Introduction to 1st Corinthians Chapter 8
IN this chapter another subject is discussed, which had been proposed by
the church at Corinth for the decision of the apostle:
Whether it was right for Christians to partake of the meat that had
been offered in sacrifice to idols? On this question there would be
doubtless a difference of opinion kmong the Corinthian Christians.
When those sacrifices were made to heathen gods, a part of the
animal was given to the priest that officiated, a part was consumed
on the altar, and a part (probably the principal part) was the property
of him who offered it. This part was either eaten by him at home, as food
which had been in some sense consecrated or blessed by having been
offered to an idol; or it was partaken of at a feast in honour of the
idol; or it was in some instances exposed for sale in the market, in the
same way as other meat. Whether, therefore, it would be right to partake
of that food, either when invited to the house of a heathen friend, or
when it was exposed for sale in the market, was a question which could
not but present itself to a conscientious Christian. The objection to
partaking of it would be, that to partake of it either in the temples or
at the feasts of their heathen neighbours, would be to lend their
countenance to idolatry. On the other hand, there were many who supposed
that it was always lawful, and that the scruples of their brethren were
needless. Some of their arguments Paul has alluded to in the course of
the chapter: they were, that an idol was nothing in the world; that there
was but one God, and that every one must know this; and that, therefore;
there was no danger that any worshipper of the true God could be led into
the absurdities of idolatry, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. To this the apostle replies,
that though there might be this knowledge, yet
(1.) knowledge sometimes puffed up, and made us proud, and that we
should be careful lest it should lead us astray by our vain
self-confidence, 1 Corinthians 8:1,2,7.
(2.) That all had not that knowledge, (1 Corinthians 8:7) and that they
even then, notwithstanding all the light which had been shed around them
by Christianity, and notwithstanding the absurdity of idolatry, still
regarded an idol as a real existence, as a god, and worshipped it as
such; and that it would be highly improper to countenance in any way that
idea. He left the inference, therefore, that it was not proper, from
this argument, to partake of the sacrifices to idols.
A second argument in favour of partaking of that food is alluded
to in 1 Corinthians 8:8; to wit, that it must be in itself a matter of
indifference; that it could make no difference before God, where all
depended on moral purity and holiness of heart, whether a man had
eaten meat or not; that we were really no better or worse for it; and
that, therefore, it was proper to partake of that food. To this Paul
replies,
(1.) that though this was true, as an abstract proposition, yet it might
be the occasion of leading others into sin, 1 Corinthians 8:9.
(2.) That the effect on a weak brother would be to lead him to suppose
that an idol was something, and to confirm him in his supposition
that an idol should have some regard, and be worshipped in the
temple, 1 Corinthians 8:10.
(3.) That the consequence might be, that a Christian of little
information and experience might be drawn away and perish, 1 Corinthians 8:11.
(4.) That this would be to sin against Christ, if a feeble Christian
should be thus destroyed, 1 Corinthians 8:12. And,
(5.) that as for himself, if indulgence in meat was in any way the
occasion of making another sin, he would eat no meat as long as the world
stood, (1 Corinthians 8:13;) since to abstain from meat was a far less evil
than the injury or destruction of an immortal soul.
Verse 1. Now as touching. In regard to; in answer to your inquiry
whether it is right or not to partake of those things.
Things offered unto idols. Sacrifices unto idols. Meat that had been
offered in sacrifice, and then either exposed to sale in the market, or
served up at the feasts held in honour of idols at their temples, or at
the houses of their devotees. The priests, who were entitled to a part
of the meat that was offered in sacrifice, would expose it to sale in the
market; and it was a custom with the Gentiles to make feasts in
honour of the idol gods on the meat that was offered in sacrifice.
See 1 Corinthians 8:10 of this chapter, and 1 Corinthians 10:20,21. Some Christians
would hold that there could be no harm in partaking of this meat
any more than any other meat, since an idol was nothing; and others
would have many scruples in regard to it, since it would seem to
countenance idol worship. The request made of Paul was, that he
should settle some general principle which they might all safely
follow.
We know. We admit; we cannot dispute; it is so plain a case that no
one can be ignorant on this point. Probably these are the words of the
Corinthians, and perhaps they were contained in the letter which was sent
to Paul. They would affirm that they were not ignorant in regard to the
nature of idols; they were well assured that they were nothing at all;
and hence they seemed to infer that it might be right and proper to
partake of this food anywhere and everywhere, even in the idol temples
themselves. See 1 Corinthians 8:10. To this Paul replies in the course of the
chapter, and particularly in 1 Corinthians 8:7.
That we all have knowledge. That is, on this subject; we are
acquainted with the true nature of idols, and of idol worship; we all
esteem an idol to be nothing, and cannot be in danger of being led into
idolatry, or into any improper views in regard to this subject, by
participating of the food and feasts connected with idol worship. This is
the statement and argument of the Corinthians. To this Paul makes two
answers.
