Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
5. as there be gods many, and lords many ] The Apostle does not say there are many gods or lords, but only that the gods of the heathen are called so. Calvin reminds us that the sun and moon, which have been deified by some, are but our servants, and that other so-called gods of the heathen are but deified powers of nature, or deified men.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
That are called gods – Gods so called. The pagans everywhere worshipped multitudes, and gave to them the name of gods.
Whether in heaven – Residing in heaven, as a part of the gods were supposed to do. Perhaps, there may be allusion here to the sun, moon, and stars; but I rather suppose that reference is made to the celestial deities, or to those who were supposed to reside in heaven, though they were supposed occasionally to visit the earth, as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, etc.
Or in earth – Upon the earth; or that reigned particularly ever the earth, or sea, as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient pagans worshipped some gods that were supposed to dwell in heaven; others that were supposed to reside on earth; and others that presided over the inferior regions, as Pluto, etc.
As there be gods many – hosper, etc. As there are, in fact, many which are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the pagans worship many whom they esteem to be gods, or whom they regard as such. This cannot be an admission of Paul that they were truly gods, and ought to he worshipped; but it is a declaration that they esteemed them to be such, or that a large number of imaginary beings were thus adored. The emphasis should be placed on the word many; and the design of the parenthesis is, to show that the number of these that were worshipped was not a few, but was immense; and that they were in fact worshipped as gods, and allowed to have the influence over their minds and lives which they would have if they were real; that is, that the effect of this popular belief was to produce just as much fear, alarm, superstition, and corruption, as though these imaginary gods had a real existence. So that though the more intelligent of the pagan put no confidence in them, yet the effect on the great mass was the same as if they had had a real existence, and exerted over them a real control.
And lords many – ( kurioi polloi). Those who had a rule over them; to whom they submitted themselves; and whose laws they obeyed. This name lord was often given to their idol gods. Thus, among the nations of Canaan their idols was called Baal, (Baal, or lord), the tutelary god of the Phoenicians and Syrians; Jdg 8:33; Jdg 9:4, Jdg 9:46. It is used here with reference to the IdoLS, and means that the laws which they were supposed to give in regard to their worship had control over the minds of their worshippers.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. There be that are called gods] There are many images that are supposed to be representations of divinities: but these divinities are nothing, the figments of mere fancy; and these images have no corresponding realities.
Whether in heaven or in earth] As the sun, moon, planets, stars, the ocean, rivers, trees, &c. And thus there are, nominally, gods many, and lords many.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
There are many whom heathens call gods, and whom God himself calleth gods: the angels that are in heaven are called Gods host, Gen 32:2; the heavenly host, Luk 2:13; the sons of God, Job 1:6; 2:1. Magistrates are also called gods, Psa 82:6, because God hath committed a great part of his power unto them. Thus there are many gods and many lords.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. “For even supposingthere are (exist) gods so called (2Th2:4), whether in heaven (as the sun, moon, and stars) or in earth(as deified kings, beasts, c.), as there be (a recognized fact,Deu 10:17 Psa 135:5;Psa 136:2) gods many and lordsmany.” Angels and men in authority are termed gods inScripture, as exercising a divinely delegated power under God(compare Exo 22:9; Exo 22:28;Psa 82:1; Psa 82:6;Joh 10:34; Joh 10:35).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For though there be that are called gods,…. That are so by name, though not by nature; who are called so in Scripture, as angels and magistrates, or by men, who give them such names, and account them so:
whether in heaven; as the sun, moon, and stars:
or in earth; as men who formerly lived on earth; or various creatures on earth, who have been accounted deities; or stocks and stones graven by man’s device:
as there be gods many: almost without number, as were among the Egyptians, Grecians, Romans, and others; yea, even among the Jews, who falling into idolatry, their gods were according to the number of their cities, Jer 2:28
and lords many; referring to the Baalim, or the several idols that went by the name of Baal, or lord, as Baal Peor, Nu 25:3 Baal Zephon, Ex 14:2 Baal Zebub, 2Ki 1:2 Baal Berith, Jud 8:33.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
For though there be ( ). Literally, “For even if indeed there are” (a concessive clause, condition of first class, assumed to be true for argument’s sake).
