Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 8:8
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
8. But meat commendeth us not to God ] Rather, presenteth us. Cf. 2Co 4:14; Col 1:22; Col 1:28. The same word is used in Rom 14:10 (where it is translated stand, literally, be presented). Cf. ch. 1Co 6:13. It is not Christ’s creature, doomed to perish, but Christ Himself that shall present us to God. The use of meats, like that of all outward things (cf. Col 2:22) is a matter of absolute insignificance in itself. They are of no real advantage to us, if we use them; to abstain for the sake of abstaining is a matter of equal indifference in God’s sight. The only question of real importance is, what effect will our conduct have on others?
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But meat commendeth us not to God – This is to be regarded as the view presented by the Corinthian Christians, or by the advocates for partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. The sense is, Religion is of a deeper and more spiritual nature than a mere regard to circumstances like these. God looks at the heart. He regards the motives, the thoughts, the moral actions of people. The mere circumstance of eating meat, or abstaining from it, cannot make a man better or worse in the sight of a holy God. The acceptable worship of God is not placed in such things. It is more spiritual; more deep; more important. And therefore, the inference is, it cannot be a matter of much importance whether a man eats the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, or abstains. To this argument the apostle replies 1Co 8:9-13, that, although this might be true in itself, yet it might be the occasion of leading others into sin, and it would then become a matter of great importance in the sight of God, and should be in the sight of all true Christians. The word commendeth parastesi means properly to introduce to the favor of anyone, as a king or ruler; and here means to recommend to the favor of God. God does not regard this as a matter of importance. He does not make his favor depend on unimportant circumstances like this.
Neither if we eat – If we partake of the meat offered to idols.
Are we the better – Margin, Have we the more. Greek Do we abound perisseuomen; that is, in moral worth or excellence of character; see the note at Rev 14:17.
Are we the worse – Margin, Have we the less. Greek, Do we lack or want ( husteroumetha); that is, in moral worth or excellence.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 8. Meat commendeth us not to God] No such feasts as these can be a recommendation of our souls or persons to the Supreme Being. As to the thing, considered in itself, the eating gives us no spiritual advantage; and the eating not is no spiritual loss.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle here speaketh in the person either of those teachers amongst them, or those more private persons amongst them, who made no difficulty of eating meat offered to idols; they objected, that meat, or the eating of meat, was not the thing which commended any man to God; they were not the better if they did eat, or the worse if they did not eat. The apostle himself had asserted this, Rom 14:17, that the kingdom of God was not meat or drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Other old manuscripts read,”Neither if we do not eat, are we the better: neither if we eatare we the worse”: the language of the eaters who justifiedtheir eating thus [LACHMANN].In English Version Paul admits that “meat neitherpresents [so the Greek for ‘commendeth’] us ascommended nor as disapproved before God”: it does not affect ourstanding before God (Ro 14:6).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But meat commendeth us not to God,…. These words are said by the apostle, either as expressing the argument of such as had knowledge in favour of themselves, that what they did was a thing indifferent, by which they were made neither better nor worse; nor did they look upon it as meritorious, or expect any favour from God on account of it, and therefore were not to be blamed for using their liberty in the manner they did: or else they are spoken by him as his own sense: and the meaning is, that eating of meat, any sort of meat, and so that which is offered to idols, or abstinence from it, neither one nor the other recommends any to the love and favour of God; , “does not bring near”, or give access to God, as the Syriac version renders the phrase; does not ingratiate any into his affectionate regards, or make them acceptable unto him:
for neither if we eat are we the better; or “abound”, not in earthly but spiritual things, in the graces of the Spirit, and particularly in the esteem and good will of God, upon which such an action can have no influence:
neither if we eat not are we the worse; or are deficient; meaning not in temporal things, but, as before, in spiritual; true grace and piety are not a whit the less; nor are such persons less in the love and favour of God, which is not to be known and judged of by any such action, or the omission of it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Will not commend ( ). Future active indicative of , old word to present as in Acts 1:3; Luke 2:22; Col 1:28. Food () will not give us an entree to God for commendation or condemnation, whether meat-eaters or vegetarians.