(1.) In a parenthesis in 1 Corinthians 8:1-3, to wit, that it was not safe
to rely on mere knowledge in such a case, since the effect of mere
knowledge was often to puff men up and to make them proud, but that they
ought to act rather from "charity," or love; and,
(2.) that though the mass of them might have this knowledge, yet that all
did not possess it, and they might be injured, 1 Corinthians 8:7. Having
stated this argument of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge, in
1 Corinthians 8:1, Paul then in a parenthesis states the usual effect of
knowledge, and shows that it is not a safe guide, 1 Corinthians 8:1-3.
In 1 Corinthians 8:4, he resumes the statement (commenced in
1 Corinthians 8:1) of the Corinthians, but which, in a mode quite frequent in
his writings, he had broken off by his parenthesis on the subject of
knowledge; and in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, he states the argument more at
length--concedes that there was to them but one God, and that the
majority of them must know that; but states in 1 Corinthians 8:7, that
all had not this knowledge, and that those who had knowledge
ought to act so as not to injure those who had not.
Knowledge puffeth up. This is the beginning of the parenthesis. It is
the reply of Paul to the statement of the Corinthians, that all had
knowledge. The sense is, "Admitting that you all have knowledge; that you
know what is the nature of an idol, and of idol worship; yet mere
knowledge in this case is not a safe guide; its effect may be to
puff up, to fill with pride and self-sufficiency, and to lead you astray.
Charity, or love, as well as knowledge, should be allowed to come
in as a guide in such cases, and will be a safer guide than mere
knowledge." There had been some remarkable proofs of the
impropriety of relying on mere knowledge as a guide in religious matters
among the Corinthians, and it was well for Paul to remind them of
it. These pretenders to uncommon wisdom had given rise to their
factions, disputes, and parties, (see chap. i.--iii. ;) and Paul now
reminds them that it was not safe to rely on such a guide. And it
is no more safe now than it was then. Mere knowledge, or science,
when the heart is not right, fills with pride; swells a man with vain
self-confidence and reliance in his own powers, and very often leads
him entirely astray. Knowledge combined with right feelings, with
pure principles, with a heart filled with love to God and men, may
be trusted; but not mere intellectual attainments--mere abstract
science--the mere cultivation of the intellect. Unless the heart is
cultivated with that, the effect of knowledge is to make a man a
pedant; to fill him with vain ideas of his own importance; and thus
to lead him into error and to sin.
But charity edifieth. Love, (\~h agaph\~;) so the word means; and so it
would be well to translate it. Our word charity we now apply almost
exclusively to alms, giving, or to the favourable opinion which we
entertain of others when they seem to be in error or fault. The word in
the Scripture means simply love. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 13:1" and
following. The sense here is, "Knowledge is not a safe guide, and should
not be trusted. Love to each other and to God, true Christian
affection, will be a safer guide than mere knowledge. Your conclusion on
this question should not be formed from mere abstract knowledge; but
you should ask what LOVE to others--to the peace, purity, happiness, and
salvation of your brethren--would demand. If love to them would
prompt to this course, and permit you to partake of this food, it should
be done; if not, if it would injure them, whatever mere knowledge
would dictate, it should not be done." The doctrine is, that love to God
and to each other is a better guide in determining what to do than
mere knowledge. And it is so. It will prompt us to seek the welfare of
others, and to avoid what would injure them. It will make us tender,
affectionate, and kind; and will better tell us what to do, and
how to do it in the best way, than all the abstract knowledge that is
conceivable. The man who is influenced by love, ever pure and ever
glowing, is not in much danger of going astray, or of doing injury to the
cause of God. The man who relies on his knowledge is heady, high-minded,
obstinate, contentious, vexatious, perverse, opinionated; and most of the
difficulties in the church arise from such men. Love makes no difficulty,
but heals and allays all: mere knowledge heals or allays none, but is
often the occasion of most bitter strife and contention. Paul was wise in
recommending that the question should be settled by love; and it would be
wise if all Christians would follow his instructions.
{a} "unto idols" Acts 15:10,19
{b} "knowledge" Romans 14:14,22
{c} "puffeth" Isaiah 47:10
{*} "charity" "love"
{d} "edifieth" 1 Corinthians 13
Verse 2. And if any man think, etc. The connexion and the scope of
this passage require us to understand this as designed to condemn that
vain conceit of knowledge, or self-confidence, which would lead us
to despise others, or to disregard their interests. "If any one is any
one is conceited of his knowledge, is so vain, and proud, and
self-confident, that he is led to despise others, and to disregard their
true interests, he has not yet learned the very first elements of true
knowledge as he ought to learn them. True knowledge will make us humble,
modest, and kind to others. It will not puff us up, and it will not
lead us to overlook the real happiness of others." See Romans 11:25.