Called gods ( ). So-called gods, reputed gods. Paul denied really the existence of these so-called gods and held that those who worshipped idols (non-entities) in reality worshipped demons or evil spirits, agents of Satan (1Co 10:19-21).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Gods – lords. Superhuman beings to whom these titles are given, as Eph 6:12; 2Co 4:4; Joh 12:31; Joh 14:30.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) For though there be that are called gods. (kai gor eiper eisin legomenoi theoi) For even if there be (those) called gods. Paul conceded some things and creatures were or might be labeled something they were not, or falsely labeled.
2) Whether in heaven or in earth, (eite en ourano eite epi ges) Whether in heaven or upon earth. Even Satan and his angels are fakes in religious claims, 2Co 11:13-15.
3) “(as there be gods many, and lords many). (hosper eisin theoi polloi kai kurioi polloi) Even as there exist gods many and lords many. These are counterfeit, fake gods to which only fools bow, Psa 115:3-8. The gods and lords many are only assumed deities, not real. Act 17:22-28.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. For though there be that are called “They have,” says he, “the name, but the reality is wanting.” He uses the word called here, to mean — renowned in the estimation of men He has also made use of a general division, when he says in heaven or on earth The gods that are made mention of as being in heaven, are the heavenly hosts, as the Scripture terms the sun, moon, and the other stars. How very far they are, however, from being entitled to divine honors, Moses shows from this, that they were created for our use. The sun is our servant; the moon is our handmaid. How absurd, therefore, it is to render to them divine honors! By the gods that are on earth, are properly meant, in my opinion, men and women for whom religious worship has been appointed. (463) For, as Pliny observes, those who had deserved well of mankind had their memory consecrated by religion, so as to be worshipped as deities — Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Mercury, and Apollo, who were mortal men, but were, after death, exalted to the rank of deities; and, more recently, Hercules, Romulus, and at length the Caesars — as if it were in the power of mankind to make deities at their pleasure, while they cannot give to themselves either life or immortality. There are also other gods that are terrestrial, taken either from cattle or from brute creatures, as, for example, among the Egyptians, the ox, the serpent, the cat, the onion, the garlic; and, among the Romans, the boundary-stone, (464) and the stone Vesta. They are gods, then, only in name; but Paul says that he does not stop to notice deifications of this sort. (465)
(463) “ Ausquels on a attribue diuinite, et en leur honneur dresse quelque senrice diuin;” — “To whom they have ascribed divinity, and have appointed some divine service in honor of them.”
(464) The allusion is to Terminus, the god of boundaries, of whom mention is made by Livy (1. 10, and 5. 54.) — Ed.
(465) “ Telles consecrations faites a l’appetit des hommes;” — “Such consecrations made according to the humor of men.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) For though there be. . . .This is an hypothetic argument. Be is the emphatic word of the supposition. Even assuming that there do exist those beings which are called gods (we have a right to make such a supposition, for Deu. 10:17, Psa. 105:2-3, speaks of gods and lords of another kind), the difference between the heathen, gods many and the lords and gods of whom the Old Testament speaks, is that the former are deities, and the latter only a casual way of speaking of angels and other spiritual subjects and servants of the one God. This is brought out in the following verse.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Called gods The world is full of pantheons and mythologies of gods, so called by their worshippers.
In heaven or in earth Chrysostom says, that in heaven means the sun and stars, worshipped by Persians and others; on earth, the gods and demigods in human form, as in the Greek mythology. Yet the phrase refers, perhaps, to the name of God as above, and to Christ as manifest on earth.