Are we the worse (). Are we left behind, do we fall short. Both conditions are of the third class ( , ) undetermined.
Are we the better (). Do we overflow, do we have excess of credit. Paul here disposes of the pride of knowledge (the enlightened ones) and the pride of prejudice (the unenlightened). Each was disposed to look down upon the other, the one in scorn of the other’s ignorance, the other in horror of the other’s heresy and daring.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Commendeth – not [ ] . Lit., present. Rev., more correctly, will not commend. See on shewed himself, Act 1:3.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) But meat commendeth us not unto God. (Broma de hemas ou parastesei to theo) Moreover meat (food) does not stand us in favor with God.
2) For neither, if we eat, are we the better. if we eat (forge) not (meats) we are not behind – (spiritually). Ones avoiding either the social or religious festive meats offered to idols did not cause him to be spiritually dwarfed.
3) Neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. (oute ean phaomen perisseuomen) Nor if we gorge do we stand spiritually stronger. Paul asserted that eating of foods or meats was not an aid to spiritual excellence, nor was the neglect of it a certain doom to spiritual weakness.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8. Meat recommendeth us not to God This was, or may have been, another pretext made use of by the Corinthians — that the worship of God does not consist in meats, as Paul himself teaches in his Epistle to the Romans, (Rom 14:17,) that the kingdom of God is not meat or drink Paul answers: “We must at the same time take care that our liberty does not do injury to our neighbors.” In this he tacitly acknowledges, that in the sight of God it matters not what kinds of food we partake of, because he allows us the free use of them, so far as conscience is concerned; but that this liberty, as to the external use of it, is made subject to love. The argument of the Corinthians, therefore, was defective, inasmuch as they inferred the whole from a part, for in the use of them a regard to the claims of love is included. It is, therefore, certain, that meat recommendeth us not to God; and Paul acknowledges this, but he states this exception, that love is recommended to us by God, which it were criminal to overlook.
Neither if we eat, are we the better. He does not speak of improvement as to the stomach; for the man who has dined has a better filled stomach than the man who goes fasting; but he means, that we have neither more nor less of righteousness from eating or from abstaining. Besides, he does not speak of every kind of abstinence, or of every kind of eating. For excess and luxury are in themselves displeasing to God, while sobriety and moderation are well-pleasing to him. But let it be understood by us, that the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, does not consist in these outward observances, and therefore, that things indifferent are in themselves of no importance in the sight of God. While he brings this forward in the person of others by anthypophora , (469) he at the same time admits that it is true, for it is taken from his own doctrine, which we touched upon a little ago.
(469) “ Par une maniere d’anticipation;” — “By way of anticipation.” Anthrypophora is a figure of speech which derives its name from the Greek term ἀνθυποφορά, a reply to an objection It is used in this sense by Dionysius Halicarnassensis. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Butlers Comments
SECTION 3
The Practice (1Co. 8:8-13)
8Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idols temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food is a cause of my brothers falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.
1Co. 8:8-9 The Sanction: Those who because of their superior knowledge eat meat sacrificed to idols without guilt are not esteemed by God any higher than those who abstain because of guilt. While Paul is concerned here with the strong being careless toward the weak, it is clear (from Romans chapter 14) the weak are not relieved of obligation to understand the strong persons liberties and, in love, allow him freedom to exercise his knowledge (cf. 1Co. 10:29). The abstainer is as responsible to love as the non-abstainer! But here in 1Co. 8:1-13, Paul is addressing his admonition to the non-abstainers. They were apparently contemptuous of the abstainers and continuing to eat meat sacrificed to idols with the attitude that they did not care how their actions affected their brethren. Food, no matter what it is, is a matter of indifference. Peter had to be given a divine revelation about this matter (cf. Act. 10:9-16). Paul says, We gain nothing by eating; we lose nothing by not eating. The issue is not eating or abstaining from any particular food. Food has nothing to do with the spiritual in man. It sustains the body only. Paul is not, of course, dealing with gluttony, or taking poisonous substances into the body which would do physical harm. He is dealing with all foods as to where purchased and what association they may have had prior to the Christians contact with them.
The issue is: how much do you love your brother! The admonition is that we must be prepared to sacrifice any liberty we have concerning things to save a person. The sanction is not against food of any kind. It is against an unloving attitude.
In 1Co. 8:9 Paul uses the Greek word exousia and it is translated, liberty. It is the word most commonly translated, authority, right, power. The most common Greek word for liberty is eleutheria; also often translated, freedom. Paul is evidently emphasizing the rights the knowledgeable Christian has because of a clearer understanding. Such a one has the right to eat anything he pleases without guilt. But just because it is an inalienable right does not mean it cannot be willingly surrendered out of love. The Christian brother whose knowledge (cultural, experiential, or scriptural) permits him to be free of guilt in some matter of opinion, dare not practice it if it will cause another brother (who understands the practice from a different cultural or moral background) to stumble and fall in his spiritual journey. Paul uses the Greek word proskomma for stumbling-block; it means, an obstacle against which one may dash his foot, or a hindrance over which one trips and falls. That which one Christian may do with freedom from guilt may, because of the doing, produce a serious failure in another Christian who may be encouraged to do what he considers wrong.
1Co. 8:10-11 The Sin: To lead someone by your liberty to do something he believes he is not free to do, causes him to sin, to incur guilt, and destroys his union with Christ. The exercise of rights by the strong may destroy the fundamental moral resolve of a weaker brother against sinful practices so that he may be led to engage in practices clearly prohibited in the scriptures. Paul wrote to Roman Christians, . . . it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats (Rom. 14:20).
It is sinful to do anything that would cause anyone else to violate his own conscience. It is a sin to carelessly flaunt ones Christian liberty and undermine the moral decisiveness of another. Too many think of their own rights first. Paul said we ought to endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ (1Co. 9:12). It is a sinful attitude that does not think first of pleasing ones brother for his good to edify him (Rom. 15:1-2) because our Lord did not please himself (Rom. 15:3). These principles apply to things Christians may have every right to do; things the knowledgeable Christian is certain are not at all sinful in themselves; things the Christian may do without any guilt. If, through any right we may have, a brother may be morally injured we must suspend that right for his salvation.
1Co. 8:12-13 The Seriousness: Paul uses the Greek present participle tuptontes which is translated wounding. In present, participial, form the word means a continuous, violent, beating. It is the same word used to describe the beating the soldiers gave Christ (Mat. 27:30; Mar. 15:19). Earlier (1Co. 8:11) Paul said causing a weak brother to sin against his own conscience was to destroy the brother for whom Christ died. Now (1Co. 8:12) he says such sin against a brother is sin against Christ. That is serious. Destroy another human being and you are actually attempting to destroy God. Paul warned the Romans Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God (Rom. 14:20). Trample upon another human beings weaknesses and you are despising the work of God in that persons lifeyou are despising God! It is that serious! To have ones own way (even if that way is correct and guiltless in itself) at the expense of another persons relationship to Christ is to commit a grevious sin against the Lord.
In 1Co. 8:13 Paul uses the double negative in Greek ou me to state emphatically that if eating meat would cause a brother to stumble (Gr. skandalizei, be scandalized, trapped, ensnared), he would never eat meat again. The Greek text also includes the phrase, eis ton aiona, which would be translated, unto the end of the age, or world. In other words Paul is saying, I am ready to give up any practice of my life, even if it is harmless and enjoyable and may be done with a clear conscience, if it causes any brother to destroy his relationship with Christ. Only those who are willing to do the same are fit for the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:15-21).