Any thing. Any matter pertaining to science, morals, philosophy,
or religion. This is a general maxim pertaining to all pretenders to
knowledge.
He knoweth nothing yet, etc. He has not known what is most necessary
to be known on tile subject; nor has he known the true use and design of
knowledge, which is to edify and promote the happiness of others. If a
man has not so learned anything as to make it contribute to the happiness
of others, it is a proof that he has never learned the true design of the
first elements of knowledge. Paul's design is to induce them to seek the
welfare of their brethren. Knowledge, rightly applied, will promote the
happiness of all. And it is true now as it was then, that if a man is a
miser in knowledge, as in wealth; if he lives to accumulate, never
to impart; if he is filled with a vain conceit of his wisdom, and seeks
not to benefit others by enlightening their ignorance, and guiding
them in the way of truth, he has never learned the true use of
science, any more than the man has of wealth who always hoards,
never gives. It is valueless unless it is diffused, as the light of
heaven would be valueless unless diffused all over the world, and
the waters would be valueless if always preserved in lakes and
reservoirs, and never diffused over hills and vales to refresh the
earth.
{e} "man think" Romans 11:25; Galatians 6:3; 1 Timothy 6:3,4
Verse 3. But if any man love God. If any man is truly attached to
God; if he seeks to serve him, and to promote his glory. The sense seems
to be this: "There is no true and real knowledge which is not connected
with love to God. This will prompt a man also to love his brethren, and
will lead him to promote their happiness. A man's course, therefore, is
not to be regulated by mere knowledge, but the grand principle is love to
God and love to man. Love edifies; love promotes happiness; love will
prompt to what is right; and love will secure the approbation of God."
Thus explained, this difficult verse accords with the whole scope of the
parenthesis, which is to show that a man should not be guided in his
intercourse with others by mere knowledge, however great that may be; but
that a safer and better principle was love, charity, (\~agaph\~)
whether exercised towards God or man. Under the guidance of this, man
would be in little danger of error. Under the direction of mere
knowledge, he would never be sure of a safe guide. See 1 Corinthians 13.
The same is known of him. The words "is known," (\~egnwstai\~,) I
suppose to be taken here in the sense of "is approved by God; is loved by
him; meets with his favour," etc. In this sense the word known is often
used in the Scriptures. See Barnes "Matthew 7:23". The sense is, "If any
man acts under the influence of sacred charity, or love to God, and
consequent love to man, he will meet with the approbation of God.
He will seek his glory, and the good of his brethren; he will be
likely to do right; and God will approve of his intentions and desires,
and will regard him as his child. Little distinguished, therefore, as
he may be for human knowledge, for that science which puffs up
with vain self-confidence, yet he will have a more truly elevated
rank, and will meet with the approbation and praise of God. This
is of more value than mere knowledge, and this love is a far safer
guide than any mere intellectual attainments. So the world would
have found it to be if they had acted on it; and so Christians would
always find it.
{a} "known of him" Nahum 1:7; 2 Timothy 2:19
Verse 4. As concerning therefore, etc. The parenthesis closes with
1 Corinthians 8:3. The apostle now proceeds to the real question in debate,
and repeats in this verse the question, and the admission that all had
knowledge. The admission that all had knowledge proceeds through
1 Corinthians 8:4,5,6; and in 1 Corinthians 8:7, he gives the answer to it. In
1 Corinthians 8:4-6, everything is admitted by Paul which they asked in regard
to the real extent of their knowledge on this subject; and in
1 Corinthians 8:7 he shows that, even on the ground of this admission, the
conclusion would not follow that it was right to partake of the food
offered in sacrifice in the temple of an idol.
The eating of those things, etc. Whether it is right to eat them.
Here the question is varied somewhat from what it was in 1 Corinthians 8:1,
but substantially the same inquiry is stated. The question was, whether
it was right for Christians to eat the meat of animals that had been
slain in sacrifice to idols.
We know. 1 Corinthians 8:1. We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully
to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed,
1 Corinthians 8:7. But his object was to show that even admitting that, it
would not follow that it would be right to partake of that meat. It is
well to bear in mind, that the object of their statement in regard to
knowledge was to show that there could be no impropriety in partaking
of the food. This argument the apostle answers in 1 Corinthians 8:7.
That an idol is nothing. Is not the true God; is not a proper object
of worship. We are not so stupid as to suppose that the block of
wood, or the carved image, or the chiseled marble is a real intelligence,
and is conscious and capable of receiving worship, or benefiting its
rotaries. We fully admit, and know, that the whole thing is delusive; and
there can be no danger that, by partaking of the food offered in
sacrifice to them, we should ever be brought to a belief of the
stupendous falsehood that they are true objects of worship, or to
deny the true God. There is no doubt that the more intelligent heathen
had this knowledge; and doubtless nearly all Christians possessed it,
though a few who had been educated in the grosser views of heathenism
might still have regarded the idol with a superstitious reverence. For
whatever might have been the knowledge of statesmen and philosophers on
the subject, it was still doubtless true that the great mass of the
heathen world did regard the dumb idols as the proper objects of
worship, and supposed that they were inhabited by invisible spirits--the
gods. For purposes of state, and policy, and imposition, the lawgivers
and priests of the pagan world were careful to cherish this delusion. See
1 Corinthians 8:7.
Is nothing. Is delusive; is imaginary. There may have been a
reference here to the name of all idol among the Hebrews. They
called idols \^HEBREW\^ (Elilim,) or, in the singular, \^HEBREW\^,
(Elil,) vain, null, nothing-worth, nothingness, vanity, weakness,
etc.; indicating their vanity and powerlessness, Leviticus 26:1; 1 Chronicles 16:26;
Isaiah 2:8,18-20; 10:10; 19:1,3; 31:7; Psalms 96:5; Ezekiel 30:13;; Habakkuk 2:18;
Zechariah 11:17, etc.
In the world. It is nothing at all; it has no power over the world;
no real existence anywhere. There are no such gods as the heathens
pretend to worship. There is but one God; and that fact is known to
us all. The phrase "in the world" seems to be added by way of emphasis,
to show the utter nothingness of idols; to explain in the most emphatic
manner the belief that they had no real existence.
And that there is none other God but one. This was a great cardinal
truth of religion. See Barnes " :". Comp. Deuteronomy 6:4,5. To keep
this great truth in mind was the grand object of the Jewish economy; and
this was so plain and important, that the Corinthians supposed that it
must be admitted by all. Even though they should partake of the meat
that was offered in sacrifice to idols, yet they supposed it was not
possible that any of them could forget the great cardinal truth that
there was but one God.
{b} "idol" Isaiah 41:24
Verse 5. That are called gods. Gods so called. The heathens
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 over the
earth, or sea, as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient heathens 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, (\~wsper\~,) etc. As there are, in fact, many
which are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the heathens 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 be 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 heathen 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 were called \^HEBREW\^, (Baal, or lord,) the
tutelary god of the Phenicians and Syrians, Judges 8:33; 9:4,46. 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.
{d} "are called gods" John 10:34,35
Verse 6. But to us. Christians. We acknowledge but one God. Whatever
the heathen worship, we know that there is but one God; and he alone has
a right to rule over us.
One God, the Father. Whom we acknowledge as the Father of all; Author
of all things; and who sustains to all his works the relation of a
father. The word "Father" here is not used as applicable to the first
person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied
to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but
to the Divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction--the
Father as distinguished from Ms offspring, the works that owe their
origin to him. This is manifest,
(1.) because the apostle does not use the correlative term "Son," when he
comes to speak of the "one Lord Jesus Christ;" and,
(2.) because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of
God, of the Divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining
the relation of Father to his creatures. He produced them. He
provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He
regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in
trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name Father is thus
given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the Divine Being,
Psalms 103:13; Jeremiah 31:9; Malachi 1:6; 2:10; Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2, etc. In other places
it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from
the second; and in these instances the correlative Son is used,
Luke 10:22; 22:42; John 1:18; 3:35; 5:19-23,26,30,36; Hebrews 1:5;
2 Peter 1:17, etc.
Of whom. \~ex ou\~. From whom, as a fountain and source; by whose
counsel, plan, and purpose. He is the great source of all; and all depend
on him. It was by his purpose and power that all things were formed, and
to all he sustains the relation of a Father. The agent in producing
all things, however, was the Son, Colossians 1:16.
See Barnes "John 1:3".
Are all things. These words evidently refer to the whole work of
creation, as deriving their origin from God, Genesis 1:1. Everything has
thus been formed in accordance with his plan; and all things now depend
on him as their Father.
And we. We Christians. We are what we are by him. We owe our
existence to him; and by him we have been regenerated and saved. It is
owing to his counsel, purpose, agency, that we have an existence; and
owing to him that we have the hope of eternal life. The leading idea here
is, probably, that to God Christians owe their hopes and happiness.
In him. \~eiv auton\~; or rather, unto him: that is, we are formed
for hun, and should live to his glory. We have been made what we are, as
Christians, that we may promote his honour and glory.
And one Lord, etc. One Lord, in contradistinction from the "many
lords" whom the heathens worshipped. The word Lord here is used in
the sense of proprietor, ruler, governor, or king; and the idea is,
that Christians acknowledge subjection to him alone, and not to many
sovereigns, as the heathens did. Jesus Christ is the Ruler and Lord of
his people. They acknowledge their allegiance to him as their supreme
Lawgiver and King. They do not acknowledge subjection to many rulers,
whether imaginary gods or men; but receive their laws from him alone. The
word "Lord" here does not imply of necessity any inferiority to God;
since it is a term which is frequently applied to God himself. The idea
in the passage is, that from God, the Father of all, we derive our
existence, and all that we have; and that we acknowledge immediate
and direct subjection to the Lord Jesus as our Lawgiver and
Sovereign. From him Christians receive their laws, and to him they submit
their lives. And this idea is so far from supposing inferiority in
the Lord Jesus to God, that it rather supposes equality; since a right to
give laws to men, to rule their consciences, to direct their religious
opinions, and their lives, can appropriately appertain only to one who
has equality with God.
By whom, etc. \~di ou\~. By whose agency; or through whom, as
the agent. The word "by" (\~di\~) stands in contradistinction from
"of" (\~ex\~) in the former part of the verse; and obviously
means, that though "all things" derived their existence from God, as
the Fountain and Author, yet it was "by" the agency of the Lord
Jesus. This doctrine, that the Son of God was the great agent in the
creation of the world, is elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures.
See Barnes "John 1:3".
Are all things. The universe; for so the phrase \~ta panta\~, properly
means. No words could better express the idea of the universe than these;
and the declaration is therefore explicit that the Lord Jesus created all
things. Some explain this of the "new creation;" as if Paul had said that
all things pertaining to our salvation were from him. But the
objections to this interpretation are obvious.
(1.) It is not the natural signification.
(2.) The phrase "all things" naturally denotes the universe.
(3.) The scope of the passage requires us so to understand it. Paul is
not speaking of the new creature; but he is speaking of the question
whether there is more than one God, one Creator, one Ruler, over
the wide universe. The heathen said there was; Christians affirmed
that there was not. The scope, therefore, of the passage requires
us to understand this of the vast material universe; and the obvious
declaration here is, that the Lord Jesus was the Creator of all.
And we. We Christians, (1 Peter 1:21;) or, we as men; we have
derived our existence "by" (\~di\~) or through him. The
expression will apply either to our original creation, or to our hopes of
heaven, as being by him; and is equally true respecting both. Probably
the idea is, that all that we have, as men and as Christians, our lives
and our hopes, are through him, and by his agency.
By him. (\~di autou\~) By his agency. Paul had said, in respect to God
the Father of all, that we were unto (\~eiv\~) him; he here says
that in regard to the Lord Jesus, we are by (\~di\~) him, or by
his agency. The sense is, "God is the author, the former of the plan; the
source of being and of hope; and we are to live to him: but Jesus is the
agent by whom all these things are made, and through whom they
are conferred on us." Arians and Socinians have made use of this
passage to prove that the Son was inferior to God; and the argument is,
that the name God is not given to Jesus, but another name implying
inferiority; and that the design of Paul was to make a distinction
between God and the Lord Jesus. It is not the design of these Notes to
examine opinions in theology; but in reply to this argument we may
observe briefly,
(1.) that those who hold to the divinity of the Lord Jesus do not deny
that there is a distinction between him and the Father: they fully
admit and maintain it, both in regard to his eternal existence, (i.e.,
that there is an eternal distinction of persons in the Godhead,) and in
regard to his office as Mediator.
(2.) The term "Lord," given here, does not of necessity suppose that he
is inferior to God.
(3.) The design of the passage supposes that there was equality in
some respects. God the Father and the Lord Jesus sustain relations to men
that in some sense correspond to the "many gods" and the "many lords"
that the heathen adored; but they were equal in nature.
(4.) The work of creation is expressly in this passage ascribed to the
Lord Jesus. But the work of creation cannot be performed by a creature.
There can be no delegated God, and no delegated omnipotence, or
delegated infinite wisdom and omnipresence. The work of creation implies
divinity; or it is impossible to prove that there is a God: and if
the Lord Jesus made "ALL THINGS," he must be God.
{a} "to us" Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6
{1} "we in him" "for"
{b} "by whom" John 1:3; Hebrews 1:2
Verse 7. Howbeit. But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the
argument of the Corinthians--that they all knew that an idol was
nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could
be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake
of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that
though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for
that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol
had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to
confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that
on their account they should abstain. See 1 Corinthians 8:11-13.
There is not, etc. There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have
still remains of heathen opinions and superstitious feelings.
That knowledge. That there is but one God; and that an idol is
nothing.
For some, with conscience of the idol. From conscientious regard
to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and
that his favour should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not
to be supposed that converted men would regard idols as the only
God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good
or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favour or avert their
wrath. We are to bear in mind that the heathen were exceedingly ignorant;
and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods
whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon
leave them, even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one
instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices,
or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to
God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their
religious character.
Eat it aa a thing, etc. As offered to an idol who was entitled to
adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some
invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favour should be
sought, or his wrath averted, by sacrifice.
And their conscience being weak. Being unenlightened on this subject;
and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not
having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to
resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and
superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an
idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and
delicate on this subject: they might be disposed to do right, and yet not
have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and
that they ought not to regard it.
Is defiled. Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he
is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his
conscience becomes more enlightened, 1 Corinthians 8:11,13. From superstitious
reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the
effect would be to lead him to a conformity to idol worship that would
defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep
and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to
the first argument in favour of partaking of the meat offered in
sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the
subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of
idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.
Verse 8. 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 men, 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,
(1 Corinthians 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" (\~paristhsi\~)
means, properly, to introduce to the favour of any one, as a king or
ruler; and here means to recommend to the favour of God. God does not
regard this as a matter of importance. He does not make his favour 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. Gr., Do we abound,
(\~perisseuomen\~;) that is, in moral worth or excellence of character.
See Barnes "Romans 14:17".
Are we the worse. Margin, Have we the less. Greek, Do we lack
or want, (\~usteroumeya\~;) that is, in moral worth or excellence.
{a} "meat commendeth" Romans 14:17
{1} "we eat" "have we the more"
{2} "we eat not" "have we the less"
Verse 9. But take heed. This is the reply of Paul to the argument of
the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 8:8. "Though all that you say should be
admitted to be true, as it must be; though a man is neither morally
better nor worse for partaking of meat or abstaining from it; yet the
grand principle to be observed is, so to act as not to injure your
brethren. Though you may be no better or worse for eating or not eating,
yet, if your conduct shall injure others, and lead them into sin,
that is a sufficient guide to determine you what to do in the case.
You should abstain entirely. It is of far more importance that your
brother should not be led into sin, than it is that you should partake of
meat which you acknowledge (1 Corinthians 8:8) is in itself of no importance."
Lest by any means. \~mhpwv\~. You should be careful that by no
conduct of yours your brother be led into sin. This is a general
principle that is to regulate Christian conduct in all matters that are
in themselves indifferent.
This liberty of your's. This which you claim as a right; this power
which you have, and the exercise of which is in itself lawful. The
liberty or power (\~exousia\~) here referred to was that of partaking
of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols, 1 Corinthians 8:8. A man
may have a right abstractedly to do a thing, but it may not be
prudent or wise to exercise it.
Become a stumbling-block. An occasion of sin.
See Barnes "Matthew 5:29", also, See Barnes "Romans 14:13". See that it be
not the occasion of leading others to sin, and to abandon their Christian
profession, 1 Corinthians 8:10.
To them that are weak. To those professing Christians who are not
fully informed or instructed in regard to the true nature of idolatry,
and who still may have a superstitious regard for the gods whom their
fathers worshipped.
{3} "this liberty" "power"
{b} "liberty" Romans 14:13,20; Galatians 5:13
Verse 10. For if any man. Any Christian brother who is ignorant, or
any one who might otherwise become a Christian.
Which hast knowledge. Who are fully informed in regard to the real
nature of idol worship. You will be looked up to as an example. You will
be presumed to be partaking of this feast in honour of the idol. You
will thus encourage him, and he will partake of it with a conscientious
regard to the idol.
Sit at meat. Sitting down to an entertainment in the temple of the
idol. Feasts were often celebrated, as they are now among the heathen, in
honour of idols. Those entertainments were either in the temple of the
idol, or at the house of him who gave it.
Shall not the conscience of him which is weak. Of the man who is not
fully informed, or who still regards the idol with superstitious
feelings. See 1 Corinthians 8:7.
Be emboldened. Margin, Edified. \~oikodomhyhsetai\~. Confirmed;
established. So the word edify is commonly used in the New Testament,
Acts 9:31; Romans 14:19; Ephesians 4:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:11. The sense here is, "Before
this he had a superstitious regard for idols. He had the remains of
his former feelings and opinions. But he was not established in the
belief that an idol was anything; and his superstitious feelings were
fast giving way to the better Christian doctrine that they were nothing.
But now, by your example, he will be fully confirmed in the
belief that an idol is to be regarded with respect and homage. He
will see you in the very temple, partaking of a feast in honour of the
idol; and he will infer not only that it is right, but that it is a
matter of conscience with you, and will follow your example."
{4} "be emboldened" "edified"
Verse 11. And through thy knowledge. Because you knew that an idol
was nothing, and that there could be really no danger of falling into
idolatry from partaking of these entertainments. You will thus be
the means of deceiving and destroying him. The argument of the
apostle here is, that if this was to be the result, the duty of those
who had this knowledge was plain.
Shall the weak brother. The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That
it means a real Christian there can be no doubt. For,
(1.) it is the usual term by which Christians are designated--the
endearing name of brother; and,
(2.) the scope of the passage requires it so to be understood.
See Barnes "Romans 14:20".
Perish. Be destroyed; ruined; lost. See Barnes "John 10:28". So
the word \~apoleitai\~ properly and usually signifies. The sense is, that the
tendency of this course would be, to lead the weak brother into sin,
to apostasy, and to ruin. But this does not prove that any who were truly
converted should apostatize and be lost; for,
(1.) there may be a tendency to a thing, and yet that thing may never
happen. It may be arrested, and the event not occur.
(2.) The warning designed to prevent it may be effectual, and be the
means of saving. A man in a canoe floating down the Niagara river
may have a tendency to go over the falls; but he may be hailed from
the shore, and the hailing may be effectual, and he may be saved.
The call to him was designed to save him, and actually had that
effect. So it may be in the warnings to Christians.
(3.) The apostle does not say that any true Christian would be lost. He
puts a question; and affirms that if one thing was done,
another might follow. But this is not affirming that any one
would be lost. So I might say, that if the man continued to
float on towards the falls of Niagara, he would be destroyed. If one
thing was done, the other would be a consequence. But this would be very
different from a statement that a man had actually gone over the
falls, and been lost.
(4.) It is elsewhere abundantly proved, that no one who has been truly
converted will apostatize and be destroyed. See Barnes "John 10:28".
Comp. See Barnes "Romans 8:29", See Barnes "Romans 8:30".
For whom Christ died? This is urged as an argument why we should not
do anything that would tend to destroy the souls of men. And no stronger
argument could be used. The argument is, that we should not do anything
that would tend to frustrate the work of Christ, that would render the
shedding of his blood vain. The possibility of doing this is urged;
and that bare possibility should deter us from a course of conduct
that might have this tendency. It is an appeal drawn from the deep
and tender love, the sufferings, and the dying groans of the Son of
God. If he endured so much to save the soul, assuredly we should
not pursue a course that would tend to destroy it. If he denied
himself so much to redeem, we should not, assuredly, be so fond of
self-gratification as to be unwilling to abandon anything that would tend
to destroy.
Verse 12. But when ye sin so against the brethren. This is designed
further to show the evil of causing others to sin; and hence the evil
which might arise from partaking of the meat offered to idols. The
word sin here is to be taken in the sense of injuring, offending,
leading into sin. You violate the law which requires you to love your
brethren, and to seek their welfare, and thus you sin against them.
Sin is properly against God; but there may be a course of injury
pursued against men, or doing them injustice or wrong, and this is
sin against them. Christians are bound to do right towards all.
And wound their weak conscience. The word wound here (\~tuptontev\~,
smiting, beating) is taken in the sense of injure. Their consciences
are ill-informed. They have not the knowledge which you have.
And by your conduct they are led farther into error, and believe
that the idol is something, and is to be honoured. They are thus
led into sin, and their conscience is more and more perverted, and
oppressed more and more with a sense of guilt.
Ye sin against Christ. Because,
(1.) Christ has commanded you to love them, and seek their good, and not
to lead them into sin; and,
(2.) because they are so intimately united to Christ,
See Barnes "John 15:1", etc., that to offend them is to offend him; to
injure the members is to injure the Head; to destroy their souls is to
pain his heart and to injure his cause. See Barnes "Matthew 10:40". Comp.
Luke 10:16.
{a} "But when" Matthew 25:40,45
Verse 13. Wherefore. As the conclusion of the whole matter.
If meat, etc. Paul here proposes his own views and feelings, or tells
them how he would act, in order to show them how they should act
in these circumstances.
Make my brother to offend. Lead him into sin; or shall be the cause
of leading him into error and guilt. It does not mean, if the eating of
meat should enrage or irritate another; but if it is the occasion of his
being led into transgression. How this might be done is stated in
1 Corinthians 8:10.
I will eat no flesh, etc. My eating meat is a matter of comparative
unimportance. I can dispense with it. It is of much less importance to me
than happiness, a good conscience, and salvation are to my brother. And
the law of love therefore to him, requires me to deny myself rather
than to be the occasion of leading him into sin. This is a noble
resolution; and marks a great, disinterested, and magnanimous spirit. It
is a spirit that seeks the good of all; that can deny itself; that is
supremely anxious for the glory of God and the salvation of man, and that
can make personal comfort and gratification subservient to the good of
others. It was the principle on which Paul always acted; and is the very
spirit of the self-denying Son of God.
While the world standeth. Greek, For ever. The phrase, "I will
never eat meat," would express the idea.
Lest I make, etc. Rather than lead him into sin, by my indulging in
eating the meat offered in sacrifice to idols.
{b} "lest" 1 Corinthians 9:22
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1.) That Christians, though they are truly converted, yet may
have many erroneous views and feelings in reference to many things,
1 Corinthians 8:6. This was true of those converted from ancient heathenism,
and it is true of those who are now converted from heathenism, and
of all young converts. Former opinions, and prejudices, and even
superstitions, abide long in the mind, and cast a long and withering
influence over the regions of Christian piety. The morning dawn is
at first very obscure. The change from night to daybreak is at first
scarcely perceptible. And so it may be in conversion. The views
which a heathen entertained from his childhood could not at once
be removed. The influence of corrupt opinions and feelings, which
a sinner has long indulged, may travel over in his conversion, and
may long endanger his piety and destroy his peace. Corrupt and
infidel thoughts, associations of pollution, cannot be destroyed at
once; and we are not to expect from a child in the Christian life,
the full vigour, and the elevated principle, and the strength to resist
temptation, which we expect of the man matured in the service of
the Lord Jesus. This should lead us to charity in regard to the
imperfections and failings of young converts; to a willingness to
aid and counsel them; to carefulness not to lead them into sin; and
it should lead us not to expect the same amount of piety, zeal, and
purity in converts from degraded heathens, which we expect in
Christian lands, and where converts have been trained up under all
the advantages of Sabbath-schools and Bible-classes.
(2.) Our opinions should be formed, and our treatment of others
regulated, not by abstract knowledge, but by love, 1 Corinthians 8:1.
A man is usually much more likely to act right who is influenced by
charity and love, than one who is guided by simple knowledge, or by
self-confidence. One is humble, kind, tender towards the frailties of
others, sensible himself of infirmity, and is disposed to do right;
the other may be vain, harsh, censorious, unkind, and severe. Knowledge
is useful; but for the practical purposes of life, in an erring and
fallen world, love is more useful; and while the one often leads
astray, the other seldom errs. Whatever knowledge we may have,
we should make it a point from which we are never to depart, that
our opinions of others, and our treatment of them, should be formed
under the influence of love.
(6.) It becomes Christians to exercise continual care, lest their
conduct, even in things which are in themselves lawful, should be
the occasion of leading others into sin, 1 Corinthians 8:9. Christians very
often pursue a course of conduct which may not be in itself unlawful but
which may lead others who have not their intelligence, or strength
of principle, into error. One man may be safe where another man
is in danger. One man may be able to resist temptations which
would entirely overcome another. A course of life may, perhaps,
be safe for a man of years and of mature judgment, which would be
ruinous to a young man. And the grand principle here should be,
not to do that, even though it may be lawful itself, which would, be
the occasion of leading others into sin.
(8.) We have here a noble instance of the principles on which
Paul was willing to act, 1 Corinthians 8:13. He was willing to deny himself of
any gratification, if his conduct was likely to be the occasion of
leading others into sin. Even from that which was in itself lawful
he would abstain for ever, if by indulgence he would be the occasion
of another's falling into transgression. But how rare is this virtue!
How seldom is it practised! How few Christians and Christian ministers
are there who deny themselves any gratification in things in themselves
right, lest they should induce others to sin. And yet this is the grand
principle of Christianity; and this should influence and guide all the
professed friends and followers of Christ. This principle might be
applied to many things in which many Christians now freely indulge; and,
if applied, would produce great and important changes in society.
1st. Entertainments and feasts which, perhaps, you may be able to
afford, (that is, afford in the supposition that what you have is
yours, and not the Lord's,) may lead many of those who cannot afford it
to imitate you, and to involve themselves in debt, in extravagance, in
ruin.
2nd. You might possibly be safe at a festival, at a public dinner, or
in a large party; but your example would encourage others where they
would not be safe; and yet, how could you reply should they say that you
were there, and that they were encouraged by you?
3rd. On the supposition that the use of wine and other fermented liquors
may be in themselves lawful, and that you might be safe in using
them, yet others may be led by your example to an improper use of them,
or contract a taste for stimulating drinks that may end in their ruin.
Would it be right for you to continue the use of wine in such
circumstances? Would Paul have done it? Would he not have adopted
the noble principle in this chapter, that he would not touch it while
the world stands, if it led him to sin?
4th. You might be safe in a party of amusement, in the circle of the gay,
and in scenes of merriment and mirth. I say you might be, though the
supposition is scarcely possible that Christian piety is ever safe in
such scenes, and though it is certain that Paul or the Saviour would not
have been found there. But how will it be for the young, and for those of
less strength of Christian virtue? Will they be safe there? Will they
be able to guard against these allurements as you could? Will they
not be led into the love of gaiety, vanity, and folly? And what
would Paul have done in such cases? What would Jesus Christ have done?
What should Christians now do? This single principle, if fairly applied,
would go far to change the aspect of the Christian world. If all
Christians had Paul's delicate sensibilities, and Paul's strength of
Christian virtue, and Paul's willingness to deny himself to benefit
others, the aspect of the Christian world would soon change. How many
practices, now freely indulged in, would be abandoned! And how soon would
every Christian be seen to set such an example that all others could
safely follow it!
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP