, sacrifices offered to idols have no meaning or value. The evident deduction is that in the light of knowledge a man may eat most certainly. Howbeit the apostle says not all men have that knowledge. Some have been used until now to the idol. They have considered it real, and the judgment, while evidencing the weakness of their knowledge, is nevertheless real to them.

The Christian principle of love demands consideration of the weakness of them; consequently the question whether such meat is to be eaten by the Christian must ever be decided on the basis of that principle. The apostle summarizes the whole position in the superlative words with which this section closes, “If meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble.”

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

8:1-11:1. FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS

8:1-3. General Principles

An idol represents nothing which really exists. Consequently, eating what is offered to such a nonentity is a matter of indifference: yet, in tenderness to the scruples of the weak, we ought to abstain from eating.

1 Now, as to the subject of food that has been offered in sacrifice to idols, we are quite aware (as you say) that we all have knowledge; we all are acquainted with the facts and understand them. But do not let us forget that knowledge may breed conceit, while it is love that builds up character. 2 If any one imagines that he has acquired knowledge, he may be sure that he has not yet attained to the knowledge to which he ought to have attained. 3 But if any one has acquired love of God, this is the man who is known by God, and Gods recognition of him will not breed conceit. 4 Let us return then from these thoughts to the subject of eating the flesh of animals that have been sacrificed to idols. About that we are quite aware that there is no such thing in the world as the being that an idol stands for, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if so-called gods do really exist,-if you like, in heaven, or, if you like, on earth; and, in fact, there are many such gods and many such lords,- 6 nevertheless, for us there is but one God, who is the Source of all things and our Final End, and but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom the whole universe was made and through whom we were made anew. 7 Still, as I have intimated, we do not find in all men the knowledge to which you appeal. On the contrary, some of you, through being accustomed all their lives to look upon an idol as real, partake of sacrificed meat as if it were a real sacrifice to a god, and their conscience, being too weak to guide them aright, is defiled with the consciousness of having done something which they feel to be wrong. 8 But surely it is not food that will affect our relation to God: if we do not eat, we are none the worse in His sight, and if we do eat, we are none the better. 9 Always take care, however, that this freedom of yours to do as you like about eating or not eating does not become an obstacle to the well-being of the weak. 10 For if any such person sees you, who have the necessary knowledge, not only eating this meat, but sitting and eating it in the court of the idol, will not the very fact of his weakness cause his conscience to be hardened-hardened into letting him eat what he still believes to be a sacrifice to an idol? 11 This must be wrong; for it means bringing ruin to the weak man through your knowledge-ruin to the brother for whom Christ died. 12 But in thus sinning against your brethren, and in fact giving their conscience a blow which it is too weak to stand, ye are sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore, if what I eat puts a stumbling-block in my brothers way, I will never eat meat again, so long as the world lasts, rather than put a stumbling-block in my brothers way.

1. . St Paul is probably following the order of the Corinthians questions, but the connexion between this subject and the advisability of marriage (7:2-5, 9, 36) is close. Impurity and the worship of idols were closely allied (Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20), especially at Corinth, and either evil might lead to the other (see Gray on Num 25:1, Num 25:2). By is meant the flesh that was left over from heathen sacrifices. This was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets (4 Macc. 5:2; Act 15:29, Act 15:21:25; Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20). In 10:28 we have , which, like , gives the heathen point of view.*

. See Rom 2:2, Rom 3:19, and Evans on 1Co 8:1, additional note, p. 299. The expression is frequent in Paul.

. Perhaps a quotation, made with gentle irony, from the Corinthians letter. See Moffatt, Lit. of N.T. p. 112. They had claimed enlightenment-so dear to Greeks-on this subject of the true nature of idol-worship. They knew now that there were no gods; the worship of them was a nullity. The Apostle does not dispute that, but enlightenment is not everything: and in the gift which is better than enlightenment the Corinthians are lacking. Some commentators take to mean all Christians, which has point. It can hardly mean the Apostle and all who are similarly illuminated: he is urging that knowledge is not the prerogative of a privileged few.

. Enlightenment is not merely insufficient for solving these questions; unless it is accompanied by love, it is likely to generate pride. While love builds up, mere knowledge puffs up. Thus in Col 2:18 (the only place outside 1 Cor. in which the verb occurs) we have, : The Apostle once more glances at the inflated self-complacency which was so common at Corinth (4:6, 18, 19, 5:2). Puffed up is just what is not (13:4). Cf. , 1Ti 3:6, 1Ti 3:6:4; 2Ti 3:4. Est genus scientiae, quo homines tumescunt; quae quia charitate non est condita, idea inflat. Ille qui putat se scire, propterea quia intelligit omnia licita, et non inquinare quod in nos intrat (Mat 15:11, Mat 15:20), dum ad scandalum fratris licita sumit, nondum cognovit quemadmodum oporteat eum scire (Atto). Loving consideration for the weakness of others buttresses them, and strengthens the whole edifice of the Church (Rom 14:15). Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, P. 257.

. For the first time in this letter St Paul uses this verb: but occurs 3:9 and 3:10. The earliest use of it in his writings 1Th 5:11, where he charges the Thessalonians to build up each the other, and it becomes one of his favourite metaphors, especially in this Epistle (v. 10, 10:23, 14:4, 17), with still more frequent. It is possible that our Lords use of the metaphor of building up His Church (Mat 16:18) may have suggested it to the Apostle; but it is a natural metaphor for any one to use. We find it in Act 9:31, Act 9:20:32; 1Pe 2:5; Jud 1:20; cf. Act 4:11. It is used of building up individuals, building up a society, and building up individuals to form a society (Hart on 1Pe 2:5).* The metaphor is elaborately worked out Eph 2:20, Eph 2:21; cf. 1Co 3:10-14. Jeremiah was set apart from his birth (Jer 1:10; cf. 18:9, 24:6; Ecclus. 49:7). in the hymn in praise of (xiii.) this characteristic is not mentioned. Cf. Aristotle (Eth. Nic. 1:3:6), : (II. ii. I) : also x. ix. I. See Butlers Thirdly in the Sermon on the Ignorance of Man. On see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 198 f.; Light, p. 18.

The punctuation of Griesbach, Bengel, etc., , Now about things offered we know; because we all have knowledge, is intolerably harsh. It would be almost impossible in v. 4, and in the two places are evidently parallel. Lachmann conjectured that the original reading was … See Alford.

St Bernard (In Canlica, xxxvi. 3) quotes Persius (1:27), Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter, in commenting on this passage, and remarks: Sunt qui scire volunt, ut sciantur ipsi; et turpis vanitas est. Et sunt qui scire volunt, ut scientiam suam vendant; et turpis quaestus est. Sed sunt quoque qui scire volunt ut aedificent; et charitas est.

2. . If any one fancies (existimat, Vulg.; sibi videtur, Beza) that he knows anything. The Corinthians fancied that they knew; (perf.) that they had acquired knowledge, and that the knowledge was complete. If they had had more real knowledge they would have been less confident. It is the man of superficial knowledge that is ready to solve all questions; and this readiness is evidence of want of real knowledge, for it shows that he does not know how ignorant he is. Cf. 3:18, 11:16; 1Ti 1:7. In there is no reference to a future life.

3. . This is the sure test, love; and love of the highest of all objects, which is the highest form of love,-the love of Love Itself. This is a very different thing from thinking that one knows something.

. The sentence is ambiguous in grammar, for either pronoun may refer to the man, and either to God; but there is no reasonable doubt that is the man, who is recognized and acknowledged by God as His. In a special sense, The Lord knoweth them that are His (2Ti 2:19; Psa 1:6; Nah 1:7; Jer 1:5; Isa 49:1). To Moses He said, I know thee by name, (Exo 33:12, Exo 33:17). It is in this sense that the man who loves God is known by God. We might have expected the Apostle to say, either, He who knows God is known by Him (Gal 4:9), or He who loves God is loved by Him (1Jn 4:19): but the combination of the two verbs is more telling, and more to his purpose. One who in this special sense is known by God may safely be assumed to possess what may rightly be called and not something which merely generates pride. He has the highest recognition of all in being known by God, and is not eager to show off in order to gain the recognition of men. Ille veram habet scientiam qui Deum diligit; et qui diligit Deum, fratris, at suam, diligit salvationem (Atto). Consequently, the man who loves God is the one who can rightly solve the question about food offered to idols. What effect will his partaking of it have on his fellow-Christians progress in holiness?

4. . After these preliminary considerations (vv. 1-3), which indicate the direction in which a solution of the question is likely to be found, he returns with a resumptive (Gal 3:5) to the question mentioned in v. 1, and states it more definitely. We now learn that it was respecting the lawfulness of eating what had been offered to idols that the Corinthians wanted to have his decision. It was a question of very frequent occurrence. In private sacrifices certain portions of the animal were the perquisite of the priests, but nearly all the rest might be taken away by the offerer, to be eaten at home or sold. In public sacrifices made by the state the skins and carcases, which at Athens sometimes amounted to hundreds, were an important source of revenue and patronage, the skins being sold for the state ( ), and the flesh being distributed to magistrates and others, who would sell what they did not need for home consumption. Smith, Dict. of Grk. and Rom. Ant. 11. p. 585. In the markets and in private houses were constantly to be found.

. Here again he seems to be quoting from the Corinthian letter; What you say about the nullity of idols is quite true, but it does not settle the matter. Cf. 1Ti 1:8.

. These two clauses are parallel, and they should be translated in a similar way; and, as cannot be the predicate, is not the predicate, although most versions take it so (quia nihil est idolum to mundo, Vulg.; dass ein Gtze nichis in der Welt sei, Luth.). Either, that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no God but one, or that nothing in the world is an idol, and that no being is God except one, is probably right, and the former is far better: cf. Mar 10:18; Luk 18:19. An idol professes to be an image of a god, not of the only God, and such a thing does not, and cannot, exist, for you cannot represent what has no existence. If there is no Zeus, an of Zeus is an impossibility. It represents a no-god (see Driver on Deu 32:17, Deu 32:21), and the maker of it , (Hab 2:18). This is what is meant by they ate the sacrifices of the dead (Psa 106:28; cf. 115:4-8, 135:15-18), deaf and dumb idols (12:2) in contrast to the living God. They are called , Wisd. 13:10, 15:17. Jews regarded them as nothing (aven), mere lies (ellm).

With here compare Rom 5:13. In the ordered universe there can be only one God, viz., the God who made it.

D3 E 17, Vulg. read without . D* has , and P 121, . After , 3 K L, Syrr. add , as in AV. None of these readings is likely to be right.

5. … For even granted that there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or upon earth, just as there are gods many and lords many. Here and are correlative, and must be taken in the same sense in both clauses. If both refer to what really exists, the meaning will be, If you like to say that, because there are supernatural beings in abundance, as we all believe, therefore the so-called gods of the heathen really exist, nevertheless for us Christians there is only one God.* If both refer to heathen superstition, the meaning will be, Granted that there are so called gods, as there are-plenty of them; still for us, etc. He seems to mean that to the worshippers the idol is an object of adoration; so that, while actually they worship a nonentity, ethically they are worshippers of (10:20). Jehovah is God of gods and Lord of lords (Deu 10:17; Psa 136:2, Psa 136:3), and therefore the second probably refers to actual existence. Moreover, St Paul, while denying that the heathen gods existed (see Lightfoot on Gal 4:8), yet held that heathen sacrifices were offered to beings that do exist (10:19-21); there were supernatural powers behind the idols, although not the gods which the idols represented. It is perhaps too much to say that , which in N.T. is peculiar to St Paul (2Th 1:6; Rom 3:30, Rom 3:8:9, Rom 3:17), is used of what the writer holds to be true or probable, yet it certainly does not imply that the hypothesis is improbable: granted that is the meaning. See Sanday and Headlam, p. 96; Thackeray, p. 144. Whether in heaven or on earth gives the two main divisions of the in v. 4. Dicuntur dii in caelo, ut sol, luna et varia sidera; in terra, imago Jovis, Mercurii atque Herculis (Atto). More probably the latter are the heavenly, while the earthly are the nymphs, fauns, etc. See Stanleys notes on this verse.

6. . Nevertheless (whatever may be the truth about these), for us believers (emphatically) there is one God, the Father, from whom come all things, while we tend towards Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, we also through Him. There are two parallel triplets; , , : , , . The one God is compared on the one side with many gods, on the other with the sum total of the universe: so also the one Lord. The comparison results in opposition in the one case, in harmony in the other. The are intolerable rivals to the and : are welcome creatures. The , like the previous , means we Christians. Bruta animalia et infideles homines in terram curvantur et terrena quaerunt; * nos vero per fidem et desiderium tendimus in eum a quo descendimus (Herv.). God is the central Fount and the central Goal: all beings proceed from the former; only believers consciously work towards the latter. See Resch, Agrapha, p. 129.

In the case of Jesus Christ we have the same preposition ( c. gen.) with both and . But does not refer to the same fact as . The former points to the Sons work in creation, the latter to His work in the new creation of mankind. If any man is in Christ there is a new creation (2Co 5:17; see Lightfoot on Gal 6:15). This verse contains the earliest statement in the N.T. as to the work of our Lord in creation. This is stated more fully in Col 1:16-18. There, as here, the work of our Lord in creation and His work for the Church are spoken of together (Goudge). Per quem creati sumus ut essemus, per ipsum recreati sumus ut unum Deum intelligeremus, atque idolum nihil esse recognosceremus (Atto). The statement is clear evidence of the Apostles belief in the pre-existence of Christ; see on 10:4, where we have similar evidence. Schmiedel remarks that Paul nowhere else ascribes to Christ a share in the work of creation; but, as he frequently teaches the pre-existence, it is not going much further to ascribe to Him this work. Wace & Schaff, Nicene Library, IV. Athanasius, p. lxxi. n.; Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 131; J. Kaftan, Jesus u. Paulus, p. 64; Weinel, St Paul, p. 45.

B, Fay. omit before . * omits . B, Aeth. have for .

7. . But not in all people is there the knowledge which is necessary for eating idol-meats without harm. They do not know the principle on which the more enlightened do this. Non omnes sciunt quod proptler contemptum hoc faciatis, sed putant vos propter venerationem hoc facere (Primasius); and they know that any veneration of an idol must be wrong. There is perhaps a difference intended between having knowledge (v. 1) and its being in them as an effective and illuminating principle.

. To take with , continue the practice of eating such food even until now, simplifies the translation, but it is not correct: . . . is all one expression, in which (4:13, 15:6) qualifies . It is the force of habit which lasts even until now. They have been so accustomed to regard an idol as a reality, as representing a god that exists, that even now, in spite of their conversion, they cannot get rid of the feeling that, by eating food which has been offered to an idol, they are taking part in the worship of heathen gods; they cannot eat (Rom 14:23). Consequently, when the example of other Christians encourages them to eat meat of this kind, they do what they feel to be wrong. But some, through the force of habit which still clings to them respecting the idol, eat the meat as being an idol sacrifice. Missionaries at the present day have similar experiences. A belief in witchcraft long continues to lurk in otherwise well-instructed Christians, and (against their reason and their conscience) they allow themselves to be influenced by it. Note the emphasis on , and compare the datives in Gal 6:12 and Rom 11:31.

. And so their conscience, being weak, is defiled. It is defiled, not by the partaking of polluted food, for food cannot pollute (Mar 7:18, Mar 7:19; Luk 11:41), but by the doing of something which the unenlightened conscience does not allow. Cf. 2Co 7:1. An uninstructed conscience may condemn what is not wrong, or allow what is; but even in such cases it ought to be obeyed. See notes on Rom 14:23. It is not quite clear what is meant by . It may mean too weak to resist the temptation of following the example of others, or weak through being unilluminated.* In either case it is defiled by a consciousness of guilt. The man feels that he is doing what is wrong; and, until he knows the real merits of the case, he is doing what is wrong. For see 11:16; Joh 18:39; Joh_4 Mal 2:12 ( , ), 6:13, 13:22, 27; and for see notes on Rom 2:15 and Westcott on Heb 9:9, p. 293: is rare in LXX, frequent in the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. See Hastings, DB. 1. pp. 468 f. The weakness consists in giving moral value to things that are morally indifferent. That must lessen the power of conscience.

(* A B P 17, Copt. Aeth.) is to be preferred to ( 3 D E F G L, Vulg. Arm.), and shoul precede ( B D E F G, Latt.), not follow it (A L P). With conscience of the idol (AV.) is hardly intelligible, and with consciousness of the idol is not much better. If be adopted, we must expand the meaning; with the scruple of conscience which they feel about the idol (Evans).

8. . Commend (AV., RV.) is perhaps a trifle too definite for : present is accurate, meaning present for approbation or condemnation. In this passage the Apostle probably had approbation chiefly in his mind, but in what follows both alternatives are given. Food will not bring us into any relation, good or bad, with God: it will have no effect on the estimate which He will form respecting us, or on the judgment which He will pronounce upon us. It is not one of the things which we shall have to answer for (Rom 14:17). It is the clean heart, and not clean food, that will matter; and the weak brother confounds the two. The question of tense (see small print below) is important. The future can hardly refer to anything but the Day of Judgment. For the verb cf. Rom 6:13, Rom 6:14:10; 2Co 4:14. The translation commend obscures the reference to a judgment to come: will not affect our standing before God is right.

, , If we abstain from eating we are not prejudiced (in Gods sight), and if we eat we have no advantage. We lose nothing by refraining from using our liberty in this matter, and we gain nothing by exercising it. Others explain of being inferior to the man who does not abstain, and of being superior to the man who does abstain. This explanation is somewhat superficial and loses all connexion with the preceding sentence. Almost certainly is to be understood in both clauses. See Alexander, The Ethics of St Paul, p. 239.

For the evidence is overwhelming, but * 17, 37 read . The two words are often confused in MSS. ( A B 17, Copt.) is to be preferred to ( 3 D E L P, Latt.). The after the first (D E F G L P, Vulg-Clem.) should be omitted ( A B 17, A m. Copt. Arm. Aeth,). And probably ., . should precede ., . (A*B, Am. Copt. Arm.) rather then vice versa ( D F L P,: Syrr.). The interchange of the verbs, ., ., ., . (A2 17), is not likely to be right, although adopted by Lachm. The interchange os the clauses was a natural correction, in order to put the positive before the negative hypothesis. The Apostle puts the negative first, because that is the course which he recommends; If we do not eat, although we may, we are in no worse position before God. The form (B, Orig.), adopted by the Revisers, is probably a mechanical assimilation to .

9. . Take heed, however, lest this liberty of yours prove a stumbling-block to the weak. It is lawful for those whose consciences are enlightened to do as they like about it ( as in 7:37, 9:4, and as in 6:12); their eating will not do them any harm. But it may do harm to others, and thus may bring the eaters into a worse position before God. See notes on Rom 14:13, Rom 14:20: excepting the quotation in 1Pe 2:8, in N.T. is confined to this passage and Romans; in LXX it is not rare. It is that against which the man with weak sight stumbles; it is no obstacle to the man who sees his way; but the weak-sighted must be considered.*

( A B D E F, etc.), as in v. 7; (L, Chrys. Thdrt.) perhaps from v. 11. P has .

10. . In order to show how the of endiculum (Vulg.) arises, he takes an extreme case. A Corinthian, in a spirit of bravado, to show his superior enlightenment and the wide scope of his Christian freedom, not only partakes of idol-meats, but does so at a sacrificial banquet within the precincts of the idol-temple. This was per se idolatrous; but St Paul holds the more severe condemnation in reserve: see on 10:14 f. The may mean either that this is the mans own belief about himself, or that it is the weak brothers opinion of him. , uocabulum aptum ad deterrendum (Beng.), is not classical: in LXX it occurs 1 Esdr. 2:10; Bel 11; 1 Mac. 1:47 (v.l. ), 10:83; and in 1Sa 31:10, we have the analogous , like , , etc. Such words are frequent in papyri.

. Seeing that he is weak. It is just because he is feeble in insight and character that this following of a questionable example builds up his conscience in a disastrous way. His conscience is not sufficiently instructed to tell him that he may eat without scruple, and yet he eats. Doing violence to scruples is no true edification: it is rather a pulling down of bulwarks. Tertullian seems to have had this passage in his mind when he says of those who are seduced into heresy; Solent quidem isti infirmiores aedificari in ruinam (De Praescr. Haer. 3). Atto paraphrases; provocabitur manducare idolothyta, non tamen ea fide qua tu. It is ruinosa aedificatio, quae in sana doctrina fundata non est (Calv.).

The before is omitted by B F G, Vulg. Some editors bracket it, but it is well attested ( A D E L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm). is an insipid conjecture for , which is deliberately chosen with gentle irony, and needs no mending.

11. . . . For it is destruction that he who is weak finds in thy knowledge. Ruin, and not building up, is what he is getting by following the example of one who is better instructed than himself. There is the tragedy of it; that the illumination of one Corinthian is precisely the field in which another Corinthian takes the road to ruin. And the tragedy reaches a climax in the fact that the one who is led astray is the brother in Christ of him who leads him astray, and is one whom Christ died to save from ruin. The last clause could hardly be more forcible in its appeal; every word tells; the brother, not a mere stranger; for the sake of whom, precisely to rescue him from destruction; Christ, no less than He; died, no less than that: cf. Rom 14:15. Tu eris occasio mortis ejus propter quem Christus, ut redimeret, mortuus est (Herv.). See Mat 18:6.

. (* B 17, Copt. Goth.) is to be preferred to . (3* D, d e) or . (A P 39). And , though well supported (D3 E F G L, Vulg. Syrr. Arm. Aeth.), looks like a correction to assimilate the tense with and carry on the question through v. 11. The question ends at , and what follows is explanation. The emphatic position of , and also the tense, have force; it is no less than destruction that results, and the destruction is already at work.

12. . But by sinning against your brothers in such a way as this: is emphatic. This verse confirms the view that . . . (6:18) must mean sins against his own body.

. And by inflicting blows upon their conscience in its weakness. The makes the more definite, by showing the kind of injury. The force of the present participles should be noted: the wounding is a continued process, and so also is the weakliness; not , but . Nowhere else in N.T. is used in a metaphorical sense: elsewhere only in the Synoptists and Acts. But this sense occurs, in LXX (1Sa 1:8; Pro 26:22; Dan 11:20). Wounding and weakening are in emphatic contrast: what requires the tenderest handling is brutally treated, so that its sensibility is numbed. The wounding is not the shock which the weak Christian receives at seeing a fellow-Christian eating idol-meats in an idol-court, but the inducement to do the like, although he believes it to be wrong. His conscience is lamed by being crushed. This is the third metaphor used respecting the weak conscience; it is soiled (v. 7), made to stumble (v. 9), wounded (v. 12). The order of the words is a climax; inflicting blows, not on the back, but on the conscience, and on the conscience when it is in a weakly state.

. Like and , . is emphatic by position: it is against Christ that ye are sinning. St Paul may have known the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Mat 25:40, Mat 25:45), but Christ Himself had taught him that an injury to the brethren was an injury to Himself (Act 9:4, Act 9:5).

13. . For this very reason, i.e. to avoid sinning against Christ; the strengthens the : here and 10:14 only, in N.T. See 2 Mac. 5:20, 6:27.

… If food causes my brother to stumble, I will certainly never eat flesh again for evermore, that I may not make my brother to stumble. The declaration is conditional. If the Apostle knows of definite cases in which his eating food will lead to others being encouraged to violate the dictates of conscience, then certainly he will never eat meat so long as there is real danger of this (10:28, 29). But if he knows of no such danger, he will use his Christian freedom and eat without scruple (10:25-27). He does not, of course, mean that the whole practice of Christians is to be regulated with a view to the possible scrupulousness of the narrow-minded. That would be to sacrifice our divinely given liberty (2Co 3:17) to the ignorant pre-judices of bigots. The circumstances of this or that Christian may be such that it is his duty to abstain from intoxicants, although he is never tempted to drink to excess; but Christians in general are bound by no such rule, and it would be tyranny to try to impose such a rule.

The change from to is natural enough. If such a thing as food (which is always a matter of indifference) causes I will never again eat flesh (which is in question here), etc. Note how he harps on .

In dealing with both the question of fornication and that of eating idol-meats, the Apostle brings the solution ultimately from our relation to Christ. Fornication is taking from Christ what is His property and giving it to a harlot. Reckless eating of idol-meats is an injury inflicted on Christ. In neither case does he appeal to the decree of the Apostles at the conference in Jerusalem (Act 15:20, Act 15:29). The principles to which he appeals were far more cogent, especially for Greeks.* Compare carefully Rom 14:14, Rom 14:17, Rom 14:21.

In his recent (1908) paper on the Apostolic Decree (Act 15:20-29), Dr. Sanday says; The decree was only addressed in the first instance to a limited area: and I can well believe that it soon fell into comparative disuse even within that area. It is true that, as we read it in the Acts, the decree has the appearance of a very authoritative document. Something of this appearance may be due to a mistaken estimate on the part of St Luke himself. But, even so, we are apt to read into it more than it really means. For the moment the decree had a real significance: it meant a united Christendom, instead of a disunited. Many an official document has had a temporary success of this kind, which the course of events has soon caused to become a dead letter. That was really the fate of the decree. The tide of events ebbed away from it, and it was left on the beach stranded and lifeless-lifeless at least for the larger half of the Church, for that Gentile Church which soon began to advance by leaps and bounds.

As to any further difficulty from St Pauls treatment of meats offered in sacrifice to idols, I confess that I think little of it. He could upon occasion become a Jew to the Jews. But the decree, we may be sure, made no impression upon his mind. It contributed nothing to his Gospel. It was no outcome of his religious principles. It was just a practical concordat, valid in certain specified regions and under certain definite conditions. But when he was altogether outside these, among his own converts, he dealt with them by his own methods, and without any thought of the authorities at Jerusalem.

The inference, from St Pauls silence, that Act_15. belongs to a period later than this Epistle, is quite untenable.

* In Aristoph. Aves 1265, mortals are forbidden to send to the gods through the air which belongs to the birds.

* In Spencer and other contemporary and earlier writers, edify and edificatioon are used in their original sense of constructing buildings. See Kitchin on Faery Queene, 1:1:34, and Wright, Bible Word-Book, p. 219. It is found as late as 1670, the re-edifying Layton Church (Izaac Walton, Life of G. Herbert, sub fin.).

D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 -22 is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. 211, 212.

P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 -17 : 12:23 -13:5 -: 14:23 . A good type of text in St Pauls Epistles.

(Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 : 8:7 -8:11 .

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.

* Quocunque te flexeris, ibi illum videbis occurrentem tibi; nihil ab illo vacat, opus suum ipse implet (Seneca, De Benef. iv. 8; compare M. Aurelius, xii. 28; Xen. Mem. IV. iii. 13). There is a close parallel in 1Ti 2:5.

With here compare in 4:5. The context implies only one God. See Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. p. 81.

* But the unbelieving heathen must not be wholly excluded from the . While the Jew was being drawn by a special revelation through the Prophets towards God, the Gentile was groping his way in a general revelation through the order of Nature towards him, till the course of both was completed by the revelation in Christ (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p.15).

The AV. is very inaccurate, translating in instead of unto, and by instead of through. B. W. Bacon regards, vv. 6 and 8 as quotations from the Corinthians letter.

B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

* Perhaps 11:30 indicates that here means unhealthy, morbid, and so incapable of healthy action: cf. Luk 10:9; Act 5:15. Words signifying weakness of body easily become used of mental an moral weakness. A healthy conscience would not be uneasy about eating such food, and eating would then cause no defilement. In Ecclus, 21:28 the slanderer : in blackening his neighbours character he violates and blackens his own conscience.

A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1Co 3:8-16, 1Co 6:7-14 (F).

37 37. (Ev. 69, Act 31, Rev_14. Fifteenth century.) The well-known Leicester codex. Contains a good text.

* The stronger one can, for the sake of the weaker, refain from using this liberty; but the weaker cannot, on account of his conscience, follow the example of the stronger (B. Weiss).

Grenfell and Hunt (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1. p. 177) give an invitation to sup at the of the Lord Serapis in the Seraperium. There is another invitation to a meal in honour of Serapis in a private house. See Bachmann, p. 307; also Deissmann, Light, p. 355.

It is possible that St Paul used the unusual word , because he was unwilling to put words with such sacred associations as or to any such use (Edwards). But (v. 4) suggests , and no other world would have expressed the meaning so clearly. It is also possible that (a strange word in this connexion) is a sarcastic quotation of a Corinthian expression. Perhaps they talked of edifying the weak brethren by showing them to what lengths they could go. This was educating their consciences, but it was a ruinosa aedificatio (calv.). The best MSS. have , not : comare , Mat 18:27. In Luk 10:34, is well attested.

d d The Latin text of D

e e The Latin text of E

* See Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. 57, 63.

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Consideration for Others Weakness

1Co 8:1-13

It was the heathen custom of the time to present for blessing in the idol temples the food that was sold and bought in public marketplaces. A grave question arose, therefore, as to whether the Christian convert might partake of such food without blame. Paul took a broad and common-sense view of the situation. He declared there is only one God and that an idol is an absolute nonentity. Therefore it was a matter of perfect indifference what the heathen butchers might have done before they exposed their meat for sale. At the same time if some weaker brother were really thrown back in his Christian life by seeing his fellow-believer eating in a heathen temple, that in itself would at once be a sufficient reason why the stronger should abstain for the weaker brothers sake. There are many things which, so far as we personally are concerned, we might feel free to do or permit, but which we must avoid if they threaten to hinder the practice or divert the course of some fellow-Christian.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Christian Liberty And Brotherly Care

1Co 8:1-13

Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. 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. 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. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idols temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (vv. 1-13)

In this chapter the Spirit of God deals in a very remarkable way with the great theme of Christian liberty and brotherly care. It is almost impossible for us, in a land like this, to visualize the exact circumstances in which the early Christians were found, but those who have labored for any length of time among a heathen people will understand exactly what the problem was with which the apostle deals in this particular chapter. It was the question of how far a Christian was at liberty to eat meats which at their killing had been dedicated to idols. This was the common practice. In fact, practically all the meats that were sold in the markets had been so dedicated. One can understand that many of the early Christians feared that if they fed upon meats of this character they should be bringing dishonor upon the name of the Lord and possibly appear to countenance idol worship. I have noticed the same thing among the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico and Arizona, and also the Navajo and other Indians when they become Christians; they are concerned as to anything that looks like participation in or recognition of heathen ceremonies, because they want the people to understand that they have made a clean cut with the old life. In Corinth this was quite a problem, and it is evident that they had written to the apostle Paul for information concerning it.

Concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, we read in the opening verses of the seventh chapter, and this expression introduces the rest of the epistle. From that point on the apostle is dealing with matters that had been submitted to him by letter, that he might give his inspired judgment for the guidance of the church. And so here he says, As touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. We all, that is, we Christians, we know the one true and living God and we know the folly of idolatry. However, in these first three verses the apostle stresses the importance of humility, both as to our attainments in grace and our knowledge of the truth. We may know certain things that others do not, and may act upon our knowledge in such a way as to put a stumbling block in the path of someone else; so he exhorts us to hold that knowledge that God has given us in the spirit of humility. We quite understand that there are no such beings in the world as those represented by the idols, but that does not do away with the fact that behind the idolatry is satanic power. The things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to [demons], and not to God (1Co 10:20); therefore there must be no compromise whatever between Christianity and pagan religions. We know that those who are in the darkness of heathenism are in the bondage of Satan, and therefore our missionaries are not to take from their pagan religions all the good they can and then share what we have with them. Not at all. To a people whom we know to be lost in their sins, worshiping idols that represent nothing that is real, our missionaries go to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God. This was what the apostles and their fellow workers went forth to do, and their methods should be our methods. We need nothing new. The gospel is still the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth (Rom 1:16), and where it is preached in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, miracles will be wrought in the hearts and lives of heathen men today just as truly as nineteen hundred years ago and down through the centuries.

We know that an idol is nothing in the world, but on the other hand everybody does not have this knowledge, and it may not be wise to say, It does not make any difference to me whether these meats were offered to idols, and so I am at liberty to eat. Yes, as far as my own conscience is concerned I am at liberty to eat of it, but let me stop to consider the effect of that upon others. But, you say, I know. Yes, but knowledge [mere knowledge] puffeth up. It is quite possible to be conceited and proud over the fact that I have a little knowledge that someone else has not. I may well ask, What hast thou that thou didst not receive? (1Co 4:7). There is a tendency to pride in our hearts even in the things of God. We get a smattering of His Word that some others do not have, and instantly we are lifted up in our own conceit. He says, Knowledge [if it is only that] puffeth up. Do you see the difference? Knowledge puffs up- love builds up. Some of us get to be like a great swollen frog on a log, just puffed out with wind. We imagine that we have advanced wonderfully over other folk. Throw a stone at the frog and he suddenly shrinks to about one-fifth of the size he seemed to be. Yes, knowledge puffs up but love builds up. It makes for real, solid growth.

We need to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, and if we put knowledge before grace, it will work harm to ourselves as well as to others. If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. Has God given me a little light on His Word? After all, I know very little compared with the many things of which as yet I have no knowledge, and so let me hold in all humility what He has imparted, thanking Him for it, but walking carefully before Him.

If any man love God, the same is known of him. We might have expected the apostle to say, If a man love God, he knows God. That is true, but the other side is the wonderful part of it. If any man love God, God knows him, and it is that in which we can rejoice. I like the way the apostle John speaks of himself so often, The disciple whom Jesus loved. If you or I had been writing that, we might have said, The disciple who loved Jesus; and I do not know whether we would have stopped there, we might have said, That disciple who loved Jesus whose name is So and So. That is the way most of us do. Naturally we all like to get our own names to the front. We need to be brought low to the feet of our blessed Savior. John gloried in the fact that he was that disciple whom Jesus loved, and it is for us to rejoice in the fact that we are known and loved of God.

Then in verses 4-6 we have the hollowness and the emptiness of all idolatrous systems. There is a science, a very recent one, known as the Science of Comparative Religions. I think it had its origin largely in the Worlds Fair held in Chicago in 1893, when there was a great Congress of Religion and teachers came from all parts of the world to exchange thoughts on religious concepts. From that time on men began comparing one religion with another. There is a Science of Comparative Religions, but Christianity is not one of them. Christianity is not a religion, it is a revelation. It is not something that men have thought out; it is not a system of philosophy, or ethics; it is something revealed from heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit. Idolatrous systems are the works of men energized by the enemy.

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. That God is the God who has been revealed as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. For though [in the world around and in the pagan nations] there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lords many), but to us [to those of us who have accepted the revelation that has been given in this holy Word] there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Observe, Paul is not speaking here of the doctrine of the Trinity, neither is he intimating that it might be a mistake to put our Lord Jesus Christ as the divine eternal Son on the same level with the Father and the Holy Spirit. To us there is one God, and that God is the One who has revealed Himself in the Word as our Father, as the Creator of all men; He is the Father of all that believe. He is the Father of the universe because that through Him it came into existence; it came out of Him, and therefore there is a sense in which it is perfectly right to speak of the universal Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. He is the God of the spirits of all flesh; all men came into existence through Him. But man is a fallen creature, he has turned away from God; he is dead spiritually, and therefore needs to be quickened into newness of life; and it is only when regenerated, when born again, that he comes into the family of God through redemption. Now he can look up into the face of God and say, Our Father, something that he could not do in his unconverted state.

The apostle says, There is but one God, and this is perfectly true. Elsewhere in Scripture we find that He subsists in three persons: the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That comes out very clearly in the baptismal formula. Go ye therefore, and disciple all nations, baptizing them unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mat 28:19). How incongruous it would be to put the name of a mere creature in there! Suppose, for instance, much as we revere the one who was blessed and favored above all women because chosen to be the mother of the Son of God, that we should say, Unto the name of the Father, and of the Son, and the blessed Virgin Mary. How instinctively every Christian heart would shrink from that. We must not put a creature into the place of Deity, but we can say, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, for the Father with the Son and the Holy Spirit is God; the Father without the Son and the Holy Spirit would not be God. The Son with the Father and the Holy Spirit is God: the Son without the Father and Holy Spirit would not be God. The Spirit with the Father and the Son is God; but the Spirit without the Father and the Son would not be God. That is a definition that was coined some years ago by the venerable Dr. Joseph Cook of England, and it sets forth the truth as it is in Scripture.

When we are speaking of Christ in His mediatorial position, we bring Him down to the place He took in grace as a Man without denying His Deity. Someone asked me this question: Is there any sense in which God the Father is greater than Jesus Christ? When we think of the Lord Jesus as the Eternal Only-begotten Son, He is coequal with the Father; and when He speaks of Himself as the Son, He says, That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father (Joh 5:23). If any man does not honor the Son, he dishonors the Father. I and my Father are one. But having stooped in grace to become Man, the Man Christ Jesus voluntarily takes a place of subjection to the Father, and therefore, as the Son born on earth of a virgin mother, He is the same Person, but the same Person in different circumstances; He voluntarily assumes humiliation and says, My Father is greater than I. There is no difficulty about this if we remember that He is Son of God in two senses: God the Son from eternity, and the Son of God born of a virgin mother here on earth, with no human father.

There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him. And then, there is one Lord Jesus Christ, one to whom we yield the allegiance of our hearts and recognize that He is our Savior, By whom are all things, and we by him. That is, our blessed Lord is the originator of both creations-By whom are all things. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made (Joh 1:1-3). This entire creation came into existence through the word of His power. He spake, and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast. He who is God is the Son from all eternity. But this creation fell and a mediator was needed, and so He came into the world in lowly grace; He assumed a servants form and became Man without ceasing for one moment to be God. As Man He went to Calvarys cross to settle the sin question. He was buried, but He rose again in triumph, and as the risen One He is Head of the new creation. By him are all things-that is the old creation. And we by him-that is the new creation. God has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Eph 2:6). For we who were dead in sins have been quickened together with Him, and it is because we know this, because we know that God has thus revealed Himself, that we are through forever with idols. Sometimes when we talk of missions, there are those who speak slightingly of this work, speak of it as though it pays very poor returns. We ourselves have only to go back a few centuries to find that our ancestors were idolaters, but the gospel came to them with the knowledge of God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ delivered them from their idolatry and thus we are what we are today. Shall we think for one moment of refusing to give the gospel to those still sitting in the darkness in which our forefathers once sat?

From verse 7 to the end of the chapter the apostle dwells especially on the importance of concern for the consciences of others. We may not face exactly the same problems that these Corinthians did, but we need to have the same care for the consciences of other people. A Christian may say, I am quite sure that this thing is right; I have perfect liberty, and I am not going to let somebody else dictate to me what I should do. But stop a moment; suppose that someone else who does not have light on this thing is quite convinced that you are deliberately and willfully disobeying the Word of God. If by-and-by that person should come to the conclusion that since you, a stronger Christian, feel free to do that, he is free to do it too, what then? Do you not see that his conscience will be defiled and his testimony eventually be ruined. So the apostle says, 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, that is, believing that an idol is a reality, and believing that they are committing an idolatrous act. And their conscience being weak is defiled. Under those circumstances we can deny ourselves of that which might injure and hurt them if they persist in it.