There be In men’s estimation and worship.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 8:5. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, &c. This is an allusion to the famed division of the heathen gods into celestial and terrestrial. The former, whom they called , gods, they supposed to reside generally in the heavens. The latter, whom they called , they supposed to reside for the most part upon the earth, or in the sea, and, performing the office of mediators between the superior gods and men, directed terrestrial affairs.These in the Old Testament are called Baalim; and by St. Paul, Lords; which is the literal translation of Baalim. They had also infernal gods and goddesses, such as Pluto,
Proserpine, Rhadamanthus, &c. who ruled in the invisible world, judged the dead immediately on their death, and appointed them habitations according to their different characters.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 8:5 . For ( ) even ( ) if really ( , see Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 343; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 202) there exist so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth . Heathenism conceived heaven and earth to be filled with beings whom they called gods (Jupiter, Apollo, and so forth; gods of the woods and the rivers, etc.). Paul does not admit the existence of such gods, [1325] but merely supposes it, and that with . i.e. even in the case that, if there be in reality, if after all , whereby of course “in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure an injuria sumatur” (Hermann, a [1326] Viger. p. 834), this, however, not being implied in by itself, but by the connection in which it stands here. Comp Rom 8:9 ; Rom 8:17 , etc.; and see Baeumlein, l.c. The supposed case the reality of which is still left to stand on its own footing is then established, so far as its possibility is concerned, by . . [1328] : as there are, indeed, gods many and lords many . What is conceded here is the premiss from which that possibility may be drawn as a consequence. If there exist, that is to say, a multitude of superhuman beings, who come under the category of (in the wider sense) and , then we must admit that it is possible that those whom the heathen call gods
Jupiter, Apollo, and so on have an actual existence. [1329] The and are, as the connection necessarily leads us to understand, not human rulers, deified kings, and the like, but the superhuman powers (angels), of whom it is said in Deu 10:17 : , . Comp Psa 136:2-3 . Most commentators take as said e gentilium persuasione (so Pott, Flatt, Heydenreich, de Wette, Ewald, Neander, Maier), which would give as the sense of the whole: “ if there be in reality so-called gods among the heathen, as, indeed, they speak of many gods and lords ” (de Wette). But this explanation runs counter to the fact that is put first with emphasis; and the e gentilium persuasione is neither expressed nor hinted at in the text, but is a pure insertion of the commentators, and that with the less warrant, seeing that it is the emphatic in the apodosis that first introduces a contrast with others. This applies, too, against the arbitrary distinction made by Billroth, who maintains that only the first denotes real existence (the . being demons , x. 20), while with the second we should supply: in the view of the heathen . Rckert takes both the first and second in the right sense, but makes mean, contrary to the rules of the language, although it must be conceded that (which is not its meaning even in such passages as those given by Khner, II. 824, note 2), and supposes that the apostle conceived the angels and demons to be the realities answering to the . . [1331]
As regards , etiam, tum, si , which marks the contents of the conditional clause as uncertain , comp on Mar 14:29 ; and see Hermann, a [1333] Viger. p. 832; Stallbaum, a [1334] Plat. Apol. p. 32 A. It is here the “ etiamsi de re in cogitatione posita,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 884. Examples of , for even if , may be seen in Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 141.
[1325] We know from 1Co 10:20 that he did not allow that the gods as such existed at all, but held those beings regarded as gods to be demons . Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 279.
[1326] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1328] . . . .
[1329] The meaning of the verse, therefore, freely rendered, would be: For even if we suppose that the gods of the heathen mythology have a real existence, which is no such absurd supposition, seeing that there is not merely One God and One Lord (in the wider sense of these words), but gods many and lords many : still for us Christians, etc., ver. 6. Hofmann agrees substantially with our exposition of the passage. See also his Schriftbew. I. p. 348.
[1331] There is no ground whatever for bringing in the demons here from 1Co 10:20 (this in opposition to Olshausen and others). The second part of the verse, which makes no further mention of , should have sufficed of itself to prevent this; still more the correlation in which the many gods and lords stand to the and in ver. 6.
[1333] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1334] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
1Co 8:5-6 . Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
Ver. 5. That are called gods ] Hesiod reckons up 30,000 of them that were in his time, . What an army may we think there were of them in later ages!
As there be gods many ] The serpent’s grammar first taught Deum pluraliter declinare, ” Ye shall be as gods,” Gen 3:5 , saith Damianus.
And lords many ] Demi gods, heroes, whose images were worshipped. Ninus was the first that made an image for his father Belus, and all that came to see it were pardoned for all their offences; whence in time that image came to be worshipped. But they did a very ill office that first brought in images, saith Varro (as Calvin citeth his words), “for they increased error and took away fear.” And Plutarch saith, It is sacrilege to worship by images.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5, 6 .] Further explanation and confirmation of 1Co 8:4 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
5. ] For even supposing that ( makes an hypothesis, so that “in incerto relinquitur, jure an injuria sumatur,” Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. See also Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 343, who gives many examples.
, as Eur. Med. 450, , ; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 140 f.) beings named gods (not those who are named gods , . ., i. esset, all who are so named) EXIST ( the chief emphasis is on , on which the hypothesis turns ), whether in heaven, whether upon earth, as (we know that) there are (viz. as being spoken of, Deu 10:17 , , , see also Psa 135:2-3 ) gods many, and lords many (the brings in an acknowledged fact, on which the possibility of the hypothesis rests ‘ Even if some of the many gods and many lords whom we know to exist, be actually identical with the heathen idols ’ The Apostle does not concede this , but only puts it). This exegesis, which is Meyer’s, is denied by De Wette, who takes as concessive, ‘ even though ,’ and understands both times as only ‘ are ,’ in the meaning of the heathen , imagining it impossible that Paul should have seriously said in an objective sense, ‘ there are gods many .’ But in the sense in which he uses (see above) there is no unlikelihood that he should assert this.
Chrys. gives the following explanation: , , , , , , , . . , . Hom. xx. p. 172. And similarly Theodoret, Theophyl., cum., Calv., Beza, Calov., Estius, Schrader, al. See the various minor differences of interpretation, in Pool’s Synopsis and De Wette: and a beautiful note in Stanley.
There is a sentence in Herodotus ( 1Co 9:27 ) singularly resembling this in its structure: , , , , . . . Cf. also Hom. Il. . 81 f.; . 576 f.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 8:5 may be an interjected comment of the Church Letter upon its creed; ( c ) the expression “gods many and lords many” applied to heathen divinities, which is foreign to Pauline as to Jewish phraseology, but natural on the lips of old polytheists ; ( d ) the aptness with which (1Co 8:7 ) fits in with this explanation, being understood as Paul’s reply to his readers’ declaration of their enlightened faith. See, on this question, W. Lock in Expositor , ., vi., 65. The articles of belief cited from the Cor [1234] in 1Co 8:4 b and 6 had probably been formulated first by P., like the of 1Co 6:12 , and so would be fitly quoted to him. ( cf. 1Co 10:19 ), being parl [1235] to . . ., should be rendered not “An idol is nothing,” etc., but “There is no idol in the world” (so R.V. virtually, Mr [1236] , Hf [1237] , Bt [1238] , Ed [1239] , Sm [1240] ). Existence is denied to the idol not absolutely (see 5, 1Co 10:19 f.), but relatively; it has no real place , no power over the elements of nature; “the earth is the Lord’s,” etc. (1Co 10:26 ); there is no Zeus in the sky, nor Poseidon ruling the sea, but “one God and Father” everywhere, a faith emancipating enlightened Christians from every heathenish superstition. . . . forms the polemic counterpart to (see parls.), the cornerstone of Jehovism, which Christ has made the world’s creed. ( sc. a thing possessing , form only), semblance, phantasm , renders in the LXX several Hebrew words for false gods esp. ’ellm , nothings , and hebhel, emptiness ; the term was applied first to the images, then to the (supposed) godships they represent, branding them as shams and shows: see 1Th 1:9 , Act 14:15 , Psa 96:5 . The reveals the being and power of the One God (Rom 1:20 ); idolaters have no living God, but are (Eph 2:12 ).
[1234] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1235] parallel.
[1236] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[1237] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[1238] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[1239] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[1240] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
[1241] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1242] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1243] ad locum , on this passage.
[1244] parallel.
[1245] participle
[1246] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1247] [1248] gods. App-98. Compare Psa 82:1, Psa 82:6.
heaven. No art. See Mat 6:9, Mat 6:10.
in = upon. App-104.
earth. Greek. ge. App-129.
lords. Greek. kurios. Compare App-98and App-4.
5, 6.] Further explanation and confirmation of 1Co 8:4.
1Co 8:5. , that are called) God is said to be the supremely powerful One. Hence by homonymy [things or persons distinct in nature receiving by analogy the same name], angels who are powerful on account of their spiritual nature, and men who are powerful from being placed in authority, are called gods.- , in heaven)- , on earth) The provinces of the gods among the Gentiles were divided into heaven, and earth, along with the sea; but each of these belongs to God.- , gods many and lords many) Psa 136:2-3.
1Co 8:5
1Co 8:5
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth;-The heathen made the distinction of the superior gods who ruled in the heavens, and the inferior ones that dwelt upon earth, presiding over seas, rivers, fountains, forests, and local places.
as there are gods many, and lords many;-In the minds of the heathen there were many of each of these classes. [The heathen mythology, especially in its Greek development, may be regarded as the religious expression of national ideals and civilization. The Greek conception of every conception of the independence of every unit in nature and society was embodied in the mythology. Every city had its guardian deity; every spring was haunted; every crop of corn was under the protection of a goddess; every movement of the elements and every human action might assume a sacred character and become, the one a prayer, the other the answer.]
that: Deu 10:17, Jer 2:11, Jer 2:28, Jer 11:13, Dan 5:4, Joh 10:34, Joh 10:35, Gal 4:8, 2Th 2:4
Reciprocal: Num 21:29 – General Jdg 2:13 – served Jdg 16:23 – Dagon Psa 81:9 – There shall Act 17:23 – devotions 2Co 3:3 – ministered Col 2:18 – worshipping 1Ti 4:1 – and doctrines
The Apologists Bible Commentary
1 Corinthians 8
5″For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords
CommentaryWhile idols have no reality in the world, Paul does not similarly dismiss the false or “so-called” gods of paganism. They may, in some sense, possess a metaphysical reality and cannot simply be dismissed as morally irrelevant. Paul elaborates in chapter 10, saying that those who sacrifice to idols are actually sacrificing to demons (10:19-21). Pagan religious meals apparently were thought by participants to include the presence of the god being honored – in fact, one early papyrus contains the text of an invitation to such a meal, written by the god Sarapis himself! (Horsley, “Invitations to the kline of Sarapis,” in Horsley, ed., New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 5-9). This idea no doubt underlies Paul’s admonition to avoid the “cup of demons” and the “table of demons” (10:20-21). For Paul, however, these gods and lords many should in no sense be considered true Deity. They are false gods, the “gods of the nations” in Old Testament terminology, standing in utter contrast to the One God and One Lord in the next verse. The pantheon of the Greeks and Romans, not to mention the gods and lords of the mystery religions, were indeed numerous, but one God alone is real (Deut. 10:17) (BKC ).
Grammatical Analysislegomenoi qeoi LEGOMENOI THEOI So called gods GAR is the post-positive conjunction facilitating the flow of context between verses 4 and 5. It belongs up front in English and is commonly translated for. This verse mentions the so-called [LEGOMENOI] gods of the pagans, who are to be directly contrasted in the next verse. (Ray Goldsmith )
Other Views ConsideredJehovah’s Witnesses Please see 1 Corinthians 8:6
Here the apostle tells them, that although the heathen idolaters acknowledged a plurality of gods, some in heaven, as the sun, moon, and stars; some on earth, as men and beasts, they having their celestial and terrestrial gods and lords; but these were only called gods, that is, gods in name, not in nature, not in reality.
Yet, says he, we Christians do own and acknowledge but one living and true God, one in nature, not one in person, to whom all our prayers must be directed; and one Mediator, by whom all our prayers are to be offered: To us there is but one God, the Father.
This text the Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians, exceedingly boast of, as if it expressly confined the Deity to the Father, as distinct from Christ and the Holy Ghost.
Thus they argue:–“He who says there is one emperor, to wit, Cesar, says in effect there is no other emperor but Cesar: so when St. Paul saith, there is one God the Father, he doth (say they) in effect declare that there is no other God besides the Father.”
To this the orthodox answer, 1. “That God the Father is often put in scripture for the whole deity, comprehending the three persons; he being Fons Deitatis, and Fundamentum Trinitatis, as the schoolmen speak. So that the application of the word God here unto the Father, doth not exclude the Son from being God, but only from being the Fountain of the Deity, as the Father is.
Christ says, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Rev 1:17
Will any conclude thence, that God the Father is not Alpha and Omega? Is not he the first and the last, as well as Christ?
Again, We call our Lord Jesus the only Saviour: do we therefore exclude God the Father from being a Saviour: Is he not styled the Saviour of all men? 1Ti 4:10
Again, God the Father is called the Creator of all things: yet it is asserted that all things were created by Christ, the Word, Joh 1:2.
In short, we assert as well as they, the unity of the Godhead, and that Christ is not another God, but only another person from the Father.
We answer, 2. Their own argument may be thus retorted upon themselves: As the apostle says here, there is but one God the Father, so he adds in the next words, there is but one Lord Jesus Christ.
Now if the saying that there is but one God, doth exclude Christ from being God, , then the saying that there is but one Lord, doth exclude God the Father from being Lord; and if it be blasphemy to exclude God the Father from being Lord; it is no less to exclude Christ the Son from being God.”
Know then, that as Christians have in all ages of the church acknowledged one God only, even God the Father, so have they also owned that Jesus Christ was truly God, of the substance of the Father, God of God, very God of very God. The Lord keep us stedfast in this faith! seeing he that honoureth the Son honoureth the Father that hath sent him; but he that denieth the Son denieth the Father also.
Vv. 5, 6. 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. , and indeed. Paul affirms, in harmony with the Corinthians, that whatever may be the multiplicity of gods worshipped by the heathen, the Christian recognises only one God, Him whose character he here defines, and but one Lord, the Mediator between God and men. The imagination of the Greeks, says Beet, filled with divinities the visible and invisible heavens, and on earth, mountains, forests, and rivers. These are the , the beings designated by the name of gods and worshipped as such, but who, as the epithet indicates, have only the name of deity. The two propositions which begin, the one with , even though, the other with , as indeed, have been very variously understood, according as the two verbs , are, which stand at the head of both, have been taken to denote a logical or a real existence. In the view of Rckert, Olshausen, Meyer, Kling, Hofmann, real existence is to be understood in both cases in this sense: Even if () the gods of mythology really exist (a supposition which is not absurd), agreeably to the fact that () there really exist gods and lords in abundance (the angels in their different orders enumerated by Paul, Eph 1:21; Col 1:16; comp. Deu 10:17 and Psa 136:2-3), even if such gods really exist, yet there is for us, Christians, only one God and one Lord. But it is not easy to explain clearly the relation between these two real existences, the former of which on this understanding is put as hypothetical, and then the second as certain, and which nevertheless both relate to one and the same subject. Others, like Chrysostom, Calvin, Beza, Neander, de Wette, regard these two existences as imaginary. Even though () the heathen worship a multitude of fictitious gods, as one may see, indeed (), that according to them, every place is full of gods and lords…. But de Wette himself cannot help seeing the useless tautology of these two propositions of really identical meaning. Commentators of a third view, like Grotius, Billroth, understand the former of the two , are, in the sense of a real existence, the latter in that of an imaginary existence: Even though there really exists a host of beings, such as the sky, the sun, the moon, the earth, the ocean, which are made gods, as it may be seen in fact that among the heathen these are deities. But with what view would the apostle thus insist on the reality of the creatures which heathenism had deified? If, as is exact, one of the two verbs should denote a real, the other a fictitious existence, is it not much more natural to interpret in the latter sense that one of the two (are), which is accompanied by the participle , called? For this apposition undoubtedly does not force us (comp. 2Th 2:4) to attribute an imaginary character to these gods, but it permits and leads to it. In this case the following would be the meaning of the verse: Even though there are in abundance beings called gods, and worshipped as such, with whom the imagination of the heathen peoples both heaven and earth (Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Ceres, Bacchus, Nymphs), as in fact () there really existwe must not be deceived on the pointgods many and lords many…. By these last words the apostle means, that if the particular mythological deities are only fictions, there is yet behind these fictions a reality of which we must take account. In 1Co 10:20 he expressly declares, that what the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons; not, certainly, that he regards the god Jupiter as one demon and the god Apollo as another; but in heathenism in general he recognises the work of malignant spirits, who have turned man away from God, and filled the void thus formed in the soul with this vain and impure phantasmagoria. It is in the same sense that he describes demons, Eph 6:12, as rulers of the present darkness; that he calls Satan, 2Co 4:4, the god of this world who blinds the unbelieving; and that Jesus Himself calls him the Prince of this world (Joh 12:31; Joh 14:30). The term, gods many, refers to the heads of this kingdom of darkness; the term, lords many, to the inferior spirits, the subordinate agents; comp. in our Epistle 1Co 15:24.
If criticism, such as is practised in our day, had the least interest in setting our Epistle in opposition to that of the Romans, how easy would it be for it to maintain by means of this passage, either that they proceed from two different authors, or that the apostle’s ideas had become changed in the interval between the one and the other! In point of fact, the explanation which the apostle gives of the origin of heathenism in the Epistle to the Romans (chap. 1) is purely psychological, and leaves wholly out of account all influence exercised by superior beings. But the two explanations hold true together and complete one another. The apostle emphasizes in each Epistle that which is of importance to the subject he is treating; in Romans, where he wishes to bring out the corruption of mankind, he shows the moral origin of idolatry: how this great collective sin proceeded from the heart of man; in our Epistle, where he has in view certain practical rules to be drawn for the conduct of the Corinthians, he emphasizes the diabolical influence which concurred to produce heathenism. Is there not a lesson of prudence and wise reserve to be drawn from this fact for so many other analogous cases? It will be seen afterwards with what view the apostle here presents simultaneously these two aspects of the truth: on the one side, the nothingness of heathen divinities; and, on the other, the diabolical reality which is hidden under this empty phantasmagoria. The first point of view will justify the liberty allowed in regard to the eating of offered meats; the second, the absolute prohibition against taking part in the idol feasts.
Vv. 6. With these fictitious, and yet, in a certain sense, real gods and lords, Paul forcibly contrasts by the adverb , but, and the pronoun , for us, put first, the only God and the only Lord recognised by the Christian conscience. The title the Father, added to the word God, is taken in the absolute sense in which it embraces His Fatherhood both in relation to Christ and to us. The apostle here adds two notions: the proceeding of all things from God alone ( , of whom), and the moral consecration of believers to Him alone ( , for Him). In such a context he cannot be intending to describe thereby His greatness and perfection; but he means that nothing of all that forms part of the universe created by such a Being (offered meats in particular) can defile the believer (1Co 10:25-26). How could that which is made by God prevent him from being and remaining for God what he ought to be? (see Hofmann).
As God, the Father, is contrasted with the principal heathen deities, Christ, the Lord, is so with the secondary deities who served as mediators between the great gods and the world. What Paul means is, that as the world is from God, and the Church for God; so the world is by Christ, and the Church also by Him.
The former of the two propositions relative to Christ: by whom are all things, can only apply, as is recognised by all the critics of our time, de Wette, Heinrici, Reuss, Meyer, and even Pfleiderer and Holtzmann, to the work of creation. Baur thinks that the may be referred in the first proposition, as well as in the second, to the work of redemption. But the , we, of the second proposition evidently contrasts Christians, as objects of redemption, with , all things, as objects of another work, which, as is shown by the previous proposition, can only be creation. Holsten, alone, cannot bring himself to this avowal. In the words, all things by Him, he finds only the idea of the government of all things by the glorified Christ. But the by Him corresponds to the of Him ( ) of the previous proposition, and can consequently apply only to the same work, that of creation, of which God is the author and Christ the agent. It is the same thought as in Col 1:15-17, where the corresponds to our , and as in Joh 1:3, where the expresses the creation of all things by the Logos. The idea which Holsten finds in this proposition would, besides, be out of all relation to Paul’s object, which is to show that a meat divinely created cannot separate man from God. The Vaticanus, instead of , reads , on account of whom; evidently the mistake of a copyist.
In the second proposition the word , we, contrasted with all things, shows that the subject in question is the spiritual creation accomplished by Christ, the work of salvation. These words have their commentary in Col 1:18-22, as the preceding in Col 1:15-17. They form the counterpart of the second preceding proposition relating to God. In the physical order we are of God and by Christ; in the spiritual order we are by Christ and for God.
We have already pointed out more than once how, notwithstanding the diversity of forms, the views of Paul coincide with those of John. We have just seen this in connection with the regimen , which so vividly reminds us of the of Joh 1:3. This connection is equally striking if we compare from the Christological viewpoint this saying of Paul with Joh 17:3. In the two passages, the personal distinction between God and Christ is strongly emphasized, though the community of nature between both appears from this very distinction, and from all the rest of the books where these sayings are contained. Reuss maintains that there are in the Gospel of John two opposite theories going side by side; but we must in that case say the same of the writings of the Apostle Paul, whose rigorous logic no one disputes. In point of fact there is no contradiction in either; for both emphasize with the full consciousness of what they affirm the subordination of the Son in the unity of the Divine life; see on 1Co 3:23.
Here we have one of the passages which establish the complete unity of the apostle’s Christology in his first letters, and in those of his imprisonment (Col., Eph., Phil.). Let there be an end then, says Gess rightly (Apost. Zeugn., ii. p. 295), to the assertion that the Christology of the later Epistles is contrary to that of Paul; according to which Christ, it is held, is nothing more than the ideal or celestial man, and that though one is forced to allow that our passage makes Him the mediator of the creation of the universe!
Thus far, St. Paul would say, we are all at one, but here now is the point where difference begins, and this difference impresses the Christian who loves, with regard and sacrifices toward those whose judgment differs from his.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven [as celestial bodies, or as myths] or on earth [as idols]; as there are gods many [the Greek cities had pantheons and temples filled with them], and lords many [the Roman emperors, and even lesser dignitaries, demanded that divine honors be paid them];
5. For if indeed there are those denominated gods, whether in Heaven or upon earth, i. e., all these idols are denominated gods, many fabled to live in Heaven and myriads dwelling on the earth. As there are gods many and lords many. These fabulous unreal divinities are the many gods, and the men on the earth in the different nations, honored with the epithet lord, are the lords many here mentioned.
Verse 5
Gods many, and lords many; that is, in the mythology of the heathen nations.
Nevertheless for many people, the pagans and even Christians who do not have a correct concept of deity, there are many beings they regard as gods and lords over various areas of life. The Greeks applied the term "gods" to their traditional deities and the term "lords" to the deities of their mystery cults. [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 373.]
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Fuente: The Apologists Bible Commentary
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)