SECTION 4
THE PROVISO
The self-denial of the strong brother should be allowed a proviso (i.e., a qualification). This will be amplified at more length in chapters nine and ten. Suffice it to say here, the non-abstaining brother is not obligated to give up his Christian liberty in some cases: (a) there are definite scriptural examples (as well as commands) by both Jesus and Paul (Mat. 15:1-20; Mar. 7:1-13; Gal. 2:3-5; Gal. 2:11-14; Gal. 5:1-12; Col. 2:16-23) that when certain brethren tried to bind on them traditions and opinions as necessary for salvation, the Christian is obligated to resist; (b) there are people, minutely scrupulous (nitpickers), who may try to use an appeal to their scruples against some area of liberty to serve their own selfish ends. This is also wrong. Christian judgment faces one of its most demanding tasks when the performance of some opinion might injure a tender conscience, while its non-performance would be surrendering to pharisaic traditionalism and harm the cause of Christian liberty. This is sometimes the case in the Christian struggle to promote liberty and Christian unity at the same time.
It would not be fitting to end comments here without suggesting some areas in modern society where the Christian love Paul is calling for may be practiced along with decisions to resist legalism:
a.
Entertainment, pastimes (movies, television, games, hobbies).
b.
Foods (Jewish kosher foods; Roman Catholic taboos; use of alcoholic beveragesalthough the Bible does not command total abstinence, this principle of stumbling blocks would make total abstinence the safest practice).
c.
Cultural traditions (dress and grooming; worship traditions; some economic practices; political preferences).
d.
Vocations (if a Christian works at a vocation which might cause someone to stumble, shouldnt the Christian find another vocation?)
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(8) But meat . . . .By showing that the eating is a matter of indifference, the Apostle introduces his reason for yielding to the weakness of another. If the weakness involved a matter of our vital relation to God, then to yield would be wrong. But meat will not (future) affect our relationship to God. The concluding words of this verse are inverted in later MSS., as in the English version, and the better order is: Neither, if we eat not, do we lose anything in our relation to God; nor, if we eat, do we gain anything in our relation to Him.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. But This verse, as being repeated by Paul from the Corinthians’ letter, might also be included in quotation marks. It is in continuation of their apology for free eating of idol sacrifices. Their first position was, (1Co 8:1,) we all have a gnosis that an idol-god is a nothing; this, their second, is, that meat being a physical substance is not impregnated with any moral quality, and so can make a man neither better nor worse. Paul grants this last position, and yet shows that it does not secure the safety of the practice.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better.’
So the strong should remember that the eating of food will never commend us to God, even eating it in defiance of idols. We are no better or worse for it. If we abstain from eating it we are equally commendable as if we eat it. But at the same time by eating it when it has been offered to idols we can be bringing others into great distress. Thus the conclusion should be that we should not eat of it, either within the temple precincts, or when we are informed that it has been offered to idols, lest it harm the weaker brother.
He elsewhere applies this same principle to all foods, whether those seen as unclean by Jews or that seen as defiled by Gentiles (Rom 14:1-4; Rom 14:6; Rom 14:14-15; Rom 14:20-23).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 8:8. Meat commendeth us not to God , sets us not before God; that is, to be taken notice of by him. It cannot be supposed that St. Paul, in answer to a letter of the Corinthians, should tell them, that if they ate things offered to idols, they were not the better, or if they ate not, were not the worse, unless they had expressed some opinion of good in eating. Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 8:8 f. This is not an objection urged by the Corinthians in defence of their eating meat offered to idols, which is then followed, in 1Co 8:9 , by the apostle’s reply (Calvin, Pareus, Mosheim, Zachariae, Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth); for here, too, we have no formula to mark that an objection is being adduced, and those who ate the sacrificial flesh would in their interest have required to write: , , , . No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by ) to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren: “ Now, food is not the determining element in the Christian’s relation to God; to abstain from it does no harm, and to partake of it gives no advantage (see the critical remarks). Therefore (1Co 8:9 ) ye ought not to make yourselves a cause of stumbling to the weak through your liberty to eat sacrificial flesh .” If food were not a thing indifferent, if abstinence from it brought loss, and partaking of it blessing with God, then it would be our duty not thus to adapt ourselves to the weak.
] it will not (in any case which may arise; future ) present us to God; non exhibebit nos Deo , i.e. it will not affect the position of our moral character in the judgment of God , either for the worse or for the better. We have thus a description of an adiaphoron in its relation to God. Comp Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann. Most interpreters take the word in the sense of commendabit , or, keeping by the Rec [1353] , commendat , as if it were or . This is untenable according to the rules of the language; and it is illogical besides, for both the cases which follow are included under the collective conception, . . . [1354]
.] do we come short , do we lack anything in our relation to God. The opposite of this (comp Phi 4:12 ) is .: we have an overflowing abundance , something more than mere sufficiency in our relation to God; , Chrysostom.
] The , now then , introduces what is their positive duty , as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case.
] stumbling, i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp Rom 14:13 .
[1353] ec. Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).
[1354] This holds also against the modification which Valckenaer, Rckert, and de Wette have made upon the ordinary view: “does not bring us near to God, does not put us into a position to appear before Him.” Comp. Theophylact: .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
Ver. 8. But meat commendeth us not ] This is another objection: meat is indifferent. The apostle answers,
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8 .] Reason why we should accommodate ourselves to the prejudices of the weak in this matter: because it is not one in which any spiritual advantage is to be gained, but one perfectly indifferent: not, with Calv., al., an objection of the strong among the Corinthians: no such assumption must be made, without a plain indication in words that the saying of another is being cited : see Rom 9:19 ; Rom 11:19 ; and as Meyer well remarks, if the eaters had said this, they would have expressed it, . , ., ., as it has actually been corrected (see var. readd.) in some MSS., and adopted by Lachm. in his last edn.
The carries on the argument.
Bengel remarks (against the ordinary rendering, which takes = , ‘commendo,’ which meaning it will not bear) that is a verbum , after which may follow a good or a bad predicate: will not affect our (future) standing before God ; and to this indifferent meaning of answers the antithetic alternative which follows.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 8:8 . . . .: “But food will not present us to God,” non exhibebit nos Deo (Mr [1259] ): that on the ground of which the verdict turns may be said to “present” one to the judge. To “commend” is -, not (see parls.); for the fut . (see txtl. note), cf. Rom 14:10 , 2Co 4:14 , Col 1:28 . do not enter into our permanent being (1Co 6:13 ; see note); they will not be the criteria of the approaching Judgment. The alternative clauses negative the two opposite ways in which “food” might have been supposed to “present us to God”: “neither if we do not eat, are we the worse off ( : see note on 1Co 1:7 ); nor if we eat, are we the better off ( : do we abound, exceed others)”. The latter predicate is appropriate to the “strong,” who deemed themselves in a superior position, on a higher ground of faith.
[1259] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 8:8 , like 1Co 8:4-6 , represents the pro in the question , as 1Co 8:7-13 the contra . Chap. 8 is virtually a dialogue; the double (challenging and rebutting) of 1Co 8:8 f., with the words “ your right” of 1Co 8:9 , in accordance with Paul’s dialectical style ( cf. Rom 3:1-8 ), compels us to read this ver., like 1Co 8:1 ; 1Co 8:4-6 , as from the mouth of the Cor ., possibly from the Church Letter; “hic alter erat, vel esse poterat, Corinthiorum prtextus” (Cv [1260] ). At the word P. hears some of his readers interject: “The conscience of the weak brother is defiled , you say, by eating after my example. But ( ) how so? You have taught us that God will not judge us by these trifling externals; abstinence or use of ‘meats’ makes no difference to our intrinsic state.” This Paul admits, to set against it the caution . . ., on which the rest of the paragraph hangs.
[1260] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
commendeth = presenteth. Greek. paristemi. See Act 1:3, and compare 2Co 11:2. Eph 5:27. Col 1:22, Col 1:28.
if. App-118.
are we the better. Literally do we exceed.
are we the worse. Literally do we lack, or come short. Greek. hustereo. See Rom 3:23.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8.] Reason why we should accommodate ourselves to the prejudices of the weak in this matter: because it is not one in which any spiritual advantage is to be gained, but one perfectly indifferent: not, with Calv., al., an objection of the strong among the Corinthians: no such assumption must be made, without a plain indication in words that the saying of another is being cited: see Rom 9:19; Rom 11:19; and as Meyer well remarks, if the eaters had said this, they would have expressed it, ., ., ., as it has actually been corrected (see var. readd.) in some MSS., and adopted by Lachm. in his last edn.
The carries on the argument.
Bengel remarks (against the ordinary rendering, which takes = , commendo, which meaning it will not bear) that is a verbum , after which may follow a good or a bad predicate:-will not affect our (future) standing before God;-and to this indifferent meaning of answers the antithetic alternative which follows.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 8:8
1Co 8:8
But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse;-The flesh offered in sacrifice to idols was eaten as food by the people. Some ate it as worship to idols; others, having knowledge of these things, ate it as food. God was willing for them to eat it if they could do so without leading others to sin. The danger was that those not fully taught, seeing others eat it as food, would be encouraged to eat it as worship, and so be defiled.
nor, if we eat, are we the better.-Eating meat is not service to God, and eating or failing to eat would not commend them to God. So far as their relation to God was concerned, eating would not affect their spiritual interests. [By showing that the eating is a matter of indifference, Paul introduces his reason for yielding to the weakness of another. If the weakness involved a matter of our vital relation to God, then to yield would be wrong.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
meat: 1Co 6:13, Rom 14:17, Col 2:20-23, Heb 13:9
are we the better: or, have we the more
are we the worse: or, have we the less.
Reciprocal: Lev 11:8 – they are unclean Lev 19:14 – not curse Son 7:13 – I have Mat 16:27 – and then Mat 18:10 – heed Act 5:4 – was it not thine Rom 14:20 – For 1Co 7:19 – Circumcision 1Ti 4:3 – to abstain 1Ti 4:8 – bodily
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 8:8. This is the same as verses 1, 4, 5.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 8:8. But meat will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat, are we the better; nor if we eat not, are we the worse.[2]
[2] The order of these clauses is reversed in some texts; but as the evidence is pretty equally balanced, the sense precisely the same, and the matter of no importance either way, the natural English order may be adhered to.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
As if the apostle had said, “It is not the eating or not eating, barely considered, that makes a man either better or worse, more or less acceptable in the sight of God, but we must take great heed lest by our example others take occasion to worship the idol; you therefore ought not so to eat as to give occasion to the fall of your weak brother.”
Still the apostle holds forth this truth unto us, That such a man certainly sins, who uses his liberty so that it becomes a snare and a stumbling-block to his weak brother, by emboldening and encouraging him unto sin.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 8, 9. Now meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling – block to them that are weak. The transition between this verse and the foregoing is as follows: By eating such meats thou mayest therefore lead the weak brother to defile himself (1Co 8:8); but as for thyself thou hast nothing to gain, any more than thou hast to lose, by not eating. The conclusion is obvious.
The verb , to present, is often used of the presenting of offerings to God; comp. Rom 12:1; Rom 6:13, etc.; and if we read the verb in the present with the T. R., it is the most natural sense: It is not in the power of meats to add anything to or take anything from the value which our consecration to His service has in the sight of God. If we read the future with the Alex., we must, like Holsten and others, apply the verb to the day of judgment; comp. 2Co 4:14; Rom 14:10 : Meats will not make us stand before God in that day. This meaning is much more foreign to the context; for the threat will not come till later (1Co 8:11-12). The parallels quoted in its favour prove nothing, the verb present being used in a wholly different relation. Here we have a general maxim, with which the present is in keeping. Bengel, Meyer, Hofmann, in order to explain more easily the connection of this proposition with the two following alternatives, give the verb a morally indifferent meaning: Meats determine our relation to God neither for good nor evil (neque ad placendum, neque ad displicendum, Bengel). This sense would be more natural in the philosophical style than in biblical language. The meaning which we have given may be suitable in the two following propositions; the privation of that which has no relation, causes no loss.
The order of the two following propositions in A B (see critical note) is condemned by the other Mjj. and by the ancient versions.
Calvin, Mosheim, and others have seen in this verse an objection of the Corinthians: Meats not being able to procure either approval or condemnation, we may consequently act at will. Paul, they say, answers in 1Co 8:9. But this argument would rather be opposed than favourable to the conduct of the strong. For if those meats neither caused them gain nor loss, but may through them cause their brother to sin (1Co 8:7), it is evident that they ought to abstain in cases where this last result may be produced. The consequence of 1Co 8:8 therefore is, that no importance whatever is to be attached to those meats in themselves. Hence 1Co 8:9 : But there is importance in not causing one’s brother to sin by means of those meats.
Vv. 9. The is adversative: but. The term , consider well, is opposed to the lightness with which the Corinthians used their right.
In the word, , power, right, here liberty, there is an allusion to the favourite formula of the strong at Corinth: All things are lawful for me. The connection must be observed between and .
The pronoun , this liberty, strongly contrasts this power, which is in itself an advantage, with the evil effects which it may produce when imprudently exercised. And now from these general considerations the apostle comes to their application.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. [There is no inherent virtue either in eating or fasting.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
8, 9. Here Paul certifies that it makes no difference whatever whether they eat the meat offered to idols or not. As there is no Jupiter, it does not hurt the beef because the ox was sacrificed to Jupiter; neither does it hurt the mutton because the sheep was sacrificed to Apollo, from the simple fact that there is no Apollo; neither is the turkey the worse because offered as a sacrifice to Diana, as there is no Diana. Hence the meat question, which was much agitated in the Corinthian church, many of whom were too poor to have their own animals, is reduced to a very simple solution. It does not affect the meat an iota to offer it to the idol. See that this liberty of yours be not a stumbling block to the weak.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 8
Meat; food.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 8:8. A great truth which bears on this matter.
Present to God: set before Him for service or approval; Luk 2:22; Rom 6:13; Rom 6:16; Rom 6:19; Rom 12:1; Rom 14:10; 2Co 11:2; Eph 5:27; 2Ti 2:15.
Food: of any kind, including idol-sacrifices. Such will not lay us more completely on the altar of God, or place us before Him more favorably.
Neither etc.: emphatic exposition of the foregoing. Eating, or absence from, any kind of food, can make the spiritual life richer or poorer. Thus before showing how greatly we may injure a brother by eating an idol-sacrifice Paul proves that to abstain from this or any other kind of food will do us no real harm. On the confusion of various reading here, see Appendix B.
Notice, in the careful repetition of this verse, another express abrogation (cp. 1Co 7:19) of the Mosaic Covenant, of which the distinction of food was an essential feature. So Col 2:21; 1Ti 4:3; Mat 15:11; Act 10:15.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
8:8 {5} 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.
(5) An anticipation of an objection: why then will we therefore be deprived of our liberty? Nay, says the apostle, you will lose no part of Christianity although you abstain for your brethren’s sake, as also if you receive the food, for it makes you in no way the more holy, for our commendation before God consists not in foods. But to use our liberty with offence of our brethren is an abuse of liberty, the true use of which is completely contrary, that is, to use it in such a way that we have consideration of our weak brethren.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Foods do not make us more or less pleasing to God. In our relationship to Him we are no better or worse if we participate or abstain. However eating food in a pagan temple was something else.
"It is the clean heart, and not clean food, that will matter; and the weak brother confounds the two." [Note: Robertson and Plummer, p. 170.]