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. Why do we need to be concerned about nonessentials like these? If this matter will trouble someone else, I will put it out of my life. I will not use my liberty if it causes another to stumble. I will not use my liberty to gratify my own desires. Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idols temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols? Perhaps he is just a young convert, or simply an inquirer, maybe one not at all established, perhaps not yet truly regenerated, and if he sees you do something that hurts his conscience and he does the same thing, he denies his conscience, and it may lead to the shipwreck of his faith. Because you insist upon your liberty, shall that weak brother perish? He is not affirming that any true child of God will ever be lost, but he puts it in the form of a question. Would you be willing so to behave that it would cause anothers shipwreck? Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

Some years ago I was preaching in a gospel hall in Detroit. A former Muslim from India was there who was at the head of a tea business, and he had been brought to know the Lord Jesus Christ. On one occasion when holding a meeting there, the Sunday school had its annual outing and we all went over to a beautiful spot, and spent the day together. I was chatting with this brother, Mr. Mohammed Ali by name, when a young girl came by passing out sandwiches. She said, Wont you have a sandwich?

Thank you, I said, what kind have you?

I have several different kinds.

I will help myself to several of them.

And then she turned to Mr. Ali and said, Will you have one?

What kind are they? he asked.

There is fresh pork and there is ham.

Have you any beef?

No, I do not.

Have you any lamb?

No.

Fish?

No.

Thank you, my dear young lady, but I wont take any.

Laughingly she said, Why, Mr. Ali, you surprise me. Are you so under law that you cannot eat pork? Dont you know that a Christian is at liberty to eat any kind of meat?

I am at liberty, my dear young lady, to eat it, he said, but I am also at liberty to let it alone. You know I was brought up a strict Muslim. My old father, nearly eighty years of age now, is still a Muslim. Every three years I go back to India to render an account of the business of which my father is really the head, and to have a visit with the folks at home. Always when I get home I know how I will be greeted. The friends will be sitting inside, my father will come to the door when the servant announces that I am there, and he will say, Mohammed, have those infidels taught you to eat the filthy hog meat yet? No, Father, I will say; pork has never passed my lips. Then I can go in and have the opportunity to preach Christ to them. If I took one of your sandwiches, I could not preach Christ to my father the next time I go home.

Of course the young lady understood. He was acting exactly as the apostle is suggesting here. We have liberty to refrain from doing these things if they will trouble other people. Love is to be the dominating motive. When ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

And so the chapter comes to this striking conclusion, Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. This is true Christian liberty coupled with brotherly care.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

1Co 8:2

I. Corinth was a large city with a great deal of communication with other countries, and an active state of knowledge existing within itself. The Corinthians were likely to be struck with the beauty of the gospel morality, to admire its large and liberal views, embracing as it did all nations and ranks of men without distinction, and laying no stress upon outward ceremonies, such as they had seen the Jews so fondly attached to. But their habits and characters would lead them to take this view of Christianity alone, and to run wild upon it; whereas its other features-its humility, its intense charity, and its self-denial-they were very little inclined to value.

II. Again, while entering readily into what they heard of the liberty and glorious prospects of the Christian, they wanted the humility and soberness which should save them from running into the evils of fanaticism. The gifts of the Spirit, which they had received, were to be displayed without the cold restraints of order or usefulness; women having become heirs of the promises no less than men, why should they still retain in their public assemblies that old fashion of dress which directed them not to appear abroad unveiled, as if they were intruding beyond their own proper element? Again, the Lord’s Supper was a Christian festival, a commemoration of their high privileges; let it then be celebrated with nothing but joy. The earth was the Lord’s, and He had given the use of it to His redeemed children; they need not then fear to enjoy His gifts. To a people of this sort there was more need of that which might humble them than of anything to encourage them more. They needed not to be told of the excellence of knowledge, but to be warned of its insufficiency when not accompanied by humility or charity; to be reminded, when they talked of their knowledge, that knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Many instances might be given, in both the Epistles to the Corinthians, setting forth their peculiar character and the peculiar addresses which it required from the Apostle. We may see their disposition, and the way in which that disposition is treated; and if we feel that ours is such a one, then this is a part of Scripture which suits us particularly; we should read it over and over again, for here is the wisdom of God for the curing of our own special infirmities.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 204.

References: 1Co 8:6.-A. Barry, Cheltenham College Sermons, p. 293; Bishop Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 45. 1Co 8:8.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 98. 1Co 8:8-13.-F. W. Robertson, Lectures on Corinthians, p. 133. 1Co 8:9.-J. Keble, Sermons from Easter to Ascension Day, p. 281. 1Co 9:15.-Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. vi., p. 236.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

5. Concerning Meats Offered to Idols: Christian Liberty Governed by Love

CHAPTER 8

1. Concerning things sacrificed to idols and knowledge. (1Co 8:1-6).

2. True knowledge and liberty governed by love. (1Co 8:7-13).

Another question is raised concerning things offered to idols. Should Christians eat what had been offered in sacrifice to idols? These idol-offered meats were generally sold in the meat market. Would a believer be defiled by using such meats? They all had knowledge concerning these matters. But mere knowledge without love only puffeth up. Love is better than knowledge, for it edifieth, and this love they had to manifest in the matter of eating things sacrificed to idols. As to knowledge, how little man knoweth. How true it is if any man think he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. Pride because of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and much of this we see among Christians. True knowledge of God produces love for Him and such a one is known of God. Then the question is taken up. They had the knowledge that an idol is nothing in the world. There is none other God but one, the Father, of whom are all things and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things and we by Him.

But not all had this perfect knowledge. Some had the conception that the idol is a reality, a god, though a false one; they did not grasp the fact that an idol is nothing. They ate of the meat, feeling that it had been an idol sacrifice, and their conscience in these scruples being weak is defiled. They were therefore in bondage and did not enjoy the liberty in Christ. (1Co 7:8 shows that eating meat or not eating meat has no advantage whatever before God. The important thing then is stated. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours becomes a stumbling block to them that are weak. One who is weak in faith (not possessing true knowledge) sees a brother eating meat in the idols temple and by it he will become emboldened to do violence to his conscience and do the same thing, and in doing it he sins. He acts not in faith, but imitates another and worse things may follow. By his act the brother who has knowledge may be more than a stumbling block. The weak brother may perish, for whom Christ died, through such an example. The disastrous effect is put in the strongest term. Of course the weak brother will not actually perish, but in his conscience he will be guilty. However grace will step in and prevent this threatening danger. No sheep or lamb of His shall perish; for none can pluck them out of His hand. We are our brothers keepers, not their Savior. Well has it been said, out of our careless hands they fall for safety into His. But sinning against brethren and wounding their weak consciences is sinning against Christ. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth ((1Co 7:1). The Apostle then states that he will relinquish his knowledge and liberty in case it would offend his brother, Lest I make my brother offend. Christian liberty is to be governed by love for the brethren.

The liberty of Gods children is absolute, but they are expected to use it as imitators of God. We have to consider not ourselves only, but both our brethren and the world. A saint may be walking without circumspection, and yet with an unruffled conscience. But this is dangerous. Heed must be taken lest, while enjoying, in one sense blamelessly, our liberty, we become unwittingly a stumbling block to others. An ostentatious use of liberty rarely fails to injure the boaster and those who may observe his ways. True grace, because it is free and knows its happiness in fellowship with God, makes no effort to seem free. Rather it will seek to use its liberty in love, considering the weak, and neither despising them, nor tempting them by wrong example to act in anything beyond their faith.–Pridham.

All this is practical truth and much needed in our days of worldliness and laxity in the Christian walk. It is a good rule to ask in all our walk and in the use of our liberty, how will it affect the fellow-members of the body? We refer the reader to Rom 14:1-23 where the same truth is treated. (See the annotations there.)

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

touching: 1Co 8:10, 1Co 10:19-22, 1Co 10:28, Num 25:2, Act 15:10, Act 15:19, Act 15:20, Act 15:29, Act 21:25, Rev 2:14, Rev 2:20, we are, 1Co 8:2, 1Co 8:4, 1Co 8:7, 1Co 8:11, 1Co 1:5, 1Co 4:10, 1Co 13:2, 1Co 14:20, 1Co 15:34, Rom 14:14, Rom 14:22, Col 2:18

Knowledge: 1Co 4:18, 1Co 5:2, 1Co 5:6, 1Co 13:4, Isa 5:21, Isa 47:10, Rom 11:25, Rom 12:16, Rom 14:3, Rom 14:10

but: 1Co 13:1-13, Eph 4:16

Reciprocal: Gen 2:9 – tree of knowledge Num 24:16 – General 2Sa 14:20 – to know Job 13:2 – General Pro 3:5 – and Pro 11:2 – but Pro 18:2 – fool Eze 33:3 – he blow Rom 2:18 – knowest Rom 2:19 – art confident Rom 14:15 – now Rom 15:14 – filled 1Co 3:18 – If 1Co 4:6 – be puffed 1Co 10:15 – General 1Co 10:23 – edify 1Co 12:31 – covet 1Co 13:13 – charity 1Co 14:3 – edification 1Co 16:14 – General 2Co 8:7 – knowledge 2Co 11:19 – seeing Eph 3:17 – being 1Ti 1:5 – charity 1Ti 3:6 – lest 1Ti 6:4 – He Tit 3:9 – unprofitable

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE MORE EXCELLENT GIFT

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

1Co 8:1

The Apostle does not mean to depreciate either scientific or religious knowledge, but there is in the text a caution as regards the use and abuse of knowledge. He points out the defectiveness of knowledge alone as our counsellor in life.

I. Wherein and why is it that knowledge alone is thus imperfect in teaching us how to govern ourselves, whether as regards our own life or as regards others? The Apostle tells us it is because it puffeth up, that is to say, because knowledge tends, if unsanctified and untempered by love, to generate and foster in us the vice of pride; and if so it generates and fosters in us just those two qualities, or rather those two faults, which most unfit men to judge of the affairs of life. One is selfishness and the other short-sighted ignorance. That which we despise we cannot understand; and when we despise in the pride of our knowledge any thing or any person, be sure of this, that we are profoundly ignorant of that thing or that person.

II. How is it that love edifies, as distinguished from a merely scornful knowledge which puffeth up? Love edifies, that is to say, it builds up perfectly the whole man; secures an entire, an harmonious and proportionate development of his nature. It does so by casting out that selfishness in man, that self-worship which always leads to a diseased and one-sided growth of his nature. Have you ever noted, and even smiled at it as you have noted, the wonderful humility of love, how it is the nature of the heart that loves to prostrate itself, as it were, before the creature that it loves, and to invest that creature with a thousand graces and a thousand excellences that it may be none other sees in it. But if this love be in us not merely the human passion with its deep tenderness and self-sacrifice, which reaches to so small a portion of society; but if it be the Divine gift of love, if it be that love which bringing us first into the presence of the all-loving Father, teaches us to contemplate all His perfections and to lay ourselves in lowliness in the very dust beneath His feet, and which teaches us next for His sake to honour and love every one of the children of His creation; then that love, and that alone, teaches us the deepest lesson of humility, teaches us to know that we have nothing that we have not received, and to glory in the fact that we have received it, and that we are nothing but what the common Father has made us; teaches us, in lowliness of heart, each to estimate others better than himself; teaches us to honour the humanity for which Christ died, in which Christ became incarnate; teaches us to see in every human brother in Christ the glorious lineage and descent from the eternal Father, and the infinite capabilities of the being that has been redeemed by the Eternal Son.

III. Because knowledge unsanctified and untempered with love and the humility which love brings, puffs up, we desire not that knowledge may be diminished, but that love may be increased. We would not check in the very slightest degree if we couldand we could not if we wouldthe rising tide of knowledge; but we have no fear that it can ever reach into those regions of our being in which love dwells. Know all things you can know; advance as far as it is possible for each one of you to advance in the knowledge that enlightens, but with this knowledge join love, learn to trust, learn to believe, learn to love, and then, however far you may have advanced in human knowledge, you will with it, equally and in proportion, advance in that truer, in that deeper, love, which consists in the knowledge of your own hearts and souls, in the knowledge of God, and in the fear and love of Him which is eternal life.

Archbishop Magee.

(SECOND OUTLINE)

LOVE BUILDETH UP

St. Paul referred to knowledge when it is by itself. And certainly where knowledge is alone and is not crowned with love it only leads to pride and vainglory.

I. Our supreme need is a vision of Christ.And we ask, Lord, how is it that Thou wilt manifest Thyself unto us and not unto the world? The answer is ready, the same as it was nineteen centuries ago: If any man love Me, he will keep My words; and My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him (Joh 14:22-23).

II. Love is the greatest of the graces.Now abideth faith, hope, love, but the greatest of these is love.

III. It brings gifts.It cannot give enough. It gives itself.

IV. It means obedience.If ye love Me, keep My commandments.

V. It effaces itself.It rejoices to say like St. John the Baptist, He must increase, but I must decrease.

Rev. F. Harper.

Illustrations

(1) Bishop Phillips Brooks visited Tennyson in the Isle of Wight, and in his letter home he says: We were sitting with Tennyson after dinner, and I asked him to read the choicest piece of his poetry; and the poet gave us

Love took up the harp of life,

And smote on all its chords with might;

Smote the chord of self, that trembling

Passed in music out of sight.

(2) Love is the greatest thing that God can give us, for He Himself is Love; and it is the greatest thing that we can give to God, for in and with it we also give ourselves and all that is ours. The Apostle calls it the bond of perfectness: it is the old, and it is the new, and it is the great Commandment, and it is all the Commandments; for it is the fulfilling of the Law. We consider Gods goodness and bounty, we experience the outflowings of these towards ourselves, and these constitute the first motive of our love for Him, but when we have tasted the goodness of God we love the spring for its own excellency. We pass on from emotion to reason, from thanking to adoring, from sense to spirit, from considering ourselves to the desire of union with God: and this is the image and little representation of heaven; it is beatitude in picture, or rather the infancy and beginnings of glory.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

THE OPENING WORDS of chapter 8 are really, Now concerning, for evidently the Corinthians were perplexed as to the right course to adopt in relation to things offered to idols, and had mentioned the matter in their letter to Paul. No such problems confront us, yet we shall find the instructions laid down of much value, for our guidance in many a problem that does confront us.

Before coming to the point, however, the Apostle puts in parenthetically a word of warning. The Corinthians prided themselves upon their knowledge. Yet knowledge is a small and poor thing compared with love. Knowledge, if by itself, only puffs up, whereas love builds up. Moreover, at best all our knowledge is partial. It has strict limitations. We do not really know anything with a full and absolute knowledge. If we imagine that we do we only show thereby that we as yet know nothing as we ought to know it. Whereas if we love God we can rest assured that we are known of Him. And that is the great thing.

With verse 1Co 8:4 the Apostle commences his instructions. And first of all, what is the truth about the idols themselves? The truth is that they are nothing in the world. Deluded men may venerate these strange objects and treat them as gods, but we know them as but the work of mens hands, and that there is no other God but one. In thus speaking Paul was not overlooking the fact that demons and their power lay behind the idols, for he alludes to this sinister fact in 1Co 10:19, 1Co 10:20.

Pagans may venerate many gods and lords, but to us they are nothing. We know but one God and one Lord. There is the Father, the Originator and Source of all, and we are for Him. There is the Lord Jesus, the great Administrator in the Godhead, and all things, ourselves included, are by Him. This being so we may utterly decline to recognise the idols of the heathen in any way, and so treat all meats as alike-whether offered to idols or not.

However, as verse 1Co 8:7 says, this knowledge is by no means the portion of all. There will always be found many in the ranks of believers who are unable to view such matters in the calm, dispassionate light of pure knowledge.

They do not rise above their feelings and other subjective impressions. Once these knew that the meat had been so offered, they could not get away from the feelings engendered by it. They had conscience of the idol and it troubled them continually. Their conscience was weak, for it was not fortified by that clear and happy knowledge which Paul enjoyed, and being weak it was defiled. How was the situation to be met? What was the stronger believer to do?

The answer is very instructive. The Apostle firmly maintains the freedom of the stronger brother. It really is a fact that meat does not commend us to God. Our practices may differ. Some may eat and some not eat. But there is no advantage in the one, nor is there any coming short in the other. There is neither plus nor minus in the question, as before God.

But as among ourselves, in the Christian circle, there is something to be considered. Apparently some of the Corinthians, strong in their knowledge of the nothingness of idols, went as far as sitting at the meat in the precincts of the idols temple. This was carrying their knowledge to a great length, and running the risk of becoming a stumbling-block. Some of the weaker ones might be tempted to copy them, wishing for a larger liberty, and having done so become stricken by an accusing conscience, and perish. The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means rather that the weak brother would be put out of action and destroyed as to his spiritual state, and consequently as to his testimony and service, by his weak conscience being wounded. No believer who falls under a cloud, owing to a defiled conscience, is of any use in the wars of the Lord.

Some of us might feel inclined to say, Oh, but he is after all only a weak brother, and consequently of very little account as a servant or soldier of the Lord. If we should speak thus we should be guilty of forgetting that he is one of those for whom Christ died, and therefore of immeasureable value to Him. This is the true light in which to view our brother. So dear is he that to sin against him is to sin against Christ.

The Apostle never forgot those words, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And we must never forget them. The truth enshrined in them confronts us in a number of scriptures. Those who would strike a blow at Christ today, strike at His saints. Those who would serve Christ today, care for and serve His saints. That which is done to even the least of His brethren He will accept as done to Himself. God grant that we may not forget this. Real devotion to Christ is far more truly and effectively expressed by devoted service to His cause and people than by much outpouring of devotional and endearing language, either to Him or concerning Him.

Pauls own attitude is tersely summed up in the last verse of the chapter. Rather than be a cause of stumbling to his brother he would never eat flesh again. He would practise self-denial, and cut out of his life what was perfectly lawful, with a view to his brothers good. This is the fruit of divine love being at work. Would to God we had much more of it working in our hearts!

There is one further remark to be made as regards this chapter. Verse 1Co 8:6 is sometimes quoted by those who would deny the deity of the Lord Jesus. They make the point that since there is but one God, the Father, and Jesus Christ is spoken of only as one Lord, it must be incorrect to speak of Him also as God, even though other scriptures clearly do so.

Without a doubt, in this verse deity is attributed to the Father alone, and dominion as Lord to Jesus alone. It has however been very aptly remarked that, The deity of Christ can no more be denied because the Father is here called one God, than the dominion of the Father can be denied because the Son is called one Lord. To this we may add-or the deity and dominion of the Spirit be denied, because He is not mentioned at all.

The fact is, of course, that the Godhead is being presented in contrast with the many gods and lords of the pagan world; and in the Godhead the Son is He who has taken the place of Lord. Read the verse as limited by its context, and there is no real difficulty.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

1Co 8:1. Corinth was a Greek city and the sacrificing to idols was common. The flesh of the beasts was not burned, but only put through some routine, then sold in the market for meat. The question arose as to whether it was right for Christians to eat that meat. Some of the brethren understood that it did not make any difference, since the idols were dead objects and meant nothing. Those having this knowledge were being puffed up over their supposed superiority and were discouraging the weaker ones. Paul wanted them who were the better informed to show charity (love on behalf of the brethren) and- thus edify or build up the less informed disciples.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 8:1. Now concerning things sacrificed unto idols: we know that we all have knowledgeYe plead your knowledge; we are at one with you there; but this is a question, not of knowledge, but of love.

Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifiethGr. buildeth up. The knowing are apt to put on an air of superiority to their less knowing brethren, whereas loveidentifying itself by sympathy with all akin to itself, whether more or less enlightenedcements them like stones in one building.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Subdivision 3. (1Co 8:1-13; 1Co 9:1-27; 1Co 10:1-33.)

Encompassed by the prevalent idolatry, the manifestation of the enemy’s work.

We have seen that in all this part of the epistle, it is the Church as in the world that is looked at, encompassed by influences which are adverse. The whole trinity of evil is against the Church. There are enemies without. There is, alas, an enemy within also, and this is that which needs specially to be guarded against. External enemies can never prevail against the Christian who is true to himself. The first failure, as we see in the church or Ephesus in the apocalyptic epistles, was in the maintenance of first love to Christ. That of necessity allows all other evils to come in. Christ, if He be known and walked with, is absolute sufficiency, as the apostle has shown us here, for everything that can arise. There must be, first of all, that which comes in between the soul and Him, in order to expose it to the power of evil.

We have seen the wisdom of the world as that which was in the case of the Corinthians the first element of seduction. This encouraged, as it always does, the flesh, which was manifesting itself amongst them in the grossest way.

The apostle now comes to that which was encompassing them on every side, the prevalent idolatry which was the fullest manifestation of the enemy’s work, of the hold that he had got upon man. The very knowledge that Christians had with regard to it had itself its dangers, through the assumption so often accompanying knowledge, and needed to be corrected. In consequence of their apprehension of the nothingness of an idol, they might walk as little realizing the power which was actually working through it, and which had molded the whole form of things around them. In connection with this, therefore, the apostle looks at the spirit in which one must walk in order to be free from the enemy’s power; and appeals to the testimony of history as to the dangers of a path which lay through such a world as this.

1. He begins, therefore, at once with that which had no doubt been made a question with him, things sacrificed to idols. They were everywhere. That which was sold in the shambles was very often what had been thus offered. What were they to do about it? Was there defilement in it? He begins by asserting, first of all, the absolute nothingness of idols according to the knowledge given to the Christian. The Hebrews had a word which expressed this. The idols were “elilim “, -“nothings”; but then, knowledge itself was not a sufficient guide in relation to these things. Knowledge (that is, the idea of knowing, not the things known, but the idea of knowing) puffed a man up. How readily this takes place, we ought surely to realize. How easy it is to value one’s self upon every bit of truth attained, so as to set one’s self on an elevation above others, instead of seeking to serve with that knowledge! They needed love, therefore, as the apostle says. Love is that which edifieth. It does not think of its own things, but of the things of others; and it is this only which is sale for the Christian himself. If a man rested upon his knowledge as if he knew something, he knew nothing yet aright. How small, (although there are things surely known,) but how small, after all, is all the knowledge of time compared with that which a moment’s entrance into eternity, as one may say, will effect for us! The man who values himself upon his knowledge is but, as it were, a child, priding itself upon that which others recognize to be merely childish. He does not make light of it, of course, as that which has to do with God. The knowledge of God aright gives God His place in the soul and delivers from self, if it be really knowledge. Pride cannot live in such an atmosphere; and if one loves God, the blessed thing is that he is known of God. He walks in the light of that which God knows, as one who is manifested to Him. With regard, therefore to the eating of things sacrificed to idols, the first principle necessarily is that the idol is nothing in the world, for there is only one God. There are plenty that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, heavenly objects of worship or earthly ones, “gods many and lords many,” according, alas, to the multiplicity of the evil principles which stir men’s hearts; but to us there is but one God, the Father. This is how God is characterized for us now, the way in which Christ has revealed Him. It is not a question here of the Trinity, or the distinction of persons, but of how God has been revealed to us in relationship, first of all to Christ, and thus to all who are His. God is no more what the mere monotheist aught account Him. He is not One far off, but One come nigh. He is not One from whom, through the very dread natural to man. one might seek rather to escape, but One who is for us; One of whom it is a delight to know that all things belong, and that we also belong, to Him. How different a thing this from the mere question of one god or many. And so there is for us one Lord, he says, Jesus Christ. God hath made that same Jesus, whom men crucified, both Lord and Christ. He is, moreover, the One by whom are all things, the One who has acted for God the Father, both in creation and in the redemption of those ruined by the fall. We too are by Him. We are the fruits of His love, the work of His power. This, then, is the primary thought, and it is above all necessary that the soul should be free, not under superstitious dread of other objects, real even or unreal. There is nothing but what is under the control of Him who has loved us, who has given His Son for us, and of that Son Himself who is at the right hand of God upon the Father’s throne, and living for us there.

2. But then, even among Christians this knowledge was not just as it should be in all. Some with conscience of the idol ate things sacrificed to idols. They were not free in spirit, and thus, although the idol itself was nothing, yet their conscience was defiled. It is a question which has already, in fact, come before us in Romans, but it is a question which pressed everywhere, in the condition of the world around Christians in those days. What was to be done? Should a man press his knowledge upon one who, after all, had not attained so much? It was rather a case for yielding in love to the weakness of another. The meat itself was nothing. It was no advantage eating it or abstaining from it, but the important thing, that which was needed, was that the Christian’s right should not become a stumbling-block to the weak in faith. Suppose one who had not this knowledge were to see one who had it sitting at table in an idol house, might he not be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to an idol while, after all, his conscience was not good about it? He was merely imitating the faith of another; and the imitation of faith is not faith. He might thus be put into a condition in which he would be really drifting away from a right conscience toward God, and exposed, naturally, even to perish through another’s knowledge. This may seem unnecessarily strong language. We might ask how is it possible that one of Christ’s should perish? He is not really insisting upon any possibility of this sort, but he is insisting upon our responsibility, however this may be. If we were to put poison upon a man’s plate, whether he died or not, we should be responsible for his death; and if God will not suffer His own to find all the consequences of their sin and failure, if He will necessarily, as true to His own love, come in to deliver them, this is not knowledge such as we are to act upon. It does not affect our own responsibility, who may so easily, by our own acts, really lead astray the sheep of Christ and do them spiritual damage. It is important also to realize that in ourselves there is no help or hope, if once we are adrift from our anchorage, if we have got away front Christ. And how easily is it possible to get thus away! In this case it would be simply, as we might say, the aim to be as another Christian more advanced than myself. If the conscience be taken away from the simple, individual subjection to God, the result is the same, no matter in what way readied. We have to be exercised, each one for himself, and as a matter of responsibility to God alone, as to each step in the way. We are not to follow one another, except as we are convinced, as the apostle puts it, that that other follows Christ; but then again, if that which I do is something which may make my brother stumble, whatever may be his own responsibility in the matter, mine is clear. Says the apostle, “I will eat no flesh any more if it is to make my brother to stumble.” This and this alone is the right use of knowledge.

3. But at this point we have once more what seems an entire digression from the apostle’s subject, yet it is not really so. He is about to set before us this spirit which he has already exemplified, and as that which is necessary to be our spirit in order to be able to go through a world like this, under the power of Satan, and where there are in every direction baits and lures, to lure the one who is capable of another object than Christ Himself. This was the apostle’s object; and he shows us now how everything, -whatever it might be, (the undoubted privileges which were his as an apostle or a minister of Christ,) -was nevertheless to be used in the interests of Christ Himself. If it were claimed apart from this, it would be, for the man himself who did this, an evil and not a good.

(1) He first gives us, therefore, the claim which was rightly his as an apostle. Was he not that? Had he not seen Jesus the Lord? It was from Him, as we know, that he had got this apostleship; but were they not the seals of it also? Had not his work approved itself and been owned of God? They certainly were not the people to question this. If he were not an apostle to any others, yet surely he was to them, for they themselves were the seals of his apostleship. If, therefore, people were questioning, with regard to him, whether he had really this apostolic right, he answered at once by fully claiming it. No doubt they might take advantage of what we have read with regard to his life at Corinth, his working with his own hands there, a distinct testimony in the midst of people such as were the Corinthians, of the love which sought not theirs, but them. Was it a question, then, of right on his part? Had he not the same right as other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas, to lead about with him a sister as a wife? Or had he alone and Barnabas not the right to abstain from working? What did common reason say? Who carried on a warfare at his own charges? Who planted a vineyard without expecting to eat of the fruit of it? Who that tended a flock did not eat of the milk of the flock. The claim then was evident, and nature itself affirmed it.

(2) But not only nature, Scripture affirmed it also. This was not what he said himself simply. Did not the law, which was practically the Scripture that was

in their hands (there was little as yet of the Christian Scriptures as we know) -but did not the law say these things too? He interprets it according to its typical character as at other times. In the law of Moses it was written: “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn.” Was it really, after all, for the oxen that God cared so much? He does not, of course, mean to deny that God has care for oxen, but was that the great thing? Was there no higher purpose of such a principle as that? Does he not, in fact, say it altogether; as the apostle puts it, on account of others, -the ministers of His grace? Yes, he says, for our sake it is written; that he that ploweth might plow in hope, and he that treadeth out corn in hope of partaking. Was it not right? If he had sown unto them spiritual things, did they think it a great matter that he should reap their carnal things? They acknowledged this right in others; could they fail to acknowledge it with regard to himself? And yet he had not used this right. That was the secret of his conduct at Corinth. He bore all things that no hindrance might be given to the gospel of Christ. Here was his motive. Here was the characteristic and principle of his life. It was Christ who governed one who was perfectly free in serving Him. But further, as to the law and in that which touched the present question more nearly, had not those who wrought about sacred things a right to eat of the things of the temple? Did not those who waited upon the altar partake with the altar of the gifts given? There is a perfect analogy in God’s dealings at all times; and in this case the Lord has ordained, says the apostle, that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

(3) But we now come to see how this privilege is transformed in his hands into another kind of privilege altogether; that is, the privilege of sacrificing himself for Christ and in His service. “I have used,” he says, “none of these things”; an argument no doubt which they were pleading against him, and he was not going now to insist upon this claim. He did not want them to do anything with regard to this. There was a glorying which he had, and which he would rather die than have made void. It was not indeed as to preaching the gospel that he was speaking. It was not his having anything to glory in there. With regard to this, necessity was laid upon him, be could do nothing else; yea, woe would it be to him if he did not preach the gospel. Quite true that if he did it freely, of his own will, he would have a reward, but if not, still he was entrusted with a stewardship; but now then, what was the reward of which he speaks? It was this, that in preaching the gospel he could make the gospel without charge, so as not to use his own right in the gospel; and that, in order to make the gospel itself more effective. Free from all, even love made him a bond-servant to all, that he might gain the more. Thus, if he were addressing himself to Jews, he became a Jew to gain them. We have seen this principle already in the circumcision of Timothy in the Acts. To those under the law he became as if under the law, though he was not, as he carefully tells us, himself in reality under it; but he was privileged to give up his liberty, and he gave it up freely, to gain those that were under the law. He could be with theta without insisting upon his own Christian freedom; just as, on the other hand, he could be with the Gentile as without law, not as being lawless with regard to God; on the contrary, just as in lawful subjection to Christ; for it was in His interests that he was acting and seeking to win souls. Thus he wrought that he might gain those without law. If men were weak, he took the same ground; he would become weak, too, that he might gain these. As to any privilege of his own, he could give it up. He could not, of course, give up that in which he was hound in duty to God. That was another thing. He had no liberty in that which belonged to another, but with regard to anything which was simply his own right, he could give that up and did give it up, that by all means he might save men.

4. We have seen the transformation of privilege in the hands of one for whom Christ was the object of life. Privilege it remained, but how changed in its character! That which was but a matter of self-interest before, becomes now an opportunity for self-sacrifice on behalf of Christ and His gospel. This was a privilege indeed, and this is the spirit which alone can carry a man safely through Satan’s world undeceived and unallured (we may add, undismayed) by all that Satan may employ against him. In this there seems to be the reference to the main subject of this part, in which it is plainly the power of the enemy which is before us. He is himself one who by seeking his own, lost all that he had, and this is still the nature of his allurement. He cannot, therefore, touch the one who seeks not his own, but the things of Christ. We go on now to see how the principle tests us, the testing being necessarily involved through the fact of going through a world like this, which is Satan’s world.

(1) There is a prize before the apostle, but it is beyond and therefore outside of present things. He was seeking to partake with the gospel, which he personifies here -that gospel with which he was identified in its triumphs and gains. In this he was using the energy which was requisite to press through the difficulties of the way. Life was for him a race, calling on the one hand for energy, and on the other for conformity to the conditions of a race. As the apostle says, not all the runners in a race receive the prize. There must be a running after such a manner as to obtain. Every one that contendeth for a prize is temperate in all things; and this is only to receive a corruptible crown, but the Christian’s crown is incorruptible. The apostle, therefore, was so running, not in any uncertainty about the end, but as taking the due means to reach the end. He was fighting, not as one beating the air. It was no needless conflict. There was his own body to be buffeted and led captive, as he expresses it; and here after all is always the great hindrance. We have seen already how the Spirit of God is in the body in order to deliver us from the power of it, and to make the very place of the conflict that in which God manifests Himself. He does this, as he says, lest having preached to others, he himself should be rejected. The word is “disapproved,” but it is the ordinary word which the apostle uses again in the last chapter of the second epistle, where it is translated “reprobates.” He there plainly uses it for final, absolute rejection, and here it can be really no different from that. People have sought to guard what needs no guarding, the precious doctrine of God’s perfect grace, and of the believer’s safety in committing himself to that grace; but there are, nevertheless, conditions of the way; and this Scripture always recognizes. There is a way the end of which is eternal life. The way of evil and unholiness does not lead to life, but the reverse; and God’s grace never alters this. It would not be that which breaks the power of sin, if it were mere laxity in this respect. The apostle expresses no fear for himself, but applies the principle to himself. He could not except himself from the application. If he did so, he would be permitting any other professing Christian to follow his example in it. It is simply the professor who is contemplated in all these conditional statements, but when we say the professor; we do not mean the mere professor; for few such would own the application, and if the Christian does not own it he is a loser by that. fact. The Lord means that we should solemnly realize the connection of holiness and salvation, and we must not in any wise separate the two. On the other hand, nothing but grace can work for holiness. Nothing but grace can give us the only proper motive for a holy life, which is Christ’s glory and not our personal gain; although we do gain personally by it. So with the apostle here, therefore. He speaks of himself simply as a preacher to others, and he puts himself upon the same ground as any other preacher. One may preach to others and be one’s self rejected. That is, alas, clear, and that is all he says. He was entering intelligently into the conditions of the race and running it, but he had no thought that God would not preserve him to the end and enable him to persevere through all hindrances, whatever they might be.

(2) He then adduces the witness of history in which the things that happened to Israel were, as he says, things that happened to them for types. Full of admonition in themselves, full of significance for that generation in which they really happened, they nevertheless develop for us a higher meaning which God would have us read in them, the history of which is so written that it might develop for us. How important it is to realize this principle all through those histories of the Old Testament, and even of the New, in which there is much more than is upon the surface, and in which God shows us His control upon everything in connection with men, making the wrath of man to praise Him, restraining the remainder of it, and giving a meaning to things which those of whom it is the history were perfectly ignorant. Thus he tells us that all our fathers, Israel’s fathers, were under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized to Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They were set apart to Moses as his disciples; which is what baptism represents for us with regard to Christ. They were set apart in the most solemn way by the cloud which covered them and protected them from their enemies, by the sea which divided to let them pass and overthrew their pursuers. In that cloud and sea they were delivered from all the condition in which they had been as slaves to the Egyptians, and were set truly free, -free to serve God their Saviour. How powerful should have been the impress of such events upon them, God Himself having become in this way their Saviour-God! We can find in all this history a deeper meaning, but there was a deep meaning in what they themselves experienced. Then in the wilderness the same love followed them. They ate of the spiritual food; they drank, he says, of spiritual drink, (“spiritual.” one may say, perhaps, in its origin, and in the meaning which was more than merely to furnish sustenance for them, -that might have been done easily in another way,) but to keep them also in dependence upon God and make them realize the ministering hand of God and the tenderness of His care for them, -thus that their hearts might be brought fully to Him and made absolutely to confide in Him. This spiritual rock, as the apostle says, followed them; not, of course, that there was any literal following of a rock, as some have wildly imagined, or of even the streams from the first rock smitten. There was another rock smitten, as we know, afterwards, and the streams which first flowed from the rock were, therefore, not those that actually followed them all through the wilderness; but the same love followed them with a similar supply, so that it was one and the same thing all the way through; and the rock had a deeper meaning than any they could have realized in it. The rock for us is Christ. It is from this Rock, the riven Rock, that the streams of the Spirit flow to us; a Rock which requires no more to be smitten (Moses in that way spoiled the type, as we know) but only to be spoken to. Thus has God provided for us. The types of baptism and the Lord’s supper, which some would find here, are part of that ritualistic perversion of things which lowers everything it touches. There are no types of baptism at all. The passage in the first of Peter which may seem to come nearest to this is in fact very different. There the water of the deluge and the water of baptism are spoken of in fact as alike figures. They are both figures of spiritual things, and they are like figures; but the one figure is not a figure of the other figure. So with baptism and the Lord’s supper now. They are both figures, and they are in their highest, deepest, fullest reality figures for us. The very adoption by the Lord of such simple things as water, as bread and wine, admonishes us to keep to the same simplicity. Water can do only what water can do; and bread and wine can minister to the body, but not as such to the soul. The spiritual significance in them is everything for us, and the memorial character of the Lord’s supper; in which we have the remembrance of a dead Christ, is an absolute protest against the thought of there being ministered to us in it a Christ who does not as such exist. It is not a dead Christ now with whom we have to do, but a living Christ; but it is not a living Christ we have to do with in the ordinance of the supper, but a dead Christ. There can be no confusion of these two things without a confusion resulting in every way; and, as has been said before, there is nothing more degrading, there is nothing that has wrought worse confusion for the Church of Christ, than forgetfulness of simple principles such as these. Here we have “the Rock was Christ.” Does anybody imagine that the rock was literally Christ? Of course not; but when the Lord says: “This is My body,” He uses similar language exactly. The rock was Christ in its spiritual significance, nothing else, and the supper is Christ in sweet and holy memory; and that is much more than anything that ritualism could give us.

These things, then, were types in Israelitish history; yet after all, spite of all God’s dealings with them, spite of all the love which had delivered and which was continually blessing them, with most of them God was not well pleased, and they were overthrown in the wilderness, -solemn word of admonition then for us in these things which happened, as he says, as types of us, warnings of the greatest significance. As we think of how, indeed, there were but two of that whole generation brought out of Egypt, as grown men at least, who survived to enter Canaan, it is a serious admonition as to what might come of the testing of Christian profession after this manner. Warning it is for us all. We have no right to say, Well, but we are true Christians, and therefore we need not trouble about these things. These are things which as principles are of the greatest importance for us to realize. There are evil things for which we may lust as they lusted. If God prevents the extreme result for us, that is His mercy, but the effect of our disregarding the warnings may be that our lives may be, alas, bow greatly spoiled and disfigured and made quite other than He would have them, by our laxity! The people turned even from God Himself and became idolaters. As it is written: “The people sat down to eat and to drink and rose up to play.” They turned from the very One who had manifestly led them out of Egypt and who went before them in a pillar of cloud and fire by night and by day. They turned from the One who had drawn them to Himself and made them His own peculiar people after this manner; and in the very presence of the fiery mount they said: “As for this Moses, we know not what has become of him. Up, make us gods that may go before us.” They might dignify their idols with Jehovah’s name. God would have none of it. He had already forbidden it and stamped it as following a false god, and so in fact it was. The god they celebrated with their heathen games and sports was not Jehovah. How important for us to realize that we also may have in measure another god than the true God, while the name remains for us the same, and another Christ, perhaps, than the true Christ, although we speak reverently of Him all the while! The lusts of the flesh broke out in what followed in Israel’s case. If one departs from God, the necessary result will be that from the evil in us we shall not be able to depart. It will have full control, as with Israel. In one day there fell three and twenty thousand of them. The passage in Numbers says four and twenty thousand, and it does not seem a question of any difference of reading here; but it does not say that the four and twenty thousand fell in one day. The apostle may give the immediate result here, and the history go further.

There was another form of evil. They tempted the Lord in the wilderness. They tried His patience. How great that patience had been with them, to its full limit! They refused His gracious provision and scoffed against His care, and perished by serpents. This shows us distinctly to what the apostle refers. For us, the admonition is that we tempt not Christ. It does not seem exactly to follow that he means that they tempted Christ in the wilderness. Another reading, very well supported also, is here “the Lord,” instead of “Christ,” but there is no need to adopt it. Christ is for us the Lord, the one Lord, than whom there is no other, and Israel’s sin can be committed, as is plain, by us in this very way. We can refuse the light food of which Israel had said: “What is it?” but which contained so much for them; food of the mighty, and which would have made them, had they truly understood it, the men of might they should have been. How great for us, alas, is the danger of turning, too, from that which alone can nourish our souls and seeking in some form or other the things upon which men feed around us! The Lord allowed the power of the enemy to manifest itself in the serpents by which they perished, and the same power of the enemy will still manifest itself upon us in turning to the world away from Christ. It is there that his power is found. He is the prince of this world. The world has been formed in its moral character by that fall to which he seduced men, and thus, if we will venture upon this ground, we shall find that he has not yet given up those as to whom he believes he has gained the perfect right of a master. They murmured in other ways. They murmured when the hand of God came upon them in judgment, in the destruction of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. They murmured against Moses, when it was really by the judgment of God that these had fallen, so that again the hand of the destroyer was upon them and the former judgment was solemnly confirmed in the repetition of it. How easily, too, we may murmur against that which has been simply the necessary judgment of God because of the sins of His professing people, instead of humbling ourselves before Him on account of them!

“All these things,” then, the apostle reminds us here, “happened to them as types.” They are not merely things which may be applied in that way now, but that is the very meaning of the history for us as we read it. They are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the ages are come. It is not the ends of the “world,” but the ends of the dispensations past, -those dispensations of trial which for us are closed by the death of Christ, in which the utter condemnation of man is reached, but in which, also, divine grace has reached us. We can look back now over those ages and find them all ministering to us their special lessons. How wonderful a place to be set in, to have instruction of this kind from every past generation! How important that we should heed the admonition of it, and how guilty shall we be in disregarding it! “Wherefore,” says the apostle, “let hint that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” That, surely, is a great part of the admonition. Those dispensations were the trial of man as man. There can be no trial when there is no self-confidence on man’s part, -when we have reached where the apostle was, and can say we have no confidence in the flesh. All self-confidence is confidence in the flesh. All true confidence is confidence in God alone. It is thus that we find ability to stand. We stand indeed, but we stand as He holds us up. If we think that we stand after any independent manner, we are on the very brink of a fall. Dependence is that which is proper to a creature; and we are not merely in a dangerous place, but we have, as one may say, already fallen, when we have lost our hold of the Hand that supports us.

How blessed to realize again that in the midst of a world full of testing, such as this is, in which the history of the Church has repeated for us in so solemn a way the history of Israel, in which man has been tested under grace (although that was not the object of grace) as he has been so thoroughly, still with the same result! When we look at ourselves, and think of how little we are able to stand against all the trials of the way, how blessed to realize the limits which the apostle sets to the trial! There is no temptation but such as belongs to man; and then, God is faithful who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able. He is speaking, of course, of a soul in the true condition of conscious helplessness before Him. If we are self-confident, we shall find that the least temptation is something above what we are able; but if we are in a right condition, (which should be the normal one of the Christian,) God will not suffer temptation to he too strong for us, but will with the temptation make the outcome of it also a deliverance in due time, that we may be able to bear it. He adds, significantly, as one great lesson of it all: “Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.” Idolatry was but one feature of that history of Israel, although a notorious one; but for us, is it not, in fact, in a heart that wanders from God which makes in this way, however little conscious it may be, a false god of its own, -is it not in this that all departure from Him, we may say, is found? Here is the root, the basis of it. If God Himself, the God that we know, the God that has been revealed to us, is the God of our hearts, the God whom we serve and follow, how safe and how blessed will be our condition! Christ is the manifestation of God for this, and thus we are indeed far better provided than was Israel in the knowledge of this God who claims our obedience and our affections. What is it for us to depart from One who has revealed Himself to us after this manner?

5. We return now fully to that question which has been in the apostle’s mind all the way through, the results for us of this power of Satan manifest in the world, of which he is prince, and where he has so molded things according to his mind. In fact, in those days, as we know, idolatry was everywhere. The Emperor was worshiped as divine, so that not to worship him was disobedience to the law. What was a Christian to do in the midst of so great defilement? They, on their part, were identified with God, and with Him whom God has appointed to be the Lord of all, who claimed such obedience as none other ever even thought of claiming. The apostle, therefore, looks, at this question of association with God and the responsibility resulting from it.

(1) In the first place, he puts before us our identification with the Lord as in the manifest tokens of it in the cup and the loaf, which stood for a pledged communion with Himself. He bids them enter intelligently into this question. What was the cup of blessing which they blessed? Was it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread they broke, was it not the communion of the body of Christ? Were they not all by it one loaf, the manifested body, one body, as all partaking of that one loaf? It is plain that what men call the sacrament stands for something in this connection. There is an outward pledge in it. There is something which, if not real, is the fullest hypocrisy. Here is before us in this table; in all the responsibility of it, communion with the body and blood of Christ, -Christ in all that He has done for us, all that He has endeared Himself to us by. What are we going to do with it? Thus identified, must not this follow us into our common, ordinary life, into every detail of our conduct here? He puts before them Israel after the flesh. Were not those who ate the sacrifices in communion with the altar? Were they not identified, if what they did meant anything, if it were anything more than the grossest formalism, with all that that Jewish altar stood for? It was not, therefore, a question as to whether there was any reality in the idol or not. He has already decided that there was not, but the idol stood for something in men’s thoughts; and not merely that, but in this idolatry the power of Satan wrought so that the things the Gentiles sacrificed they did not sacrifice, in fact, to nothing, but to demons, and not to God. Thus there was the most serious question possible. People could not escape by saying that an idol was nothing in the world, and that there was no other God but One. They could not drink the cup of the Lord, which said this, and the cup of the idol, which said another thing. They could not partake of the Lord’s table aright and of the table of demons. Was it not provoking the Lord to jealousy? Were they going to be stronger than He?

(2) Once more be takes up that which might be urged, that all these things were lawful things. A man might sit in an idol’s temple and get no harm. He might eat of the idol’s offerings and get no harm. With his higher knowledge, these things meant nothing for him; but that was not the whole question. On one side they might mean nothing; on another side they might mean very much. In the one view, all things indeed were lawful, but here are other things to be affected by them. Could they say that all things were expedient too? If one had nobody to please but himself, then he might, of course, please himself; but all things, as he says, that are lawful do not edify, do not help another; and that is what we are bound to do, not to seek our own, but the good of others. As to the things sold in the shambles, which were in fact often things sacrificed to idols, they could eat of them if that were all, and make no inquiry for conscience’ sake. They would neither be defiled spiritually nor injured in any way. The earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. They could eat it in that sense, and so far have no conscience about it; and, supposing one of those that believed not invited them to a feast, and they were disposed to go, they could eat of that which was set before them, making no question of anything, as far as they were concerned. But suppose some one said, This is sacrificed to an idol. Now says the apostle, that shows that here is a man to whom an idol is something, not nothing, as it is to you; and now your conscience ought. to be affected by that which affects his conscience. You are one as Christians, and you are bound to help one another as one The conscience that I am regarding, you may say, is the conscience of another, and not my own; yes, but why do I turn my liberty into something which another man’s conscience judges as evil? Why do I injure him with that which I may, so far as I am concerned,, do sinlessly before God? If I partake of this meat with thanksgiving, why should I do it so as to allow myself to be evil spoken of for the very thing I am giving thanks for? Is it a right use? Whether we eat or drink, or Whatever we do, we are to do all to the glory of God. We are to give no occasion of stumbling, whether to Jews or Greeks or the assembly of God. With eyes watching all around, how careful should the conduct of a Christian be, and how very far from deciding a thing is the mere question of right and wrong in itself; of right and wrong, that is, in the thing of which I am thinking, leaving out altogether the judgment of others or the snares that may be for others in it! Let it he even here not simply the question of Christians, but, as he says, Jews or Greeks, who may be drawn to Christ or repelled from Him by what they see in. Christians. How common a case is this! How commonly is the conduct of Christians pleaded against the Christianity they profess! For himself it, was, as we know, the apostle’s constant aim to please all men in all things, but in this spirit, which involves a necessary limitation, that he was seeking, not his own profit, but that of the many, and their truest profit, also, that they might be saved.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

CHRISTIAN LIBERTY AND ITS ABUSE

The Christian church was composed largely of Gentiles, who, when they were pagans, worshipped idols, with animal sacrifices and feasts in the idols temples. Having become Christians, their practices were discontinued, though pagan neighbors might occasionally invite them, in a social way, to join in such feasts. The question had arisen as to their Christian liberty to accept such invitations. A liberal party in the church not only favored it, but indeed regarded the acceptance of such invitations as necessary to testify their freedom in Christ. There is no such thing as an idol, said they, and hence Christians are as much at liberty to eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols as any other meat, and in an idols temple as well as any other place.

In reply, Paul admits the fact and the inference arising from it (1Co 8:4-6). They were at liberty to eat this meat and in an idols temple, provided they had only themselves to consider. But there was their weak Christian brother, the man not gifted with as much spiritual knowledge as they, and who, though trusting Christ for salvation, still had a lingering idea that an idol was something in the world. If the strong brother, he who was spiritually enlightened, ate this meat in the idols temple, the weak brother might do likewise, but what the one might do with impunity the other could not do without sin. Hence the liberty of the one became the stumbling-block of the other (1Co 8:7-10). This made it serious for the strong brother to press his knowledge, or his liberty to that point (1Co 8:11-12). Personally, Pauls example was different from this (1Co 8:13).

Continuing the reference to his own example in 1Co 9:1-23, the apostle reminds them of the grounds on which he might claim all the liberty they had, or more. He was an apostle, he had seen Jesus Christ (Acts 9), they, the Corinthians, were the fruit of his ministry (1Co 9:1-2). He was at liberty to eat and drink as he pleased, to marry, and have a wife accompany him on his itineraries as others did (1Co 9:3-6). He had a right to claim pecuniary support from the churches in his labors on their behalf (1Co 9:7-14). But he had foregone all these privileges for the gospels sake (1Co 9:15-18). For the same reason had he accommodated himself to Jewish prejudices (1Co 9:19-20), and to Gentile peculiarities (1Co 9:21-23).

THE CHRISTIAN RACE

He shows that there is a practical motive for Christians acting on this principle (1Co 9:24 to 1Co 10:15), by employing an illustration from the Olympian games. Christian believers were like men running a race, but it was one thing to run and another thing to win the prize. Here again comes in the distinction between salvation and the rewards of faithfulness (see chap. 3). The athlete knew the need of curtailing his liberty in certain directions in order to gain the race, and Paul appreciated the principle in spiritual things.

Did he not deny himself he would be unfit for service, and lack of service meant, in the end, loss of reward (1Co 9:24-27). Castaway here does not mean loss of salvation, but loss of the opportunity to serve as one who is saved. The thought is continued in chapter 10, where a leaf is taken from the history of Israel. All the Hebrews originally were partakers of the same privileges the guiding cloud, the passage through the Red Sea, the manna, the smitten rock, type of our salvation through the smitten Christ (1Co 10:1-4). But many of them failed of the ultimate goal and never entered Canaan, because of their after conduct in the wilderness (1Co 10:5-11). A warning follows (1Co 10:12) with accompanying encouragement (1Co 10:13), and then an exhortation (1Co 10:14-15).

The practical motive however, is more than the thought of reward for fidelity, it is that of positive danger in the face of the opposite (1Co 10:16-23). This is suggested already in the story of Israel, but more than suggested in what follows. The idolatrous feasts are in contrast with the Lords supper, the one the worship of demons, the other the true God, between which there can be no fellowship. One or the other must be renounced. To tamper with demons is to challenge Divine wrath, with which we are unable successfully to contend. While the exercise of the fullest Christian liberty in these matters may be lawful for me, says the apostle, nevertheless it is not expedient, it will not be found to edify or build me up in Christ, for which reason it will not be acted upon.

The conclusion of the matter is: (1) do not seek your own advantage but anothers (1Co 10:24); (2) if the sacrificial meat is offered for sale in the public market, you may buy and eat it without compunction (1Co 10:25-26); (3) if a pagan neighbor asks you for a meal at his private house you are at liberty to partake of it (1Co 10:27); (4) but if in the course of the meal it is referred to as of a religious character, desist from eating, not for your own sake so much as that of the other (1Co 10:28-30). In other words, (5) act on the principle of verses 31-32, and (6) follow my (Paul) example (10:33, 11:1).

QUESTIONS

1. State in your own words the occasion Paul had for writing these chapters.

2. What is the main argument Paul presses against the abuse of Christian liberty?

3. In what respects did his example agree with his precept?

4. What motive governed him?

5. What is the significance of castaway in this case?

6. What further motive does Paul refer to?

7. How does he conclude, or sum up, the case?

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

It was the opinion of the Gnostics and Nicolaitans, those early erroneous persons in the apostle’s days, that from the knowledge they had of their Christian liberty, they might either be present in the idol temples, or eat of the idol sacrifices, as they pleased.

The apostle here tells them, that he knew many of them had a good degree of knowledge, but desires that they might not be puffed up with it, but that their knowledge may be accompanied with charity, which respects the edification of others; and puts men upon considering not only what is lawful to be done in itself, and with respect to ourselves, but what is expedient or inexpedient in relation unto others.

True love, or Christian charity, will put us upon consulting the good of our neighbor’s souls, as well as our own; and will not suffer us to do that thing which may offend our weak brother, that is, lay a stumbling-block before him, to tempt him into sin.

Knowledge puffeth up: this is to be understood of a notional, literal, and speculative knowledge only; not of a spiritual, practical, and experimental knowledge.

The more a gracious man knows, the more humble he is, because his knowledge shows him his own vileness and emptiness: but the more a carnal man knows, the more proud he is, because he knoweth not himself: his knowledge is not only a temptation to pride, but the very matter of his pride.

Such knowledge doth not build up, but puff up: whereas charity edifieth; that is, applies itself to the instruction of others, and accommodates itself to the edification of others; and considers not only what may lawfully be done, but what is fit and expedient to be done; as in the case here before us, eating things offered to idols.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

A Question of Christian Liberty

The questions sent by the Corinthians to Paul did not end with those on marriage. McGarvey sees the next question as, “Have not Christians perfect liberty to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols?” Apparently they argued, in connection with this question, that all had knowledge with regard to this matter. Paul pointed out that their puffing up instead of building up was not helpful in teaching others the truth. Knowledge with love builds up ( 1Co 8:1 ).

One who is conceited because of his knowledge shows his ignorance. The more one really knows, the more he knows he does not know. The one who acts out of a proper sense of love for the brethren will be known and loved by God ( 1Co 8:2-3 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 8:1-3. Now As to the next question you proposed, namely, touching things offered Meats sacrificed, and so consecrated; unto idols When the heathen offered sacrifices of such animals as were fit for food, a part of the carcass was burned on the altar, a part was given to the priest or priests, and on the remainder the offerers feasted with their friends, either in the idols temple or at home. Sometimes also a part was sent as a present to such as they wished to oblige, and if the sacrifice was large, a part of it was sold in the public market. To these idolatrous feasts the heathen often invited the Christians of their acquaintance in Corinth, and some of the brethren there, desirous of preserving the friendship of their neighbours, accepted these invitations. They knew an idol was nothing in the world: and therefore they judged that their partaking of the sacrifice, given in the idols temple, could not be reckoned a worshipping of the idol. Besides, such a feast was considered, by enlightened Christians, as a common meal, which under the gospel they were at liberty to eat; especially if they did it to show their belief that idols had no existence as gods. These arguments, indeed, are not explicitly stated by the apostle; but the things he hath written in this and in chap. 10. being direct confutations of them, we may believe they were mentioned by the Corinthian brethren, in their letter referred to 1Co 7:1. The apostle here, and in 1Co 10:20-21, treats of the meats which, having been sacrificed to idols, were afterward eaten in the idols temple, and in honour of the idol: of that which was sold in the shambles, or eaten in private houses, he speaks 1Co 10:25-33. We all have knowledge That is, the generality, for some had not, 1Co 8:7 : we are well instructed in the nature of Christian liberty, concerning meats, and the nature of idols. Knowledge That is, mere knowledge, knowledge without grace; puffeth up Often has that tendency, and is the occasion of self-conceit and arrogance; a gentle reproof this of the self-conceit of the Corinthians. But charity Love to God and our brethren; edifieth Builds people up in holiness. If any man think he knoweth any thing aright Unless so far as he is taught by God, and has love in proportion to his knowledge; he knoweth nothing To any good purpose; yet, as he ought to know Namely, to answer the proper ends of knowledge, or to make him humble in himself, and useful to others. If any man love God In deed and in truth, in consequence of a persuasion of Gods love to him, 1Jn 4:19; if any man, being justified by faith, and having peace with God, hath also the love of God shed abroad in his heart, Rom 5:1; Rom 5:5; the same is known of him That is, approved by him, Psa 1:6. Or, if , he, refers to God, the immediate antecedent, as some think the sense is, he, God, is known of him; namely, in a proper manner. See an example of the same phraseology, Act 10:36.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

I. The Question considered from the Viewpoint of our Neighbour’s Salvation. 8:1-9:22.

The apostle proves that if there is a knowledge which all equally possess (1Co 8:1-6), there remains a difference of degree which imposes duties on one class relatively to others (1Co 8:7-13); then he shows by his own example how such obligations ought to be discharged (1Co 9:1-22).

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

[The question which Paul here answers may be stated thus: “Have not Christians perfect liberty to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols?” To this question the Corinthians seem to have added a line or two of argument, that they might obtain an affirmative answer, as appears by the apostle’s reply.] Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know [ye say] that we all have knowledge. Knowledge [I reply] puffeth up, but love edifieth. [literally, buildeth up.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

1 Corinthians Chapter 8

After this the apostle answers the question respecting meats offered to idols, which gives occasion to a few words on the value of knowledge. Simply as knowledge, it is worth nothing. If we look at it as knowledge that we possess, it does but puffs us up; it is something in me, my knowledge. True Christian knowledge unfolded something in God. By means of that which is revealed, God, better known, became greater to the soul. It was in Him the thing known, and not a knowledge in me by which I made myself greater. He who loves God is known of Him. As to the question itself, love decided it. Since such a question had arisen, it was evident that all consciences were not brought into full light by spiritual intelligence. Now undoubtedly the idol was nothing: there was but one God, the Father; and one Lord, Jesus Christ. But if he who was strong sat at meat in the idols temple, another who had not full light would be encouraged to do the same, and his conscience would be unfaithful and defiled. Thus I lead into sin,and, as far as depends on me, I ruin a brother for whom Christ died. I sin against Christ Himself in so doing. Thus, if meat causes a brother to stumble, let me altogether abstain from it rather than be a snare to him. Here the apostle treats the question as arising among the brethren, so as that which regards the conscience of each, choosing to maintain in all its force that in fact an idol was nothing but a piece of wood or stone. It was important to set the question on this ground. The prophets had done so before. But this was not all that there was to say. There was the working of Satan and of wicked spirits to explain, and this he does further on.

We may remark in passing the expression, To us there is but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. The apostle does not here treat the abstract question of the Lords divinity, but the connection of men with that which was above them in certain relationships. Pagans had many gods, and many lords, intermediate beings. Not so Christians. For them is the Father abiding in the absoluteness of the divinity, and Christ who, become man, has taken the place and the relationship of Lord towards us. The position, and not the nature, is the subject. It is the same thing in chapter 12:2-6, where the contrast is with the multitude of spirits whom the Pagans knew, and the number of gods and lords. Nevertheless every one was not, in fact, thus delivered from the influence of false gods on his imagination. They were still perhaps, in spite of himself, something to him. He had conscience of the idol, and if he ate that which had been offered to it, it was not to him simply that which God had given for food. The idea of the existence of a real and powerful being had a place in his heart, and thus his conscience was defiled. Now they were not better in Gods sight for having eaten, and by eating they had put a stumbling block in their brothers way, and, so far as the act of those who had full light was concerned, had ruined him by defiling his conscience and estranging him from God in unfaithfulness. This was sinning against Christ, who had died for that precious soul. If God intervened to shield him from the result of this unfaithfulness, that in nowise diminished the sin of him who led the weak one to act against his conscience. In itself that which separates us from God ruins us in that which regards our responsibility. Thus he who has the love of Christ in his heart would rather never eat meat than do that which would make a brother unfaithful, and tend to ruin a soul which Christ has redeemed.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

EATING MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS

1. But concerning things offered to idols we know that we all have knowledge.

2. Knowledge puffeth up, but Divine love buildeth up. Knowledge is a gift of the Spirit, though of infinite value, not necessary to salvation, while this Divine agapee is the nature of God (1 John 4), the Divine essence imparted to the human spirit in regeneration, the veritable saving element in the gracious economy. This verse shows the necessary precedence of the graces before the gifts. Knowledge is a most invaluable gift if preceded and accompanied by Divine love; but without it not only unprofitable to the recipient, but very dangerous, inducing spiritual pride, which normally comes before a fall. A man with knowledge without love (and there are many such) is inflated like a bladder, and without substance; while Divine love builds you up like a solid and impregnable wall. If any one seems to know anything, he does not yet know it as it behooveth him to know. It is a constantly humiliating fact, which should ever keep us low down in the dust, that, let us know ever so much, the full amount of what we know, as compared to what we do not know, is but a drop contrastively with the ocean.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 8:4. We know that an idol is nothing. St. Paul transcribes this from Hab 2:18, where the Hebrew text is literally dumb nothings, for dumb idols; a phrase used by the Gnostics.

1Co 8:6. But to us, One God, the Father, possessing the Son in the beginning of his way. Pro 8:22. Joh 1:18. From whom the Comforter proceeds, in glory equal, in majesty coternal. The Father is the fountain of deity. To him no paternity can be added, no filiation to the Son; all is infinite, all is eternal. St. Paul here, like Moses, Deu 6:4, asserts the unity of God, in opposition to the gods many, and lords many in the mythology of the gentiles. Of most of those gods, here called in 1Co 8:4, nonentities, we should not have been burdened with the names, had it not been for the theogony of old Hesiod.

And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. The Word of Jehovah, as is the running phrase of the Chaldaic paraphrase, being made flesh, we now stand in the same relation, as sinners to Christ, that we do as creatures to the Father. As the mediatorial kingdom must be delivered up to God, even the Father, so it had a beginning in Christ, who himself had no beginning. Therefore in our adoption and glory we are all built on him, the only-begotten of the Father.

1Co 8:11. And through thy knowledge, thy boasted philosophy, that an idol is nothing, shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died? The charity which warms the heart and saves us, is worth a thousand speculative opinions. The tender and unexampled love of Christ, in dying for poor sinners, should fill our hearts with divine affection towards the brethren. Paul loves his brother more than any fleshly appetite.

REFLECTIONS.

St. Paul apparently speaks here ironically of knowledge which puffeth up, and he is thought to allude to the Gnostics, knowing ones, who affected great superiority of knowledge and of liberty. This sect, most licentious in their morals, were often a great snare to the weaker christians in drawing them to their parties and their feasts. The christians and the gnostics alike agreed that an idol was nothing, for God cannot be represented by any figure made by man. Consequently, no meat should be abhorred under a plea that part of it had been presented to an idol. Now, here is the difference between profane and sacred knowledge; the former puffeth up, and affects to despise the ignorant and vulgar crowd; but sacred knowledge takes mistaken man by the hand, makes him wise unto salvation, and leads him into all the simplicity of the gospel. Thus charity edifies the soul in all the knowledge and life of God.

We have here the glorious superiority of the christian over gentile polytheism, or plurality of gods. To us there is but ONE GOD in essence, having a sociality in himself of Father, Son and Spirit; and this unity of the divine nature is most admirably discovered in the glory of our redemption. And whereas the gentiles had titular divinities, and mediators without number, christians have but one Mediator, who in his mysterious and adorable person of God-man is our prophet, priest and king. By the Lord Jesus were all things created; and we exist as a church and people by his sovereignty and right.

The apostle, after reproving the Gnostic for sitting at meat in the idol temple, conveys a caution to believers against feasting with their idolatrous relatives and friends. Circumstanced as the christians were, he allows them to eat whatsoever was sold in the shambles, not asking whether the beasts had been presented to idols or not, reminding them at the same time that there was a most serious moral danger in feasting with carnal friends. The allusion to the gods, interwoven with all pagan festivity, would be dangerous to the christian, because his presence at such a feast would give a sort of countenance to idolatry: and carnal feasts are equally dangerous still. Who can spend four hours at a feast, and come away fit for the worship of God? Did not Samson, mighty Samson, lose his religion at a Philistine feast? If the cedars of Lebanon have thus been broken with festivity and worldly mirth, what shall become of us who are only like the hyssop on the wall.

The caution, often used by St. Paul, Rom 14:15, is worthy of an apostle who loved his God, and the souls of men. The force of the argument lies here. If my opinion, or my liberty be a favourite point with me, my brother, for whom Christ died should be dearer; my brother is made in the image of God, and is to be my companion and fellow worshipper for ever. Shall I then alienate his affections from religion for a piece of meat, and a carnal feast? God forbid, that I should ever deviate so far from the mind of Christ, and the spirit of the gospel.

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

1 Corinthians 8. Let Those who Have Knowledge Control its Exercise by Love, lest they Ruin their Brother for whom Christ Died.Paul begins with a quotation from the church letter. They claim that all have knowledge. Yes, but knowledge makes men conceited, love develops and consolidates them. They who fancy that they know have no right knowledge: he who loves God is known by God, a better knowledge than any of his own. However, all are aware that no idol has any real existence and that there is only one God. For, allowing that there are so-called gods, as in truth there are many gods and lords (i.e. the demons), yet Christians recognise one God, the Father, source of all things and their own goal, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, the efficient agent in creation and in their own redemption. Yet those who are without such knowledge, when they eat the idol sacrifice, are dominated by the old point of view, and their conscience, readily troubled by morbid scruples, is stained. Food will not influence Gods decision at the Judgment. But freedom from such scruples may lead to disregard of the weak, who, when he sees the intellectual complacently reclining at the temple banquet, will become progressive enough to eat, against his own conscience, the idol food. Impatient lack of consideration ruins the weak brother and is a sin against Christ. Paul would never touch flesh again rather than gratify himself at such ruinous cost to others.

1Co 8:2. So Socrates recognised that he was wiser than others, in that while all alike knew nothing, he alone was aware of his ignorance.

1Co 8:3. Note the unexpected turn of thought. He does not say, By love we know God; Gods knowledge of us is so much greater a certainty, so much firmer a ground of consolation and assurance.

1Co 8:6 b. Here essentially the Christology of Colossians is implied.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Chapters I to 4 have given God’s answer to worldly wisdom; chapters 5 to 7 have dealt with questions concerning the flesh: now chapter 8 turns to the matter of Satanic influence, and this is further discussed in chapter 10 and the beginning of chapter 12. The Corinthians were too little aware of the subtlety of all three of these evil influences, the world, the flesh, and the Devil. But they had evidently questioned Paul as to the eating of things sacrificed to idols. All Christians had knowledge that the idol was really nothing. But mere knowledge alone would puff one up with the pride of knowing. Love, on the other hand, would edify, or build up. If one prides himself on knowing anything, let him remember that he actually knows nothing as he ought to know it. For if we know anything rightly, there will be no pride in the fact of knowing, but concern to act in loving consistency with that knowledge, a desire to both understand, and to act more rightly. And in loving God, one is known of God: how much more precious is this than emphasizing our own knowledge.

To apply this principle therefore, it is clear that an idol is nothing in the world: there is only one God. True, there are those “called gods,” whether by man, or even in the Scriptures, where the elders of Israel were called this, simply as being God’s representatives on earth (Psa 82:6; Joh 10:34-35); but never in the latter case as giving them any place of worship. If there were “gods many, and lords many,” these were simply as lightless asteroids in comparison with the sun. To us there is one God, the Father, originator of all things, and we are the fruit of His own work. This is the revelation of Christianity, in contrast to the ignorance of idolatry. The Spirit of God is not mentioned because the subject is not the dynamic power behind the scenes, but the manifested supremacy of God the Father, and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But every man does not have this clear, proper knowledge: some think of an idol as having some spiritual significance or evil power in itself; and if eating anything offered to an idol, would think of it as such, their conscience therefore being affected; even though in actual fact this did not change the food, and before God he was neither better or worse if fie ate.

But if one had liberty to eat meat offered to idols, without any conscientious scruples, he must still be careful not to stumble those whose conscience is weak. True knowledge is considerate, not overbearing. If the one who had knowledge would sit at meat in the idol’s temple, this might embolden others to do the same thing, at a time when their own conscience spoke against it. This principle may be applied to various circumstances in which we may be found today. A weak Christian may see another go to a place that his own conscience forbids him to go; but because the stronger Christian has gone, then he does also. The stronger has therefore encouraged the other to ignore his conscience. And it is asked, ”Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” Not that God would allow any believer to perish, but my heartless treatment of him is virtually having no concern as to whether he would even perish. But Christ died for him!

Such lack of care for my brother’s conscience is sin, and not only against my brethren, but against Christ. Let us seriously consider this.

The apostle then takes the firm stand that if his eating meat would cause his brother to stumble, he would utterly refrain from it. Of course, if another were to demand of Paul that he must not eat meat because of the other’s conscience, this is totally different: he could not submit to any such legality. But a genuinely weak conscience must be considered. How good if one can willingly forego his own liberty for the sake of others! This is a proper use of knowledge.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

The apostle here proceeds to consider another of the subjects which the Corinthian Christians had brought to his notice in their letter to him. Among the heathen nations in those days, animals were offered in sacrifice, to idols, and then, after some part of the flesh had been consumed by fire, the remainder was restored to the owner for use as food, and sent to the markets for sale; or feasts in honor of the false deity were prepared from it, in or near the temple. Now, many of the Jews supposed that if they ate food which had been thus offered to idols, even ignorantly, they were partakers of the sin of idolatry. This was an excessive and unnecessary scrupulousness; for one is not responsible for any accidental connection he may have, in such a case, with any wicked system or practice, unless his acts exert a direct and appreciable influence in encouraging or sustaining it. Hence the direction given in 1 Corinthians 10:25. On the other hand, the Gentile converts sometimes went to the other extreme, and because they knew, as they expressed it, that an idol was nothing, they seem to have often done what greatly offended the consciences of their Jewish brethren. Hence such directions as 1 Corinthians 8:9-13,10:28. This subject was often the occasion of discussion and difficulty in the early church, (Acts 15:20; Romans 14:1-23:) and it is always settled on this admirable principle, viz., that very little intrinsic importance is to be attached to such outward and ceremonial transactions, but that still every one is to regulate his conduct, in respect to them, so as carefully to guard against doing any violence to the feelings, or even to the prejudices, of a Christian brother.–Have knowledge; think we have knowledge, as is shown to be the meaning by what follows.–Knowledge puffeth up; vain confidence in our opinions does so.–Charity; love, a feeling of kindness and good-will.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

DIVISION IV ABOUT THE IDOL SACRIFICES CHAPTERS 8:1-11:1

SECTION 14 BE CAREFUL LEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE LEAD OTHERS TO SIN CH. 8

About the idol-sacrifices. We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up: but love edifies.* (* Or, builds up.) If anyone thinks that he knows anything, not yet has he learnt as one must needs learn. But if anyone loves God, this man is known by Him.

About the eating, then, of the idol-sacrifices, we know that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no God except one. For indeed if as all know, there are so-called gods, whether in heaven whether on earth, (just as there are gods many and lords many,) nevertheless to us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through Him.

But not in all is there knowledge. And some, by their accustomed intercourse until now with the idol, as an idol-sacrifice eat it: and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food will not present us to God. Neither if we do eat do we abound, nor if we do not eat do we fall short. But see lest in any way this right** (** Or authority.) of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak ones. For if one see thee, who hast knowledge, sitting in an idol-precinct, will not his conscience, he being weak, be edified*** (*** Or, built up.) to eat the idol-sacrifices? For the weak one perishes through thy knowledge, the brother because of whom Christ died. But, while thus sinning against the brothers and smiting their conscience, it being weak, against Christ you are sinning. For which cause indeed if food ensnares my brother, I will not eat flesh for ever, that I may not ensnare my brother.

1Co 8:1. The idol-sacrifices: animals offered in sacrifice to idols, of which the greater part was eaten by the offerer and his friends either (1Co 8:10; 1Co 10:27) within the precincts of the temple or in private houses, or (1Co 10:25) was sold in the market. Same word in Act 15:29; Act 21:25; Rev 2:14; Rev 2:20. Similarly, a great part of the Mosaic peace offerings was eaten by the offerer: Lev 7:15-18; Lev 7:20; Lev 17:2-6. The sudden and matter-of-fact transition to this subject without any reason given (contrast 1Co 1:11; 1Co 5:1; 1Co 6:1) and in a form similar to 1Co 7:1, suggests that it was mentioned in the letter to Paul. He deals with it by first laying down as usual a great general principle, viz. that love is better than knowledge, 1Co 8:1-3; and then looks at the matter in the light (1Co 8:4-6) of knowledge and (1Co 8:7-13) of love. He supports the warning thus given by referring to ( 15) his own rights, and ( 16) to his own example and to ( 17) the story of ancient Israel; and then gives specific advice about eating idol-sacrifices ( 18) at an idol-feast, and ( 19) in private homes.

We all: a general admission, of which the compass cannot be exactly defined. Paul here tells his readers that when speaking of the weak brethren he does not refer to himself or them. He therefore uses the third person: 1Co 8:7-12; 1Co 10:28. Contrast Rom 14:3; Rom 14:10.

Have knowledge: cp. i. 5; and the many indications throughout the Epistle that the Corinthians boasted, and probably possessed, considerable Christian intelligence; e.g. 1Co 1:17 to 1Co 2:16; 1Co 3:18 ff; 1Co 6:5.

Puffs up: as in 1Co 4:6; 1Co 4:18; 1Co 5:2 : the inflated self-esteem which is the natural tendency of knowledge, and its constant result when not counterbalanced by love.

Love: as a general principle, and embracing all with whom we have to do. So 1Co 13:1-13; Rom 12:9.

Edifies: builds up. Cp. 1Co 3:9, and see Rom 14:19. Love, by its own nature, prompts us to use our powers for the good of others, and especially for their highest good, i.e. the development of their spiritual life. It is therefore better than knowledge.

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

1 Corinthians 8.

In chapters 8, 9 and 10 the apostle firmly maintains the liberty of the individual, while solemnly warning against its abuse. In 1 Cor. 8 we are warned against using liberty in a way that may stumble our brother; in 1 Cor. 9 the servant is warned that it is possible to use liberty to his own condemnation; in 1 Cor. 10 we are warned against using liberty in a way that may compromise our fellowship, and give offence to Jews or Gentiles or the assembly of God.

(Vv. 1-3). In chapter 1 Cor. 8 the apostle opens this important theme by bringing before us the danger of turning the liberty of the individual into licence to act in self-will without considering the effect of our acts upon others. It is thus possible for a Christian’s liberty to become an occasion of stumbling his brother. The apostle presses home his warning by referring to the matter of eating meats offered to idols. Individual believers at Corinth, knowing that an idol was nothing, might personally feel quite free to go into the idol temple and eat meats offered to idols. But this raises the question, would it be right to do so if it were to stumble a brother? The apostle first shows that this is one of the important questions that cannot be answered by mere knowledge, but can very quickly be settled by love. This is of the first importance, for while the principle is here applied to the particular question of eating things sacrificed to idols, it has a wide application. In our day we should not in this country be faced with the question of eating meats offered to idols, yet many other questions may arise – for instance the question of a Christian smoking. Some would seek to settle such a question by knowledge that thinks only of the harmful effects it may have on the body, but the better way to settle such a question is by love, which asks, What effect will it have upon my brother? Knowledge occupies me with the thing in question – its merits or demerits – but love thinks of my brother.

This leads the apostle to make some important remarks on knowledge and love. First, he says, We all have knowledge, in measure at any rate. Knowledge, however, is not enough; we need love as well. There is in human nature a great thirst for knowledge, but if I pursue knowledge for the sake of acquiring knowledge, it will only puff me up, whereas love will build up my brother. Moreover, we only know in part; therefore to trust in our partial knowledge to settle questions will often lead us sadly astray.

Love to my brother, which thinks of his good, will be a surer and better way of settling questions which may otherwise only minister to self and self-importance.

But how is this love to my brother to be kept in activity? Only by love to God, as the apostle John tells us, Every one that loveth Him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of Him. So in this passage the apostle speaks of love to God, and reminds us that if a man loves God he realises, not simply that he knows God in some little measure, but that he is known of God. The consciousness that God knows me, and all that I have done, leaves no room for the pride which would be puffed up by mere knowledge.

(Vv. 4-6). Further, the question of eating meats offered to idols leads the apostle to draw a brief but important contrast between idols and the true God. First, he says that we Christians know that an idol is nothing, and that there is none other God but one. Fallen man imagines many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth; but to us Christians there is but one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Here it is no question of bringing before us the Deity of Christ, but of how God has been pleased to reveal Himself, and the place the divine Persons hold in the ways of grace toward men. The Father remains in Godhead, and God is the source of all, and all for Him. The Son, while never ceasing to be God, has become flesh, and, in Manhood, has taken the place of Lord. Thus the One we know as Jesus Christ is the one Lord to Whom we all owe allegiance and subjection. He is both Creator of all things and the One by Whom we have been redeemed.

(Vv. 7-13). Having spoken of the difference between love and knowledge, and having brought before us the true God, the apostle now shows that even among true Christians there were some who had not this full knowledge, and they were therefore not able with their partial knowledge to rise above the deeply rooted prejudices of their heathen training in regard to idols. They were apparently not altogether assured that idols were non-entities, and the meats offered to them no different from other meats. For such to eat of meats offered to idols would lead to a bad or defiled conscience. Moreover, if such an one saw a brother eating idol sacrifices, it might become a stumbling-block to him, and embolden him to do something which would give him a bad conscience, leading to his making shipwreck of the faith and the start on a path that ends in perishing. This does not raise the question of the possibility of a believer perishing, for the Lord Himself says, They shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of My hand. In one passage the believer is viewed from the Lord’s side; in the other from man’s. We may fail in our responsibility, and do that which, as far as we are concerned, would cause our brother to perish. In so acting, we not only wrong our brother for whom Christ died, but we wrong Christ. The apostle concludes, therefore, that love to my brother would lead me not to eat flesh, if, by so eating, my brother is stumbled.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

CHAPTER 8

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

In this Chapter he treats of the second general question put before him by the Corinthians. It dealt with things offered to idols, and whether it was lawful to eat of them,

i. He answers that, taken by itself, such eating was not unlawful, since an idol is nothing.

ii. He next says that it is unlawful, if conscience be wounded, or if offence be caused to the weaker brethren. He impresses upon them that this last is by all means to be avoided.

To understand the three following chapters, note that the things spoken of as offered to idols are flesh, bread, wine, &c. It was not sin simply to eat such things, as S. Thomas lays down (i. ii. qu. 103, art. 4, ad. 3). Still it was a sin (1.) if it was out of unbelief, as, e.g., if any idolater ate of such things in honour of the idol, or if it were done out of weakness of faith, as was frequently the case in S. Paul’s time. For many had been but lately converted, and were only half-taught, and so had not wholly cast off their old ideas about idols and idol-offerings, and therefore still regarded them as having something Divine about them. They regarded the food offered to idols as holy and consecrated, although the Christian faith taught them the opposite.

2. It would be sinful if any one who thought it unlawful to eat of such things were to go against his conscience and eat of them, thinking, that is, that so doing was holding communion with the idols and professing idolatry.

3. It would be a sin if any one, knowing that an idol is nothing, should yet eat of things offered to idols in the presence of weak brethren, and to show his knowledge and liberty, and so provoke them (ver. 10) to eat of the same things against their conscience, or to think that he, by eating, was sinning against the faith, or returning to the worship of idols, and dragging others with him.

4. It would be against the Apostolic precept, given in Act 15:19, forbidding the eating of things offered to idols.

5. It would be a sin if eaten in such way and under such circumstances, as, e.g., in the idol-temple, when the idolatrous sacrifice is offered, as to cause others to think that it was done in honour of the idol, and in profession of idolatry, in the same way that any one who participates in a Calvinistic supper is looked upon as professing Calvinism. It is of this case that S. Augustine speaks (de Bono Conjug. xvi.) when he says, “It is better to die of hunger than to eat of things offered to idols.”

The Emperor Julian, in order to compel the Catholics of Constantinople to some outward compliance with idolatry, forced them all to eat of things offered to idols. The story is related by Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, in a sermon delivered by him at the beginning of Lent. He says: “He defiled all the foods that were exposed for sale in the public markets, with sacrifices offered to the gods, that so all might either be compelled to eat of these sacrificial foods or perish of hunger. The faithful inquired at the oracle of the martyr Theodore how they were to act at this crisis; and they were bidden from heaven to use, instead of bread, boiled corn for food. This the rich generously distributed to their poorer brethren for a week, when the Emperor Julian, despairing of being able to accomplish his purpose, and vanquished by the continence and constancy of the Christians, ordered pure and undefiled food to be again sold in the markets.”

1. We should observe here the expression, “vanquished by the continency of the Christians.” Their abstinence was constant and spontaneous. For, though they might have eaten of the foods defiled by Julian’s orders, as though common foods, yet they refused out of abhorrence of Julian and his idols. That they might lawfully have eaten of them appears from the fact that Julian was unable to defile ordinary food by bringing it into contact with things offered to idols, or to make it sacred to devils, in such a way that one who ate of them should be regarded as an idol-worshipper. For though this might have been Julian’s intention, yet he was nut a single individual, and unable to alter the common judgment of men, which regarded this not as idolatrous but as indifferent. Hence, too, the citizens of Antioch, when Julian had on like manner polluted their food and drink, ate and drank of them freely and without scruple, as Theodoret tells us (Hist. lib. i. c. 14). S. Augustine, too (Ep.154), says that it is lawful to9 eat of vegetables grown in an idol’s garden, and to drink from a pitcher or a well in an idol-temple, or into which something offered to idols has fallen, Cf. notes to x. 21.

2. Notice, again, that there were at Corinth some who knew and felt that this was the case, viz., that idols and the things offered to them had no meaning; and so they ate of such things to the scandal of those who were not so strong and not so well informed, in order to show their knowledge and liberty. But others, less well instructed, either had not quite cast off their old feelings about idols and idol-sacrifices, and hence might easily relapse. This is why the Apostle, fearing danger for such, said, in x. 14, “Flee from idolatry.” It led to the question being put to the Apostle by the Corinthians, whether it was lawful to eat of things offered to idols.

3. The Apostle here only begins his answer to the question, for he clears it up and fully replies in x. 20, 21. Not only does he not allow them, because of the scandal caused, to eat of such things; but even when there is no scandal he forbids them to eat of them is the temples, at the altars, or tables of idols, as their wont was, and in the presence of those who offered them. For this would be to profess idolatry, and to worship the idol in the feast which consummated the sacrifice offered to it; for this banquet was a part of the sacrifice and its completion. In this sense we must understand Rev 2:14 and Rev 2:20, where the angel, i.e., the Bishop of Pergamos and Thyatira, is rebuked for allowing his flock to eat of things offered to idols, as though they were sacred and Divine, and so give honour to idols. For this was the stumbling-block that King Balak, at the instigation of Balaam, put before the children of Israel: by eating of things offered to idols they were enticed into worshipping Baal-Peor. (Num 25:2). For the same reason it was forbidden by the Council of Gangra (cap. ii.) to eat of idol-sacrifices, and also by the Third Council of Orleans (cap. xix.).

5. The Apostle says nothing of the apostolic precept of Acts xv., which forbade absolutely the eating of things offered to idols, because that precept was directed to the men of Antioch and its neighbourhood alone (ver. 23), where were very many Jews who abhorred idols and idol-sacrifices. These had sent with the Gentiles messengers to Jerusalem to the Apostles, that they might decide the question about the observance of the Law. To them the Apostles replied that the ordinances of the Law were not binding, but that, notwithstanding, they must abstain from the eating of things offered to idols, for the sake of concord between the Jews and Gentiles. Afterwards, however, other heathen living far distant from Antioch, of their own free will obeyed the command, through the reverence they felt for the Apostles. Cf. Baronius (A.D. 51, p. 441).

Ver. 1.-Now as touching things offered unto idols we know that we all have knowledge. We all know, though some of you may think differently, that things offered to idols are the same as other food, and have no greater sanctity or power. All of us who are fairly well instructed in the faith of Christ know that they belong to the class of adiaphora.

Knowledge puffeth up. This knowledge of yours, that idols are nothing, and that consequently it is lawful to eat of things offered to idols, which accordingly you do to the great offence of those who know it not, makes you proud towards the ignorant, and makes you look down on them. The word for puffeth up points to a bladder distended with wind. Such, he says, is this windy knowledge. S. Augustine (Sent. n. 241) says: “It is a virtue of the humble not to boast of their knowledge; because, as all alike share the light, so do they the truth.”

But charity edifieth. The weak and ignorant. It brushes aside such things as the eating of idol-sacrifices, which may be stumbling-blocks t them, so as to keep them in the faith of Christ, and help them forward in it. Windy knowledge, therefore, makes a man proud, if it be not tempered with charity, So Anselm.

It plainly appears that this knowledge, which puffeth up, is contrary to charity, for it induces contempt of one’s neighbours, while charity is anxious to edify them. S. Bernard (Serm. 36 in Cantic.) says appositely: “As food, if not digested, generates unhealthy humours, and harms rather than nourished the body, so if a mass of knowledge be bolted into the mind’s stomach, which is the memory, and be not assimilated by the fire of Christ, and if it be so passed along through the arteries of the soil, viz., the character and acts, will it not be regarded as sin, being food changed into evil and noxious humours?”

Ver. 2.-And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. He who is puffed up at the thought that he knows something, knows not yet the end, use and measure of knowledge. Knowledge is given to cause humility, to enable us to benefit all that we can, to stand in the way of no one, to cause offence to no one, that so we may be known and loved by God. He is pointing at those who displayed their knowledge about the nature of idol sacrifices, by eating of them, though it were an offence to the untaught.

S. Bernard, in explaining this passage (Serm. 36 in Cantic.) says beautifully: “You see that he gives no praise to him that knoweth many things, if he is ignorant of the measure of knowing. That measure is to know the order, the zeal, and the end with which we should seek knowledge. The order is to seek that first which is more conducive to salvation. The zeal we should show is in seeking that more eagerly which makes us love more vehemently. The end of knowledge is not for vain glory, curiosity, or any like thing, but only for our own edification of that of our neighbour. For there are some who wish to know only that they may know, and this is vile curiosity. There are some who wish to know that they may be known themselves, and this is contemptible vanity: such do not escape the scoff of the satirist, ‘To know your own is nothing, unless another knows that you know yourself.’ There are some again who wish to know, that they may see their knowledge, and this is despicable chaffering. But there are also some who wish to know that they may edify, and this is charity; and some who with to know that they may be edified, and this is prudence. Of all these the last two only are not found to abuse knowledge, for they wish to gain understanding that they may do good.” Again (de Conscientia, c. ii.) he says: “Many seek for knowledge, few conscience. If as much care and zeal were devoted to conscience as is given to the pursuit of empty and worldly knowledge, it would be laid hold of more quickly and retained to greater advantage.”

Ver. 3.-But if any man love God, the same is known of Him, If any, for God’s sake, love his neighbour, so as not to make him stumble at seeing him eat of idol sacrifices, &c., but seeks instead to edify him, then that man is approved of and beloved by God, and in His knowledge God is well pleased.

Note that he that loves God loves also his neighbour; for the love of God bids us love our neighbour for God’s sake; and the love of God is exhibited and seen in the love of our neighbour (1Jo 4:20).

Ver. 4.-We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other than God but One. An idol is not what it is commonly supposed to be, not what it stands for, is not God. It has no Divine power; materially it is of wood, formally it is nothing. It is an image of a falsehood, or of a non-existent God. Consequently that which is offered to idols is as such nothing, has no Divinity or sanctity derived from the idol to which it was offered.

The word “idol” itself is derived from the Greek , which Tertullian says denotes appearance; and from it the diminutive, , was formed (de Idolol. ciii.). An “idol” among the earlier Greek writers denoted any empty and untrustworthy image, such as hollow phantasms, spectres, the shades of the dead, and the like. In the same way Holy Scripture and the Church writers have limited the term idol to an image of God which is evident from this verse. The LXX., too, throughout the Old Testament, apply the same term to the statues and gods of the heathen.

Hence Henry Stephen and John Scapula are deceived and deceive, when they lay down in their lexicons that the term idol is applied by ecclesiastical writers to any image representing some deity to which honour and worship are paid. It is not every statue or image of every god that is an idol, but only the image of a false god. Cf. Cyprian (de Exhort. Mart. c. i.), Tertullian (de Idolol.), Athanasius (contra Idola).

The Protestant fraud, therefore, must be guarded against which confounds idol with image, and concludes that all images are forbidden by those passages of Scripture which condemn idolatry. Cf. Ballarmine (de Imagin. lib. ii. c. 5), who shows unanswerably that an idol is the representation of what is false, an image of what is true.

Ver. 5, 6.-For though there be that are called gods, . . . to us there is but one God, &c. The pagans have gods many and lords many, as the sun, moon, and stars, or terrestrial gods, as Jupiter, Apollo, Hercules; but we have only one God, for whose glory and honour we were created.

Notice also against the Arians that, when S. Paul says One God, he is only excluding false gods, not the Son and the Holy Spirit. When he says One Lord Jesus Christ, he is only excluding false lords, not the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Ver. 7.-Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge. I.e., that an idol and what is offered to it are nothing.

For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol. They eat what is offered to an idol with reverence, thinking that the idol has something that is Divine, and that the offering was made to the deity lurking behind the idol. So Amselm.

Theophylact explains this verse differently, thus: “Some eat of what has been offered to the idol, under the false supposition that it has been changed by the idol and physically breathed upon by a devil, and so in some way affected by him, or, at all events, morally defiled by him, so as to be regarded to be now his property and food, with power to change and pollute him that eateth of it. In this way they eat of idol sacrifices under the mistaken belief that they are polluted by them.” This sense also is suitable and likely; for there can be no doubt that, among the Corinthians lately converted, were some who were over-scrupulous and some over-superstitious.

And their conscience being weak is defiled. Being not fully instructed in the faith about these matters, they go against their conscience in following the example of others, and eating of idol sacrifices. So Chrysostom.

Libertines do but rave when they lay down from this passage that neither fornication, nor drunkenness, nor anything else is sin, if the conscience has no scruples. This is to advise men to get rid of conscience, so as to sin at pleasure. Libertines therefore have no conscience; and they would appear therefore to have put aside their manhood, their reason, and all virtue. But what folly is it to ascribe such sentiments to the Apostle! For who is there that sees not that the Apostle is here speaking, not of sins or of forbidden things, but of things indifferent, such as the eating of idol offerings?

Ver. 8.-But meat commendeth us not to God. The eating of idol sacrifices or of any other food is in itself no help towards piety, which makes us acceptable to God. Therefore, we that are string ought not, under the pretext of piety, to wish to use all things as alike indifferent. The Apostle here turns to the more advanced, and warns them to avoid giving offence to the weak.

It is foolish, therefore, as well as wrong, for heretics to wrest this passage into as argument against the choice of food and the fasts of the Church. Food, indeed, does not commend us to God, for it is not a virtue; but abstinence from forbidden food is an act of temperance, obedience, and religion, and does therefore commend us to God, as it commended Daniel and his companions, the Rechabites, John Baptist, and others. Cf. notes to Rom 14:17.

For neither if we eat are we the better. If we eat of idol offerings, we do not on that account abound the more in virtue, merit, and grace, which commend us before God, and therefore we ought not to have any desire so to eat. So Chrysostom.

Secondly, it is more simple to take this as a fresh reason to dissuade them from eating idol-sacrifices. Whether we eat of these things, we shall not abound any the more with pleasant food and other good things; or whether we eat not, we shall not be deprived of them, for we may eat of other things. So it is often said that, whether we be invited to a banquet or not, we shall not on that account be full or be hungry, be fatter or leaner, richer or poorer. He is pointing out that food is a thing of little account, and may therefore be put aside if scandal arise, and be subordinated to the edification of our neighbours. So Anselm.

Ver. 10.-Sit at meat in the idol’s temple. Erasmus takes the word which we have idol’s temple to mean idol’s feast. The text, however, gives the better translation. S. Paul speaks of their siting at meat in an idol’s temple, or at a table consecrated to idols. Those who were about to partake of the idol-sacrifices were wont to have tables set out in the temple, as Herodotus says in Clio, and Virgil (n. viii. 283), in his description of the sacrifice of Evander and the subsequent feast with the Trojans. So too did the Jews eat of the peace-offerings in the court of the Temple (Deu 16:2).

It hence follows that to eat of things offered to idols in an idol temple is not only an evil because of the scandal it causes, but also is an evil in itself, because it is a profession of idolatry, as will be said at chap. x.

Anselm says tropologically: “The knowledge of idol-offerings is the knowledge of the vanity of heathen philosophy, poetry, and rhetoric. This must be guarded against. Far be it from a Christian mouth to say, ‘By Jove,’ or ‘By Hercules.’ or ‘By Castor,’ or to use other expressions that have more to do with monsters than with Divine beings,”

Emboldened here is either (1.) provoked to eat of things offered to idols, as though they were sacred and the channels of grace, and so he will be led to sacrifice to some deity and return to idolatry; or (2.) he will be provoked to act against his conscience, which tells him that food offered to an idol has been breathed upon by it and polluted, and that therefore he will be polluted if he eat. Cf. note to ver. 7.

Ver. 13.-Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth. S. Chrysostom says: “It is the mark of a good teacher to teach by example as well as precept. The Apostle does not qualify what he says by adding ‘justly’ of ‘unjustly,’ but he says absolutely, ‘If meat make my brother to offend.’ He does not speak of idol-offerings as being prohibited for other reasons, but he says that if what is lawful causes his brother to offend, he will abstain from it, not for one or two days, but for his whole life. Nor does he say, ‘Lest I destroy my brother,’ but ‘Lest I make my brother to offend.’ It would be he height of folly in us to regard those things, which are so dear to Christ that He refused not to die for them, as so worthless that we will not for their sake abstain from certain food.”

On the subject of offence, see S. Basil (Reg. Brevior. 64), where, towards the end, he says that the offence is greater in proportion to the knowledge or rank of him who gives it; and he adds that at his hand God will require the blood of those sinners who follow his bad example.

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

8:1 Now {1} as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we {a} all have knowledge. Knowledge {b} puffeth up, but charity {c} edifieth.

(1) He begins to entreat of another type of indifferent things, that is, things offered to idols, or the use of flesh so offered and sacrificed. And first of all he removes all those things which the Corinthians pretended in using things offered to idols without any respect. First of all they affirmed that this difference of foods was for the unskilful men, but as for them, they knew well enough the benefit of Christ, which causes all these things to be clean to those that are clean. Be it so, Paul says: even if we are all sufficiently instructed in the knowledge of Christ, I say nonetheless that we must not simply rest in this knowledge. The reason is, that unless our knowledge is tempered with charity, it does not only not avail, but also does much hurt, because it is the mistress of pride. Nay, it does not so much as deserve the name of godly knowledge, if it is separate from the love of God, and therefore from the love of our neighbour.

(a) This general word is to be abridged as 1Co 8:7 appears, for there is a type of taunt in it, as we may perceive by 1Co 8:2 .

(b) Gives occasion of vanity and pride, because it is void of charity.

(c) Instructs our neighbour.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Knowledge and love compared 8:1-3

Paul began by comparing the way of love and the way of knowledge to show their relative importance.

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

The key phrase peri de ("now concerning" or "now about") as well as a change in subject matter mark off a new section of this epistle.

Traditional interpreters of this passage have pointed out that in the Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day, pagan Gentiles offered sacrificial animals to various pagan gods and goddesses in temples daily. Only a token portion went to the deity and burned up on the altar. The temple priests, attendants, and their families ate most of the meat, but frequently they could not eat all that the worshippers brought. Consequently they sold what remained to the meat market operators in the agora (marketplace). There the general public purchased it. This meat was very desirable and popular because the pagans usually offered only the best animals in sacrifice. However the butchers did not usually identify it as meat that someone had offered to an idol. Traditional interpreters believe that this is the meat in view in the discussion. [Note: E.g., Barrett, pp. 188-89; and Wiersbe, 1:594.] As mentioned above, I think eating in an idol temple has better support.

In dealing with this issue Paul began as he customarily did in this epistle by identifying common ground of belief with his readers (cf. 1Co 6:2; 1Co 7:1). "We all have knowledge" may have been another Corinthian slogan. All the believers knew that there were no other gods beside the true God. This knowledge was leading some in the church to think that eating in an idol temple was insignificant. It probably led others to make no distinction between the kinds of meat they bought in the market. This was perfectly proper, as Paul pointed out later. Nevertheless knowledge of this fact was not the only factor his readers needed to consider in their relationship to eating this food.

The apostle established at the beginning of his discussion of this important subject that knowledge by itself produces arrogance (cf. 1Co 1:5; 1Co 12:8). We have already seen that arrogance was one of the Corinthians’ major weaknesses (1Co 4:6; 1Co 4:18-19; 1Co 5:2). In contrast, love edifies. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up (1Co 13:4). Paul did not mean his readers should abandon the knowledge that was foundational to their correct conduct. He meant that knowledge without love was incomplete and by itself would not lead them to correct conduct.

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

B. Food offered to idols 8:1-11:1

The Corinthians had asked Paul another question, evidently in a combative spirit judging by the apostle’s response. It involved a practice common in their culture.

The commentators understand the situation that Paul addressed in two different ways. Some of them believe that the eating of marketplace food that pagans had previously offered to idols was amoral (not a moral issue) in itself, but it was controversial enough to cause division among the church members. If this was indeed the issue that Paul addressed, it is only one of many similar "doubtful things." Advocates of this view believe that the apostle’s directions to his readers here give us guidance in dealing with contemporary doubtful (amoral) matters.

Other interpreters believe that eating food sacrificed to idols involved a specific form of idolatry and was, therefore, not amoral but sinful (cf. 1Co 5:10-11). They assume that Paul was responding to the Corinthians’ objection to his prohibition of this practice that he had written in his former letter to them. This view sees 1Co 8:10 and 1Co 10:1-22 as expressing the basic problem to which Paul was responding. I believe the text supports this interpretation of the facts better than the former one.

"That going to the temples is the real issue is supported by the fact that the eating of cultic meals was a regular part of worship in antiquity. This is true not only of the nations that surrounded Israel, but of Israel itself. In the Corinth of Paul’s time, such meals were still the regular practice both at state festivals and private celebrations of various kinds. There were three parts to these meals: the preparation, the sacrifice proper, and the feast. The meat of the sacrifices apparently was divided into three portions: that burned before the god, that apportioned to the worshipers, and that placed on the ’table of the god,’ which was tended by cultic ministrants but also eaten by the worshipers. The significance of these meals has been much debated, but most likely they involved a combination of religious and social factors. The gods were thought to be present since the meals were held in their honor and sacrifices were made; nonetheless, they were also intensely social occasions for the participants. For the most part the Gentiles who had become believers in Corinth had probably attended such meals all their lives; this was the basic ’restaurant’ in antiquity, and every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion.

"The problem, then, is best reconstructed along the following lines. After their conversion-and most likely after the departure of Paul-some of them returned to the practice of attending the cultic meals. In his earlier letter Paul forbade such ’idolatry’; but they have taken exception to that prohibition and in their letter have made four points:

"(1) They argue that ’all have knowledge’ about idols [i.e., that there are no such things, so participation in these meals is not an issue, cf. 1Co 8:1; 1Co 8:4]. . . .

"(2) They also have knowledge about food, that it is a matter of indifference to God (1Co 8:8) . . .

"(3) They seem to have a somewhat ’magical’ view of the sacraments; those who have had Christian baptism and who partake of the Lord’s Table are not in any danger of falling (1Co 10:1-4).

"(4) Besides, there is considerable question in the minds of many whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter. In their minds this has been substantiated by two factors: first, his failure to accept support while with them; and second, his own apparently compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles; cf. 1Co 9:19-23)." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., pp. 360-62.]

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

Chapter 12

LIBERTY AND LOVE

THE next question which had been put to Paul by the Corinthian Church, and to which he now replies, is “touching things offered unto idols,” whether a Christian had liberty to eat such things or not. This question necessarily arose in a society partly heathen and partly Christian. Every meal was in a manner dedicated to the household gods by laying some portion of it on the family altar. Where one member of a heathen family had become a Christian, he would at once be confronted with the question, rising in his own conscience, whether by partaking of such food he might not be countenancing idolatry. On the occasion of a birthday, or a marriage, or a safe return from sea, or any circumstance that seemed to call for celebration, it was customary to sacrifice in some public temple. And after the legs of the victim, enclosed in fat, and the entrails had been burnt on the altar, the worshipper received the remainder, and invited his friends and guests to partake of it either in the temple itself, or in the surrounding grove, or at his own home. Here again a young convert might very naturally ask himself whether he was justified in attending such a feast and actually sitting down to meat in the idols presence. Nor was it only personal friendships and the harmony of family life that were threatened; but on public occasions and national celebrations the Christian was in a strait betwixt two; fearful, on the one band, of branding himself as no good citizen by abstaining from participation in the feast, fearful, on the other hand, lest by compliance he should be found unfaithful to his new religion. And even though his own family was entirely Christian, the difficulty was not removed, for much of the meat offered in worship found its way into the. common market, so that at every meal the Christian ran the risk of eating things sacrificed to idols.

Among the Jews it had always been considered pollution to eat such food. Instances are on record of men dying cheerfully rather than suffer such contamination. Few Jewish Christians could rise to the height of our Lords maxim, “Not that which goeth into a man defileth him.” The Gentile converts also felt the difficulty of at once throwing off all the old associations. When they entered the temple where but a few months ago they had worshipped, the atmosphere of the place intoxicated them; and the long-accustomed sights quickened their pulse and exposed them to serious temptation. Others, less sensitive, could use the temple as they would an ordinary eating house, without the slightest stirring of idolatrous feeling. Some went to the houses of heathen friends as often as they were invited, and partook of what was set before them, making no minute inquiries as to how the meat had been provided, asking no questions for conscience sake, but believing that the earth and its fulness were the Lords, and that what they ate they received from God, and not from an idol. Others, again, could not shake off the feeling that they were countenancing idolatry when they partook of such feasts. Thus there arose a diversity of judgment and a variance in practice which must have given rise to much annoyance, and which did not appear to be approaching any nearer to a final and satisfactory settlement.

In answer to the appeal made to him on this subject, it might seem that Paul had nothing to do but quote the deliverance of the Council of Jerusalem, which determined that Gentile converts should be commanded to abstain from meats offered to idols. Paul himself had obtained that deliverance, and was satisfied with it; but now he makes no reference to it, and treats the question afresh. In the epistles of the Lord to the Churches, embodied in the Book of Revelation, the eating of things sacrificed to idols is spoken of in strongly, condemnatory language; and in one of the very earliest non-canonical documents of the primitive Church we find the precept, “Abstain carefully from things offered to idols, for that is worship of dead gods.” Pauls disregard of the decision of the Council is probably due to his belief that that decision was merely provisional and temporary. He had founded Churches which could scarcely be expected to go past himself for guidance; and as the situation in the Corinthian Church was different from what it had been in Antioch, he felt justified in treating the matter afresh. And while in the early Church the partaking of sacrificial food which Paul allowed was sometimes vehemently condemned, this was due to the circumstance that it was sometimes used as a test of a mans abandonment of idolatry. Of course where this was the case no Christian could possibly be in doubt regarding the proper course to follow. What a man may freely do in ordinary circumstances, he may not do if he is warned that certain inferences will be drawn from his action.

The case laid before Paul, then, belongs to the class known as matters morally indifferent. These are matters upon which conscience does not uniformly give the same verdict even among persons brought up under the same moral law. On mingling with society, everyone finds that there are many points of conduct regarding which there is not an unanimous consent of judgment among the most delicately conscientious people, and upon which it is difficult to decide even when we are anxious to do right. Such points are the lawfulness of attending certain places of public amusement, the propriety of allowing oneself to be implicated in certain kinds of private amusements or entertainments, the way of spending Sunday, and the amount of pleasure, refinement, and luxury one may admit into his life.

The state of feeling produced in Corinth by the discussion of such topics is apparent from Pauls mode of treating the question put to him. His answer is addressed to the party who claimed superior knowledge, who wished to be known as the party which stood for liberty of conscience, and probably for the Pauline axiom, “All things are lawful for me.” Paul does not directly address those who had scruples about eating, but those who had none. He does not speak to, hut only of the “weak” brethren who had still conscience of the idol. And apparently a good deal of ill-feeling had been engendered in the Corinthian Church by the different views taken. This is always the trouble in connection with morally indifferent matters. They do little harm if each holds his own opinion, genially and endeavours to influence others by a friendly statement of his own practice and the grounds of it. But in most instances it happens as in Corinth: those who saw that they could eat without contamination scorned those who had scruples; while, on their side, the scrupulous judged the eaters to be worldly timeservers, in a perilous state, less godly and consistent than themselves.

As a first step towards the settlement of this matter, Paul makes the largest concession to the party of liberty. Their clear perception that an idol was nothing in the world, a mere bit of timber, and of no more significance to a Christian than a pillar or a doorpost-this knowledge is sound and commendable. At the same time, they need not make quite so much of it as they were doing. In their letter of inquiry they must have emphasised the fact that they were the party of enlightenment, who saw things as they really were, and had freed themselves from fantastic superstitions and antiquated ideas. Quite true, says Paul, “we all have knowledge”; but you need not remind me at every turn of your superior discernment of the Christians true position nor of your wonderfully sagacious discovery that an idol is nothing in the world. Any Jewish schoolboy could have told you this. I know that you understand the principles which should regulate your intercourse with the heathen much better than the scrupulous do, and that your views of liberty are my own. Let us then hear no more of this. Do not always be returning upon this, as if this settled the whole matter. You are in the right so far as regards knowledge, and your brethren are weak; let that be conceded: but do not suppose you settle the question or impress me more strongly with the righteousness of your conduct by reiterating that you, whom your brethren call lax and misguided, are better instructed in the principle of Christian conduct than they. Once for all, I know this.

Does this, then, not settle the question? If-the party of liberty might say-if we are right, if the idol is nothing, and an idols temple no more than an ordinary dining room, does this not settle the whole matter? By no means, says Paul. “Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” You have as yet grasped only one end, and that the weaker end, of the Christian rule. You must add love, consideration of your neighbour, to your knowledge. Without this, knowledge is unwholesome and as likely to do harm as to do good. In very similar terms the founder of the Positive philosophy speaks of the evil results of loveless knowledge. “I am free to confess,” he says, “that hitherto the Positive spirit has been tainted with the two moral evils which peculiarly wait on knowledge. It puffs up, and it dries the heart, by giving free scope to pride and by turning it from love.” It is indeed matter of everyday observation that men of ready insight into moral and spiritual truth are prone to despise the less enlightened spirits that stumble among the scruples which, like the bats of the moral twilight, fly in their faces. The knowledge which is not tempered by humility and love does harm both to its possessor and to other Christians; it puffs up its possessor with scorn, and it alienates and embitters the less enlightened. Knowledge without love, knowledge which does not take into consideration the difficulties and scruples of brethren, cannot be admired or commended, for though in itself a good thing and capable of being used for the advancement of the Church, knowledge dissociated from charity can do good neither to him who possesses it nor to the Christian community. However the possessors of such knowledge vaunt themselves as the men of progress and the hope of the Church, it is not by knowledge alone the Church can ever solidly grow. Knowledge does produce an appearance of growth, a puffing up, an unhealthy, morbid growth, a mushroom, fungous growth; but that which builds up the Church stone by stone, a strong, enduring edifice, is love. It is a good thing to have clear views of Christian liberty, to have definite, firmly held ideas of Christian conduct, to discard fretting scruples and idle superstitions; add love to this knowledge, exercise it in a tender, patient, self-denying, considerate, loving way, and you edify both yourself and the Church: but exercise it without love, and you become a poor inflated creature, puffed up with a noxious gas destructive of all higher life in yourself and in others.

Pauls law, then, is that liberty must be tempered by love; that the individual must consider the society of which he forms a part; and that, after his own conscience is satisfied regarding the legitimacy of certain actions, he must further consider how the conscience of his neighbour will be affected if he uses his liberty and does these actions. He must endeavour to keep step with the Christian community of which he forms a part, and must beware of giving offence to less enlightened persons by his freer conduct. He must consider not only whether he himself can do this or that with a good conscience, but also how the conscience of those who know what he does will be affected by it.

Applying this law to the matter in hand, Paul declares that, for his own part, he has no scruples at all about meat. “Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” If therefore I had to consult only my own conscience, the matter would admit of prompt and easy solution. I would as soon eat in an idols temple as anywhere else. But all have not the conviction we have that an idol is nothing in the world. Some are unable to rid themselves of the feeling that in eating sacrificial meat they are paying an act of homage to the idol. “Some with conscience of the idol,” with the feeling that the idol is present and accepting the worship, “eat the sacrificial meat as a thing offered unto an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.” Their conscience is weak, not fully enlightened, not purged of old superstition; but their conscience is their conscience: and if they feel they are doing a wrong thing and yet do it, they do a wrong thing, and defile their conscience. Therefore we must consider them as well as ourselves, for as often as we use our liberty and eat sacrificial meat we tempt them to do the same, and so to defile their conscience. They know that you are men of sound and clear spiritual discernment; they look up to you as guides: and if they see you who have knowledge sitting at meat in the idols temple, must not they be emboldened to do the same, and so to stain and harden their own conscience?

It is easy to imagine how this would be exemplified at a Corinthian table. Three Christians are invited, with other guests, to a party in the house of a heathen friend. One of these invited Christians is weakly scrupulous, unable to disentangle himself from the old idolatrous associations connected with sacrificial meat. The other two Christians are men of ampler view and more enlightened conscience, and have the deepest conviction that scruples about eating at a heathen table are baseless. All three recline at the table; but, as the meal goes on, the anxious, scrutinising eye of the weak brother discerns some mark which identifies the meat as sacrificial, or, fearing it may be so, he inquires of the servant, and finds it has been offered in the temple: and at once he draws the attention of his Christian friends to this, saying, “This has been offered in sacrifice to idols.” One of his friends, knowing that heathen eyes are watching, and wishing to show how superior to all such scruples the enlightened Christian is and how genial and free a religion is the religion of Christ, smiles at his friends scruples, and accepts the meat. The other, quite as clear sighted and free from superstition, but more generous and more truly courageous, accommodates himself to the scruple of the weak brother, and declines the dish, lest, by eating and leaving the scrupulous man without support, he should tempt him to follow their example, contrary to his own conviction, and so lead him into sin. It need not be said which of these men acts the friendly part and comes nearest to the Christian principle of Paul.

In our own society similar cases necessarily arise. I, as a Christian man, and knowing that the earth and its fulness are the Lords, may feel at perfect liberty to drink wine. Had I only myself to consider, and knowing that my temptation does not lie that way, I might use wine regularly or as often as I felt disposed to enjoy a needed stimulant. I may feel quite convinced in my own mind that morally I am not one whit the worse of doing so. But I cannot determine whether I am to indulge myself or not without considering the effect my conduct will have on others. There may be among my friends some who know that their temptation does lie that way, and whose conscience bids them altogether refrain. If by my example such persons are encouraged to silence the voice of their own conscience, then I incur the incalculable guilt of helping to destroy a brother for whom Christ died.

Or again, a lad has had the great good fortune to be brought up in a Puritanic household, and has imbibed stringent moral principles, with perhaps somewhat narrow ideas. He has been taught, together with much else of the same character, that the influence of the theatre is in our country demoralising, that one day in the week is little enough to give to the claims of spiritual education, and so forth. But on entering the life of a great city he is soon brought in contact with men whose uprightness, and sagacity, and Christian spirit he cannot but respect, but who yet read their weekly paper, or any book they are interested in, as freely on Sunday as on Saturday, and who visit the theatre without the slightest twinge of conscience. Now either of two things will probably happen in such a case. The young mans ideas of Christian liberty may become clearer. He may attain the standpoint of Paul, and may see that fellowship with Christ can be maintained in conditions of life he once absolutely condemned. Or the young man may not grow in Christian perception, but being daunted by overpowering example, and chafing under the raillery of his companions, may do as others do, though still uneasy in his own conscience.

What is to be observed about this process, which is ceaselessly going, on in society, is that the emboldening of conscience is one thing, its enlightenment quite another. And were it possible to get statistics of the proportion of cases in which the one process goes on without the other, these statistics might be salutary. But we need no statistics to assure us that Christian people by selfishly using their own liberty do continually lead less enlightened persons to trample on their scruples and disregard their own conscience. Constantly it happens in every department of human life that men who once shrank from certain practices as wrong now freely engage in them, although they are not in their own mind any more clearly convinced of their legitimacy than they were before, but are merely emboldened by the example of others. Such persons, if possessed of any self-observation and candour, will tell you that at first they felt as if they were stealing the indulgence or the gain the practice brings, and that they had to drown the voice of conscience by the louder voice of example.

The results of this are disastrous. Conscience is dethroned. The ship no longer obeys her helm, and lies in the trough of the sea swept by every wave and driven by every wind. It may indeed be said, What harm can come of persons less enlightened being emboldened to do as we do if what we do is right? Is not that, most strictly speaking, edification? It is not as if we emboldened anyone to transgress the moral law; we are merely bringing our weak brothers conduct up to the level of our own. Do we not act wisely and well in so doing? Again it must be answered, No, because, while yielding themselves to the influence of your example, these persons abandon the guidance of their own conscience, which may be a less enlightened, but is certainly a more authoritative, guide than you. If the weak brother does a right thing while his conscience tells him it is a wrong thing, to him it is a wrong thing. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin”; that is to say, whatsoever is not dictated by a thorough conviction that it is right is sin. It is sin which in some respects is more dangerous than a sin of passion or impulse. By a sin of passion the conscience is not directly injured, and may remain comparatively tender and healthy; but when you refuse to acknowledge conscience as your guide and accept some other persons conduct as that which may dictate to you what you may or may not do, you dethrone conscience, and sap your moral nature. You shut your own eyes, and prefer to be led by the hand of another person, which may indeed serve you on this occasion; but the end will be a dog and a string.

Two permanent lessons are preserved in this exposition which Paul gives of the matter laid before him. The first is the sacredness or supremacy of conscience. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”; that is the one legitimate source of conduct. A man may possibly do a wrong thing when he obeys conscience; he is certainly wrong when he acts contrary to conscience. He may be helped to a decision by the advice of others, but it is his own decision by which he must abide. He must act, not on the conviction of others, but on his own. It is what he himself sees that must guide him. He is bound to use every means to enlighten his conscience and to learn with accuracy what is right and allowable, but he is also bound always to act upon his own present perception of what is right. His conscience may not be as enlightened as it ought to be. Still his duty is to enlighten, not to violate it. It is the guide God has given us, and we must not choose another.

The second lesson is that we must ever use our Christian liberty with Christian consideration of others. Love must mingle with all we do. There are many things which are lawful for a Christian, but which are not compulsory or obligatory, and which he may refrain from doing on cause shown. Duties he must of course discharge, regardless of the effect his conduct may have on others. He may be quite sure he will be misunderstood; he may be sure evil motives will be imputed to him; he may be sure disastrous consequences will be the first result of his action; but if conscience says this or that must be done, then all thought of consequences must be thrown to the winds, But where conscience says, not “You must,” but only “You may,” then we must consider the effect our using our liberty will have on others. We lie as Christians under an obligation to consider others, to lay aside all pride of advanced ideas, and this not merely that we may submit ourselves to those who know better than we, but that we may not offend those who are bound by prejudices of which we are rid. We must limit our liberty by the scrupulosity of prejudiced, narrow-minded, weak people. We must forego our liberty to do this or that if by doing it we should shock or disturb a weak brother or encourage him to overstep his conscience. As the Arctic voyager who has been frozen up all winter does not seize the first opportunity to escape, but waits till his weaker companions gain strength enough to accompany him, so must the Christian accommodate himself to the weaknesses of others, lest by using his liberty he should injure him for whom Christ died. Never was there a man who more fully understood the freedom of the Christian position than Paul; no man was ever more entirely lifted out of the mist of superstition and formalism into the clear light of free, eternal life: but with this freedom he carried a sympathy with weak and entangled beginners which prompted him to exclaim, “If meat make any brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”

Our conduct must be limited and to a certain extent regulated by the narrow mindedness, the scruples, the prejudices, the Weakness in short, of others. We cannot say, I see my way to do so-and-so, let my friend think what he pleases; I am not to be trammelled by his superstition or ignorance; let my conduct have what effect it will on him; I am not responsible for that; if he does not see it to be right, I do, and I will act accordingly. We cannot speak thus if the matter be indifferent; if it be a matter we can lawfully abstain from, then abstain we must if we would follow the Apostle who followed Christ. This is the practical law which stands in the forefront of Christs teaching and was sealed by every day of His life. It is enounced not only by St. Paul: “Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died”; “Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died,” but also in our Lords still more emphatic words, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Paul could not look on his weak brethren as narrow-minded bigots, could not call them hard names and ride rough shod over their scruples; and to this delicate consideration he was aided by the remembrance that these were the persons for whom Christ died. For them Christ sacrificed, not merely a little feeling or a little of His own way, but His own will and self entirely, And the spirit of Christ is still manifested in all in whom He dwells, specially in humility and yieldingness of disposition which is not led by self-interest or self-complacency, but seeks the weal of other men. Nothing shows us more distinctly the thorough manner in which St. Paul partook of the spirit of Christ than his ability to say, “I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary