1st Corinthians CHAPTER 10
IN regard to the design of this chapter commentators have not been
agreed. Some have supposed that there is no connexion with the
preceding, but that this is a digression. The ancient Greek expositors
generally, and some of the moderns, as Grotius, supposed that the
connexion was this: Paul had in the previous chapter described himself as
mortifying his flesh, and keeping his body under, that he might gain the
prize. In this chapter they suppose that his object is to exhort the
Corinthians to do the same; and that in order to do this, he admonishes
them not to be lulled into security by the idea of the many spiritual
gifts which had been conferred upon them. This admonition he enforces by
the example of the Jews, who had been highly favoured also, but who had
nevertheless been led into idolatry. This is also the view of Doddridge,
Calvin, and others. Macknight regards the chapter as an independent
discussion of the three questions, which he supposes had been submitted
to Paul:
(1.) Whether they might innocently go with their friends into the
heathen temples, and partake of the feasts which were there made
in honour of the idol.
(2.) Whether they might buy and eat meat sold in the markets which had
been sacrificed to idols.
(3.) Whether, when invited to the houses of the heathens, they might
partake of the meat sacrificed to idols, and which was set before them as
a common meal. I regard this chapter as having a very close connexion
with \\1Co 8\\. In the close of chapter 8, (1 Corinthians 9:13,) Paul
had stated, when examining the question whether it was right to eat
meat offered in sacrifice to idols, that the grand principle on which
he acted, and on which they should act, was that of
self-denial. To illustrate this he employs the ninth chapter, by
showing how he acted on it in reference to a maintenance; showing that it
was this principle that led him to decline a support to which he was
really entitled. Having illustrated that, he returns in this chapter to
the subject which he was discussing in chapter 8; and the design of this
chapter is further to explain and enforce the sentiments advanced
there, and to settle some other inquiries pertaining to the same
general subject. The first point, therefore, on which he insists is,
the danger of relapsing into idolatry--a danger which would arise,
should they be in the habit of frequenting the temples of idols, and
of partaking of the meats offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 10:1-24. Against
this he had cautioned them in general, in 1 Corinthians 8:7,9-12. This
danger he now sets forth by a variety of illustrations. He first shows
them that the Jews had been highly favoured, had been solemnly
consecrated to Moses and to God, and had been under the Divine protection
and guidance, (1 Corinthians 10:1-4;) yet that this had not kept them
from the displeasure of God when they sinned, 1 Corinthians 10:5. He shows
that, notwithstanding their privileges, they had indulged in
inordinate desires, 1 Corinthians 10:6; that they had become idolaters,
1 Corinthians 10:7; that they had been guilty of licentiousness,
1 Corinthians 10:8; that they had tempted their leader and guide,
1 Corinthians 10:9; that they had murmured, 1 Corinthians 10:10; and that, as a
consequence of this, many of them had been destroyed. In view of all
this, Paul cautions the Corinthians not to be self-confident, or to feel
secure; and not to throw themselves in the way of temptation by partaking
of the feasts of idolatry, 1 Corinthians 10:12-14. This danger he further
illustrates (1 Corinthians 10:15-24) by showing that if they partook of those
sacrifices, they in fact became identified with the worshippers of idols.
This he proved by showing that in the Christian communion, those who
partook of the Lord's Supper were identified with Christians,
1 Corinthians 10:16,17; that in the Jewish sacrifices the same thing occurred,
and those who partook of them were regarded as Jews, and as worshippers
of the same God with them, 1 Corinthians 10:18; and that the same thing must
occur, in the nature of the case, by partaking of the sacrifices offered
to idols. They were really partaking of that which had been offered
to devils; and against any such participation Paul would solemnly
admonish them, 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Going on the supposition, therefore,
that there was nothing wrong in itself in partaking of the meat that had
been thus killed in sacrifice, yet Paul says (1 Corinthians 10:23) that it was
not expedient thus to expose themselves to danger; and that the grand
principle should be to seek the comfort and edification of others,
1 Corinthians 10:24. Paul thus strongly and decisively admonishes them
not to enter the temples of idols to partake of those feasts; not to
unite with idolaters in their celebration; not to endanger their piety by
these temptations.
There were, however, two other questions on the subject which it
was important to decide, and which had probably been submitted to
him in the letter which they had sent for counsel and advice. The
first was, whether it was right to purchase and eat the meat which
had been sacrificed, and which was exposed indiscriminately with
other meat in the market, 1 Corinthians 10:25. To this Paul replies, that as
no evil could result from this, as it could not be alleged that they
purchased it as meat sacrificed to idols, and as all that the earth
contained belonged to the Lord, it was not wrong to purchase and to use
it. Yet if even this was pointed out to them as having been sacrificed
to idols, he then cautioned them to abstain from it, 1 Corinthians 10:28. The
other question was, whether it was right for them to accept the
invitation of a heathen, and to partake of meat then that had been
offered in sacrifice, 1 Corinthians 10:27. To this a similar answer was
returned. The general principle was, that no questions were to be asked
in regard to what was set before them; but if the food was expressly
pointed out as having been offered in sacrifice, then to partake of it
would be regarded as a public recognition of the idol,
1 Corinthians 10:28-30. Paul then concludes the discussion by stating the
noble rule that is to guide in all this: that everything is to be done to
the glory of God, 1 Corinthians 10:31; and that the great effort of the
Christian should be so to act in all things as to honour his religion, as
not to lead others into sin, 1 Corinthians 10:32,33.
Verse 1. Moreover, brethren. But, or now, (\~de\~.) This verse,
with the following illustrations, (1 Corinthians 10:1-4,) is properly
connected in Paul's argument with the statements which he had made in
1 Corinthians 8:8, etc., and is designed to show the danger which would result
from their partaking of the feasts that were celebrated in honour of
idols. It is not improbable, as Mr. Locke supposes, that the Corinthians
might have urged that they were constantly solicited by their heathen
friends to attend those feasts; that in their circumstances it was
scarcely possible to avoid it; that there could be no danger of their
relapsing into idolatry; and their doing so could not be offensive to
God, since they were known to be Christians; since they had been
baptized, and purified from sin; since they were devoted to his service;
since they knew that an idol was nothing in the world; and since they had
been so highly favoured, as the people of God, with so many extraordinary
endowments, and were so strongly guarded against the possibility of
becoming idolaters. To meet these considerations, Paul refers them to the
example of the ancient Jews. They also were the people of God. They had
been solemnly dedicated to Moses and to God. They had been peculiarly
favoured with spiritual food from heaven, and with drink miraculously
poured from the rock. Yet, notwithstanding this, they had forgotten God,
had become idolaters, and had been destroyed. By their example,
therefore, Paul would warn the Corinthians against a similar danger.
I would not that ye should be ignorant. A large part of the church
at Corinth were Gentiles. It could hardly be supposed that they
were well informed respecting the ancient history of the Jews. Probably
they had read these things in the Old Testament; but they might not have
them distinctly in their recollection. Paul brings them distinctly before
their minds, as an illustration and an admonition. The sense is, "I would
not have you unmindful or forgetful of these things; I would have you
recollect this case, and suffer their example to influence your conduct.
I would not have you suppose that even a solemn consecration to God and
the possession of distinguished tokens of Divine favour are a security
against the danger of sin, and even apostasy; since the example of the
favoured Jews shows that even in such circumstances there is danger."
How that all our fathers. That is, the fathers of the Jewish
community; the fathers of us who are Jews. Paul speaks here as being
himself a Jew, and refers to his own ancestors as such. The word "all"
here seems to be introduced to give emphasis to the fact that even
those who were destroyed (1 Corinthians 10:5) also had this privilege. It
could not be pretended that they had not been devoted to God, since
all of them had been thus consecrated professedly to his service. The
entire Jewish community which Moses led forth from Egypt had thus
been devoted to him.
Were under the cloud. The cloud--the Shechinah--the visible
symbol of the Divine presence and protection that attended them out of
Egypt. This went before them by day as a cloud to guide them, and by
night it became a pillar of fire to give them light, Exodus 13:21,22.
In the dangers of the Jews, when closely pressed by the Egyptians, it
went behind them, and became dark to the Egyptians, but light to the
Israelites, thus constituting a defence, Exodus 14:20. In the
wilderness, when travelling through the burning desert, it seems to have
been expanded over the camp as a covering, and a defence from the intense
rays of a burning sun. Numbers 10:34, "And the cloud of JEHOVAH was upon
them by day." Numbers 14:14, "Thy cloud standeth over them." To this fact
the apostle refers here. It was a symbol of the Divine favour and
protection. Comp. Isaiah 4:5. It was a guide, a shelter, and a
defence. The Jewish rabbins say that "the cloud encompassed the camp
of the Israelites as a wall encompasses a city, nor could the enemy come
near them."--Pirke Eleazar, c. 44, as quoted by Gill. The probability is,
that the cloud extended over the whole camp of Israel, and that to those
at a distance it appeared as a pillar.
And all passed through the sea. The Red Sea, under the guidance of
Moses, and by the miraculous interposition of God, Exodus 14:21,22. This
was also a proof of the Divine protection and favour, and is so
adduced by the apostle. His object is to accumulate the evidences of
the Divine favour to them, and to show that they had as many
securities against apostasy as the Corinthians had, on which they
so much relied.
{a} "under the cloud" Exodus 13:21,22; Numbers 9:18-22
{b} "all passed" Exodus 14:19-22,29
Verse 2. And were all baptized. In regard to the meaning of the word
baptized, See Barnes "Matthew 3:6". We are not to suppose that the
rite of baptism, as we understand it, was formally administered by
Moses, or by any other person, to the Jews, for there is not the least
evidence that any such rite was then known; and the very
circumstances here referred to forbid such an interpretation. They were
baptized "in the cloud" and "in the sea," and this cannot be understood
as a religious rite administered by the hand of man. It is to be
remembered that the word baptism has two senses--the one
referring to the application of water as a religious rite, in whatever
mode it is done; and the other the sense of dedicating,
consecrating, initiating into, or bringing under obligation to. And
it is evidently in this latter sense that the word is used here, as
denoting that they were devoted to Moses as a leader, they were
brought under his laws, they became bound to obey him, they were placed
under his protection and guidance by the miraculous interposition of God.
This was done by the fact that their passing through the sea and
under the cloud, in this manner, brought them under the authority
and direction of Moses as a leader, and was a public recognition of
their being his followers, and being bound to obey his laws.
Unto Moses, (\~eiv\~.) This is the same preposition which is used
in the form of baptism prescribed in Matthew 28:19.
See Barnes "Matthew 28:19". It means that they were thus devoted or
dedicated to Moses; they received and acknowledged him as their ruler
and guide; they professed subjection to his laws, and were brought under
his authority. They were thus initiated into his religion, and thus
recognized his Divine mission, and bound themselves to obey his
injunctions. --Bloomfield.
In the cloud. This cannot be proved to mean that they were enveloped,
and, as it were, immersed in the cloud, for there is no evidence that the
cloud thus enveloped them, or that they were immersed in it as a
person is in water. The whole account in the Old Testament leads us to
suppose that the cloud either passed before them as a pillar, or that it
had the same form in the rear of their camp, or that it was suspended
over them, and was thus the symbol of the Divine protection. It would be
altogether improbable that the dark cloud would pervade the camp. It
would thus embarrass their movements, and there is not the slightest
intimation in the Old Testament that it did. Nor is there any
probability in the supposition of Dr. Gill and others, that the cloud, as
it passed from the rear to the front of the camp, "let down a plentiful
rain upon them, whereby they were in such a condition as if they had been
all over dipped in water." For,
(1.) there is not the slightest intimation of this in the Old Testament.
(2.) The supposition is contrary to the very design of the cloud. It was
not a natural cloud, but was a symbol of the Divine presence and
protection. It was not to give rain on the Israelites, or on the land,
but it was to guide, and to be an emblem of the care of God.
(3.) It is doing violence to the Scriptures to introduce suppositions in
this manner without the slightest authority. It is further to be observed,
that this supposition does by no means give any aid to the cause of
the Baptist after all. In what conceivable sense were they, even
on this supposition, immersed? Is it immersion in water
when one is exposed to a shower of rain? We speak of being
sprinkled or drenched by rain, but is it not a violation of all
propriety of language to say that a man is immersed in a shower? If
the supposition, therefore, is to be admitted, that rain fell from the
cloud as it passed over the Jews, and that this is meant here by
"baptism unto Moses," then it would follow that sprinkling would be
the mode referred to, since this is the only form that has resemblance to
a falling shower. But the supposition is not necessary. Nor is it needful
to suppose that water was applied to them at all. The thing itself is
improbable, and the whole case is met by the simple supposition that
the apostle means that they were initiated in this way into the
religion of Moses, recognized his Divine mission, and under the cloud
became his followers and subject to his laws. And if this interpretation
is correct, then it follows that the word baptize does not
of necessity mean to immerse.
And in the sea. This is another expression that goes to determine
the sense of the word baptize. The sea referred to here is the
Red Sea, and the event was the passage through that sea. The fact in the
case was, that the Lord caused a strong east wind to blow all night, and
made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided, (Exodus 14:21,)
and the waters were a wall unto them on the right hand and on the left,
Exodus 14:22. From this whole narrative it is evident that they passed
through the sea without being immersed in it. The waters were driven
into high adjacent walls for the very purpose that they might pass
between them dry and safe. There is the fullest proof that they were not
submerged in the water. Dr. Gill supposes that the water stood up above
their heads, and that "they seemed to be immersed in it." This might be
true; but this is to give up the idea that the word baptize means always
to immerse in water, since it is a fact, according to this supposition,
that they were not thus immersed, but only seemed to be. And all that
can be meant therefore is, that they were in this manner initiated into
the religion of Moses, convinced of his Divine mission, and brought under
subjection to him as their leader, lawgiver, and guide. This passage is
a very important one to prove that the word baptism does not
necessarily mean entire immersion in water. It is perfectly clear that
neither the cloud nor the waters touched them. "They went through
the midst of the sea on dry ground." It remains only to be asked
whether, if immersion was the only mode of baptism known in the
New Testament, the apostle Paul would have used the word not
only so as not necessarily to imply that, but as necessarily
to mean something else?
{a} "same" Exodus 16:15,35; Nehemiah 9:15,20; Psalms 78:24,25
{*} "meat" "food"
Verse 3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat. That is,
manna; Exodus 16:15,35; Nehemiah 9:15,20. The word meat here is used
in the old English sense of the word, to denote food in general.
They lived on manna. The word spiritual here is evidently used
to denote that which was given by the Spirit, or by God; that which was
the result of his miraculous gift, and which was not produced in the
ordinary way, and which was not the gross food on which men are
usually supported. It had an excellency and value from the fact
that it was the immediate gift of God, and is thus called "angel's
food," Psalms 78:25. It is called by Josephus, "Divine and
extraordinary food," Ant. iii. 1. In the language of the Scriptures,
that which is distinguished for excellence, which is the immediate
gift of God, which is unlike that which is gross and of earthly origin,
is called spiritual, to denote its purity, value, and excellence.
Comp. Romans 7:14; 1 Corinthians 3:1; 15:44,46; Ephesians 1:3. The idea of Paul here is,
that all the Israelites were nourished and supported in this remarkable
manner by food given directly by God; that they all had thus the
evidence of the Divine protection and favour, and were all under his
care.
{a} "same" Exodus 16:15,35; Nehemiah 9:15,20; Psalms 78:24,25
{*} "meat" "food"
Verse 4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink. The idea here is
essentially the same as in the previous verse, that they had been
highly favoured of God, and enjoyed tokens of the Divine care and
guardianship. That was manifested in the miraculous supply of
water in the desert, thus showing that they were under the Divine
protection, and were objects of the Divine favour. There can be no
doubt that by "spiritual drink" here the apostle refers to the water
that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses,
Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11. Why this is called "spiritual" has
been a subject on which there has been much difference of opinion.
It cannot be because there was anything peculiar in the nature of
the water, for it was evidently real water, fitted to allay their thirst.
There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a
reference in this to the drink used in the Lord's Supper. But it
must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural
manner; and the word "spiritual" must be used in the sense of
supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God. Spiritual
blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and
the former denote those which are immediately given by God as
an evidence of the Divine favour. That the Jews used the word
"spiritual" in this manner is evident from the writings of the
Rabbins. Thus they called the manna "spiritual food," (Yade
Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109, 3 ;) and their sacrifices they called
"spiritual bread," (Tzeror Hammor, fol. 93,2.)--Gill. The drink
therefore, here referred to, was that bestowed in a supernatural
manner, and as a proof of the Divine favour.
For they drank of that spiritual Rock. Of the waters which flowed
from that rock. The Rock here is called "spiritual," not from anything
peculiar in the nature of the rock, but because it was the source to
them of supernatural mercies, and became thus the emblem and
demonstration of the Divine favour, and of spiritual mercies, conferred
upon them by God.
That followed them. Margin, Went with, (\~akolouyoushv\~.) This
evidently cannot mean that the rock itself literally followed
them, any more than that they literally drank the rock; for one is
as expressly affirmed, if it be taken literally, as the other. But as
when it is said they "drank of the rock," it must mean that they
drank of the water that flowed from the rock; so when it is said
that the "rock followed" or accompanied them, it must mean that
the water that flowed from the rock accompanied them. This figure
of speech is common everywhere. Thus the Saviour said,
(1 Corinthians 11:25,) "This cup is the new testament," that is, the wine in
this cup represents my blood, etc.; and Paul says, (1 Corinthians 11:25,27,)
"Whosoever shall drink this cup of the Lord unworthily," that is,
the wine in the cup, etc., and, "as often as ye drink this cup," etc.,
that is, the wine contained in the cup. It would be absurd to suppose
that the rock that was smitten by Moses literally followed
them in the wilderness; and there is not the slightest evidence in
the Old Testament that it did. Water was twice brought out of a
rock to supply the wants of the children of Israel. Once at Mount
Horeb, as recorded in Exodus 17:6, in the wilderness of Sin, in the
first year of their departure from Egypt. The second time water
was brought from a rock about the time of the death of Miriam, at
Kadesh, and probably in the fortieth year of their departure from
Egypt, Numbers 20:1. It was to the former of these occasions that
the apostle evidently refers. In regard to this we may observe,
(1.) that there must have been furnished a large quantity of water
to have supplied the wants of more than two millions of people.
(2.) It is expressly stated, (Deuteronomy 9:21,) that "the brook
(\^HEBREW\^) stream, torrent, or river, see Numbers 34:5; Joshua 15:4,47;
1 Kings 8:65; 2 Kings 24:7 descended out of the mount," and was evidently a
stream of considerable size.
(3.) Mount Horeb was higher than the adjacent country; and the water that
thus gushed from the rock, instead of collecting into a pool and becoming
stagnant, would flow off in the direction of the sea.
(4.) The sea to which it would naturally flow would be the Red Sea, in
the direction of the Eastern or Elanitic branch of that sea.
(5.) The Israelites would doubtless, in their journeyings, be influenced
by the natural direction of the water, or would not wander far from it,
as it was daily needful for the supply of their wants.
(6.) At the end of thirty-seven years we find the Israelites at
Ezion-geber, a seaport on the eastern branch of the Red Sea, where the
waters probably flowed into the sea, Numbers 33:36. In the fortieth
year of their departure from Egypt, they left this place to go into
Canaan by the country of Edom, and were immediately in distress
again by the want of water. It is thus probable that the water from
the rock continued to flow, and that it constituted a stream, or
river; that it was near their camp all the time till they came to
Ezion-geber; and that thus, together with the daily supply of manna,
it was a proof of the protection of God, and an emblem of their
dependence. If it be said that there is now no such stream to be
found there, it is to be observed that it is represented as miraculous,
and that it would be just as reasonable to look for the daily descent
of manna there in quantities sufficient to supply more than two
millions of men, as to expect to find the gushing and running river
of water. The only question is, whether God can work a miracle,
and whether there is evidence that he has done it. This is not the
place to examine that question. But the evidence is as strong that
he wrought this miracle as that he gave the manna, and neither of
them is inconsistent with the power, the wisdom, or the benevolence
of God.
And that Rock was Christ. This cannot be intended to be understood
literally, for it was not literally true. The rock from which the water
flowed was evidently an ordinary rock, a part of Mount Horeb; and all
that this can mean is, that that rock, with the stream of water thus
gushing from it, was a representation of the Messiah. The word
was is thus often used to denote similarity or representation, and
is not to be taken literally. Thus, in the institution of the Lord's
Supper, the Saviour says of the bread, "This is my body," that is, it
represents my body. Thus also of the cup, "This cup is the new
testament in my blood," that is, it represents my blood,
1 Corinthians 11:24,25. Thus the gushing fountain of water might be regarded
as a representation of the Messiah, and of the blessings which result
from him. The apostle does not say that the Israelites knew that this
was designed to be a representation of the Messiah, and of the blessings
which flow from him, though there is nothing improbable in the
supposition that they so understood and regarded it, since all their
institutions were probably regarded as typical. But he evidently does
mean to say that the rock was a vivid and affecting representation of
the Messiah; that the Jews did partake of the mercies that flow from
him; and that even in the desert they were under his care, and had in
fact among them a vivid representation of him, in some sense
corresponding with the emblematic representation of the same favours
which the Corinthian and other Christians had in the Lord's Supper. This
representation of the Messiah, perhaps, was understood by Paul to consist
in the following things:
(1.) Christians, like the children of Israel, are passing through the
world as pilgrims, and to them that world is a wilderness--a desert.
(2.) They need continued supplies, as the Israelites did, in their
journey. The world, like that wilderness, does not meet their
necessities, or supply their wants.
(3.) That rock was a striking representation of the fulness of the
Messiah, of the abundant grace which he imparts to his people.
(4.) It was an illustration of their continued and constant dependence
on him for the daily supply of their wants. It should be observed, that
many expositors understand this literally. Bloomfield translates it,
"And they were supplied with drink from the spiritual Rock which
followed them, even Christ." So Rosenmuller, Calvin, Glass, etc. In
defence of this interpretation, it is said, that the Messiah is often
called "a rock" in the Scriptures; that the Jews believed that the
"angel of JEHOVAH" who attended them, (Exodus 3:2, and other
places,) was the Messiah; and that the design of the apostle was
to show that this attending Rock, the Messiah, was the source of all
their blessings, and particularly of the water that gushed from the
rock. But the interpretation suggested above seems to me to be
most natural. The design of the apostle is apparent. It is to show
to the Corinthians, who relied so much on their privileges, and felt
themselves so secure, that the Jews had the very same privileges--
had the highest tokens of the Divine favour and protection, were
under the guidance and grace of God, and were partakers constantly
of that which adumurated or typified the Messiah, in a manner as
real, and in a form as much fitted to keep up the remembrance of
their dependence, as even the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper.
{b} "spiritual drink" Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11
{1} "followed" "went with"
Verse 5. But with many of them, etc. That is, with their conduct.
They rebelled and sinned, and were destroyed. The design of the apostle
here is to remind them, that although they enjoyed so many privileges,
yet they were destroyed; and thus to admonish the Corinthians
that their privileges did not constitute an absolute security from
danger, and that they should be cautious against the indulgence of sin.
The phrase rendered here "with many," (\~en toiv pleiosin\~,) should
have been rendered, "with most of them ;" literally, "with the many;"
and it means, that with the greater part of them God was not well
pleased; that is, he was pleased with but few of them.
Was not well pleased.
Was offended with their ingratitude and rebellion.
For they were overthrown, etc. That is, by the pestilence, by wars,
or died by natural and usual diseases, so that they did not reach the
land of Canaan. But two men of that generation, Caleb and Joshua,
were permitted to enter the land of promise, Numbers 14:29,30.
{*} "many" "most"
{+} "overthrown" "Destroyed"
{a} "in the wilderness" Numbers 14:29-35; 26:64,65; Hebrews 3:17; Jude 1:5
Verse 6. Now these things. The judgments inflicted on them by God for
their sins.
Were our examples. Greek, Types, (\~tupoi\~;) margin,
Figures. They were not designed to be types of us, but they are
to be held up as furnishing an admonition to us, or a warning that we
do not sin in the same way. The same God directs our affairs that
ordered theirs; and if we sin as they did, we also must expect to be
punished, and excluded from the favour of God, and from heaven.
Lust after evil things. Desire those things which are forbidden,
and which would be injurious. They lusted after flesh, and God
granted them their desires; and the consequence was a plague, and
the destruction of multitudes, Numbers 11:4,31-34. So Paul infers
that the Corinthian Christians should not lust after, or desire the meat
offered in sacrifice to idols, lest it should lead them also to sin and
ruin.
{1} "examples" "the figures"
{&} "lust after" "desire"
{b} "they also lusted" Numbers 11:4,33,34
{|} "lusted" "desired"
Verse 7. Neither be ye idolaters. This caution is evidently given in view
of the danger to which they would be exposed if they partook of the
feasts that were celebrated in honour of idols in their temples. The
particular idolatry which is referred to here is, the worship of the
golden calf that was made by Aaron, Exodus 32:1-6.
As it is written. Exodus 32:6.
The people sat down to eat and drink. To worship the golden calf.
They partook of a feast in honour of that idol. I have already
observed, that it was common to keep a feast in honour of an idol, and
that the food which was eaten on such an occasion was mainly the meat
which had been offered in sacrifice to it. This instance was
particularly to the apostle's purpose, as he was cautioning the
Corinthians against the danger of participating in the feasts
celebrated in the heathen temples.
And rose up to play. \~paizein\~. The Hebrew word used in
Exodus 32:6, (\^HEBREW\^,) means to laugh, to sport,
to jest, to mock, to insult, (Genesis 21:9;) and then to engage in
dances accompanied with music, in honour of an idol. This was often
practised, as the worship of idols was celebrated with songs and
dances. This is particularly affirmed of this instance of idol worship,
(Exodus 32:19;) and this was common among ancient idolaters; and
this mode of worship was even adopted by David before the ark of the
Lord, 2 Samuel 6:6; 1 Chronicles 13:8; 15:29. All that the word "to play" here
necessarily implies is, that of choral songs and dances, accompanied
with revelry in honour of the idol. It was however the fact, that such
worship was usually accompanied with much licentiousness; but that is
not necessarily implied in the use of the word. Most of the oriental
dances were grossly indecent and licentious; and the word here may be
designed to include such indelicacy and licentiousness.
{c} "as it is written" Exodus 32:6
Verse 8. Neither let us commit fornication, etc. The case referred to
here was that of the licentious intercourse with the daughters of
Moab, referred to in Numbers 25:1-9.
And fell in one day. Were slain for their sin by the plague that
prevailed.
Three and twenty thousand. The Hebrew text in Numbers 25:9,
is twenty-four thousand. In order to reconcile these statements, it may
be observed, that perhaps twenty-three thousand fell directly by the
plague, and one thousand were slain by Phinehas and his companions,
(Grotius;) or it may be that the number was between twenty-three and
twenty-four thousand, and it might be expressed in round numbers by either.
--Macknight. At all events, Paul has not exceeded the truth. There
were at least twenty-three thousand that fell, though there might have
been more. The probable supposition is, that the three and twenty
thousand fell immediately by the hand of God in the plague, and
the other thousand by the judges; and as Paul's design was particularly
to mention the proofs of the immediate Divine displeasure,
he refers only to those who fell by that, in illustration of his subject.
There was a particular reason for this caution in respect to
licentiousness.
(1.) It was common among all idolaters; and Paul, in cautioning them
against idolatry, would naturally warn them of this danger.
(2.) It was common at Corinth. It was the prevalent vice there.
To Corinthianize was a term synonymous among the ancients with
licentiousness.
(3.) So common was this at Corinth, that, as we have seen, (see the
Introduction,) not less than a thousand prostitutes were supported in a
single temple there; and the city was visited by vast multitudes of
foreigners, among other reasons on account of its facilities for this
sin. Christians, therefore, were in a peculiar manner exposed to it; and
hence the anxiety of the apostle to warn them against it.
{d} "some of them" Numbers 25:1-9
Verse 9. Neither let us tempt Christ, etc. The word tempt,
when applied to man, means to present motives or inducements to sin:
when used with reference to God, it means, to try his patience, to
provoke his anger, or to act in such a way as to see how much he will
bear, and how long he will endure the wickedness and perverseness of
men. The Israelites tempted him, or tried his patience and
forbearance, by rebellion, murmuring, impatience, and dissatisfaction
with his dealings. In what way the Corinthians were in danger of
tempting Christ is not known, and can only be conjectured. It may be
that the apostle cautions them against exposing themselves to
temptation in the idol temples--placing themselves, as it were, under the
unhappy influence of idolatry, and thus needlessly trying, the
strength of their religion, and making an experiment on the grace of
Christ, as if he were bound to keep them even in the midst of dangers
into which they needlessly ran. They would have the promise of grace
to keep them only when they were in the way of their duty, arid
using all other precautions. To go beyond this, to place themselves
in needless danger, to presume on the grace of Christ to keep them
in all circumstances, would be to tempt him, and provoke him to
leave them. See Barnes "Matthew 4:7".
As some of them also tempted. There is evidently here a word to be
understood, and it may be either "Christ" or "God." The construction
would naturally require the former; but it is not certain that the
apostle meant to say that the Israelites tempted Christ. The main idea
is that of temptation, whether it be of Christ or of God; and the
purpose of the apostle is to caution them against the danger of tempting
Christ, from the fact that the Israelites were guilty of the sin of
tempting their leader and protector, and thus exposing themselves to his
anger. It cannot be denied, however, that the more natural construction
of this place is that which supposes that the word "Christ" is
understood here rather than" God." In order to relieve this
interpretation from the difficulty that the Israelites could not be said
with any propriety to have tempted "Christ," since he had not then
come in the flesh, two remarks may be made: First, by the "angel of the
covenant," and the "angel of his presence," (Exodus 23:20,23; 32:34
Exodus 33:2; Numbers 20:16; Isaiah 63:9; Hebrews 11:26,) that went with them, and
delivered them from Egypt, there is reason to think the sacred writers
understood the Messiah to be intended; and that he who subsequently
became incarnate was he whom they tempted. And, secondly, we are to bear
in mind that the term Christ has acquired with us a signification
somewhat different from that which it originally had in the New Testament.
We use it as a proper name, applied to Jesus of Nazareth. But it
is to be remembered that it is the mere Greek word for the Hebrew
"Anointed," or the "Messiah;" and by retaining this signification of the
word here, no small part of the difficulty will be avoided; and the
expression then will mean simply that the Israelites "tempted
the Messiah;" and the idea will be that he who conducted them, and
against whom they sinned, and whom they tempted, was the Messiah
who afterwards became incarnate; an idea that is in accordance with the
ancient ideas of the Jews respecting this personage, and which is
not forbidden, certainly, in any part of the Bible.
And were destroyed of serpents. Fiery serpents. Numbers 21:6.
{e} "tempt Christ" Exodus 17:2,7
{f} "serpents" Numbers 21:6
Verse 10. Neither murmur ye. Do not repine at the allotments of
Providence, or complain of his dealings.
As some of them also murmured. Numbers 14:2. The ground of their
murmuring was, that they had been disappointed; that they had been
brought out of a land of plenty into a wilderness of want; and that
instead of being conducted at once to the land of promise, they were
left to perish in the desert. They therefore complained of their leaders,
and proposed to return again into Egypt.
And were destroyed of the destroyer. That is, they were doomed to die
in the wilderness without seeing the land of Canaan, Numbers 14:29.
The "destroyer" here is understood by many to mean the angel of
death, so often referred to in the Old Testament, and usually called
by the Jews Sammael. The work of death, however, is attributed to an
angel in Exodus 12:23. Compare Hebrews 11:28. It was customary for the
Hebrews to regard most human events as under the direction of angels.
In Hebrews 2:14, he is described as he "that had the power of death."
Comp. the Book of Wisdom, xviii. 22, 25. The simple idea here however
is, that they died for their sin, and were not permitted to enter the
promised land.
{a} "murmured" Numbers 14:2,29
{b} "destroyer" 2 Samuel 24:16
Verse 11. For ensamples. Greek, Types. (\~tupoi\~). The same
word which is used in 1 Corinthians 10:6. This verse is a repetition of the
admonition contained in that verse, in order to impress it more deeply
on the memory. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 10:6". The sense is, not that these
things took place simply and solely to be examples, or admonitions, but
that their occurrence illustrated great principles of human nature
and of the Divine government; they showed the weakness of men,
and their liability to fall into sin, and their need of the Divine
protection, and they might thus be used for the admonition of
succeeding generations.
They are written for our admonition. They are recorded in the
writings of Moses, in order that we and all others might be admonished
not to confide in our own strength. The admonition did not pertain
merely to the Corinthians, but had an equal applicability to Christians
in all ages of the world.
Upon whom the ends of the world are come. This expression is
equivalent to that which so often occurs in the Scriptures, as "the
last time," "the latter day," etc. See it fully explained
See Barnes "Acts 2:17". It means the last dispensation; or, that
period and mode of the Divine administration under which the affairs of
the world would be wound up. There would be no mode of administration
beyond that of the gospel. But it by no means denotes necessarily
that the continuance of this period called "the last times," and
"the ends of the world," would be brief, or that the apostle believed
that the world would soon come to an end. It might be the last
period, and yet be longer than any one previous period, or than all
the previous periods put together. There may be a last dynasty in
an empire, and yet it may be longer than any previous dynasty, or
than all the previous dynasties put together. The apostle Paul was
at special pains in 2 Thessalonians 2 to show, that by affirming that the
last time had come, he did not mean that the world would soon
come to an end.
{*} "things" "types"
{1} "ensamples" "examples"
Verse 12. Wherefore. As the result of all these admonitions. Let this
be the effect of all that we learn from the unhappy self-confidence
of the Jews, to admonish us not to put reliance on our own strength.
That thinketh he standeth. That supposes himself to be firm in
the love of God, and in the knowledge of his truth; that regards
himself as secure, and that will be therefore disposed to rely on his
own strength.
Take heed lest he fall. Into sin, idolatry, or any other form of
iniquity. We learn here,
(1.) that a confidence in our own security is no evidence that we are
safe.
(2.) Such a confidence may be one of the strongest evidences that we are
in danger. Those are most safe who feel that they are weak and feeble,
and who feel their need of Divine aid and strength. They will then rely
on the true source of strength; and they will be secure.
(3.) All professed Christians should be admonished. All are in danger of
falling into sin, and of dishonouring their profession; and the
exhortation cannot be too often or too urgently pressed, that they
should take heed lest they fall into sin. The leading and special
idea of the apostle here should not be forgotten or disregarded. It
is, that Christians in their favoured moments, when they are
permitted to approach near to God, and when the joys of salvation fill
their hearts, should exercise peculiar caution. For
(a.) then the adversary will be peculiarly desirous to draw away their
thoughts from God, and to lead them into sin, as their fall would most
signally dishonour religion;
(b.) then they will be less likely to be on their guard, and more likely
to feel themselves strong, and not to need caution and solicitude.
Accordingly, it often happens that Christians, after they have been
peculiarly favoured with the tokens of the Divine favour, soon relapse
into their former state, or fall into some sin that grieves the hearts
of their brethren, or wounds the cause of religion. So it is in revivals;
so it is in individuals. Churches that are thus favoured are filled with
joy, and love, and peace. Yet they become self-confident and elated;
they lose their humility and their sense of their dependence; they cease
to be watchful and prayerful, supposing that all is safe; and the result
often is, that a season of revival is succeeded by a time of coldness
and declension. And thus, too, it is with individuals. Just the
opposite effect is produced from what should be, and from what
need be. Christians should then be peculiarly on their guard; and
if they then availed themselves of their elevated advantages, churches
might be favoured with continued revivals and ever-growing piety;
and individuals might be filled with joy, and peace, and holiness,
and ever-expanding and increasing love.
{c} "Wherefore" Proverbs 28:14; Romans 11:20
Verse 13. There hath no temptation taken you. What temptation the
apostle refers to here is not quite certain. It is probable, however,
that he refers to such as would, in their circumstances, have a
tendency to induce them to forsake their allegiance to their Lord,
and to lead them into idolatry and sin. These might be either open
persecutions, or afflictions on account of their religion; or they
might be the various allurements which were spread around them
from the prevalence of idolatry. They might be the open attacks of
their enemies, or the sneers and the derision of the gay and the
great. The design of the apostle evidently is to show them that, if
they were faithful, they had nothing to fear from any such forms of
temptation, but that God was able to bring them through them all.
The sentiment in the verse is a very important one, since the general
principle here stated is as applicable to Christians now as it was to
the Corinthians.
Taken you. Seized upon you, or assailed you. As when an enemy grasps
us, and attempts to hold us fast.
But such as is common to man. (\~ei mh anywpinov\~.) Such as is human.
Margin, Moderate. The sense is evident. It means such as human
nature is liable to, and has been often subjected to; such as the
human powers, under the Divine aid, may be able to resist and repel.
The temptations which they had been subjected to were not such
as would be fitted to angelic powers, and such as would require
angelic strength to resist; but they were such as human nature had
been often subjected to, and such as man had often contended with
successfully. There is therefore, here, a recognition of the doctrine
that man has natural ability to resist all the temptations to which
he is subject; and that consequently, if he yields, he is answerable
for it. The design of the apostle is to comfort the Corinthians, and
to keep their minds from despondency. He had portrayed their
danger; he had shown them how others had fallen; and they might
be led to suppose that in such circumstances they could not be
secure. He therefore tells them that they might still be safe, for
their temptations were such as human nature had often been subject
to, and God was able to keep them from falling.
But God is faithful. This was the only source of security; and this
was enough. If they looked only to themselves, they would fall. If they
depended on the faithfulness of God, they would be secure. The sense
is, not that God would keep them without any effort of their own; not
that he would secure them if, they plunged into temptation; but that if
they used the proper means, if they resisted temptation, and sought his
aid, and depended on his promises, then he would be faithful. This is
everywhere implied in the Scriptures; and to depend on the faithfulness
of God, otherwise than in the proper use of means and in avoiding the
places of temptation, is to tempt him, and provoke him to wrath.
See Barnes "Matthew 4:1" and following.
Who will not suffer you to be tempted, etc. This is a general
promise, just as applicable to all Christians as it was to the
Corinthians. It implies,
(1.) that all the circumstances, causes, and agents that lead to
temptation, are under the control of God. Every man that tempts
another; every fallen spirit that is engaged in this; every book,
picture, place of amusement; every charm of music and of song; every
piece of indecent statuary; and every plan of business, Of gain, or
ambition, are all under the control of God. He can check them; he can
control them; he can paralyze their influence; he can destroy them.
Comp. Matthew 6:13.
(2.) When men are tempted, it is because God suffers or permits
it. He does not himself tempt men, (James 1:13;) he does not infuse
evil thoughts into the mind; he does not create an object of temptation
to place in our way, but he suffers it to be placed there by others. When
we are tempted, therefore, we are to remember that it is because he
suffers or permits it; not because he does it. His agency is that
of sufferance, not of creation. We are to remember, too, that there is
some good reason why it is thus permitted; and that it may be turned in
some way to his glory, and to our advancement in virtue.
(3.) There is a certain extent to which we are able to resist
temptation. There is a limit to our power. There is a point beyond
which we are not able to resist it. We have not the strength of
angels.
(4.) That limit will, in all cases, be beyond the point to which we are
tempted. If not, there would be no sin in falling, any more than there
is sin in the oak when it is prostrated before the tempest.
(5.) If men fall into sin, under the power of temptation, they only are to
blame. They have strength to resist all the temptations that assail
them, and God has given the assurance that no temptation shall occur
which they shall not be able, by his aid, to resist. In all instances,
therefore, where men fall into sin--in all the yielding to passion, to
allurement, and to vice--man is to blame, and must be responsible to
God. And this is especially true of Christians, who, whatever may be
said of others, cannot plead that there was not power sufficient to
meet the temptation, or to turn aside its power.
But will with the temptation, etc. He will, at the same time that
he suffers the trial or temptation to befall us, make a way of
deliverance; he will save us from being entirely overcome by it.
That ye may be able to bear it. Or, that you may be able to bear up
under it, or endure it. God knows what his people are able to endure,
and as he has entire control of all that can effect them, he will adapt
all trials to their strength, and will enable them to bear all that is
appointed to them. This is a general promise, and is as applicable to
other Christians as it was to the Corinthians. It was to them a positive
promise, and to all in the same circumstances it may be regarded as
such now. It may be used therefore,
(1.) as a ground of encouragement to those who are in temptation and
trial. God knows what they are able to endure; and he will sustain them
in their temptations. It matters not how severe the trial; or how long
it may be continued; or how much they may feel their own feebleness; yet
he who has appointed the trial is abundantly able to uphold them. They
may, therefore, repose their all upon him, and trust to his sustaining
grace.
(2.) It may be used as an argument, that none who are true Christians,
and who are thus tried, shall ever fall away, and be lost. The promise is
positive and certain, that a way shall be made for their escape, and they
shall be able to bear it. God is faithful to them; and though he
might suffer them to be tempted beyond what they are able to bear,
yet he will not, but will secure an egress from all their trials. With
this promise in view, how can it be believed that any true Christians
who are tempted will be suffered to fall away and perish? If they do, it
must be from one of the following causes: either because God is
not faithful; or because he will suffer them to be tempted above
what they are able to bear; or because he will not make a way for
their escape. As no Christian can believe either of these, it follows
that they who are converted shall be kept unto salvation.
{2} "common" "moderate"
{a} "who will not suffer" Daniel 3:17; 2 Peter 2:9
{b} "able" James 5:11
Verse 14. Wherefore. In view of the dangers and temptations that
beset you; in view of your own feebleness, and the perils to which
you would be exposed in the idol temples, etc.
Flee from idolatry. Escape from the service of idols; from the
feasts celebrated in honour of them; from the temples where they are
worshipped. This was one of the dangers to which they were peculiarly
exposed; and Paul therefore exhorts them to escape from everything that
would have a tendency to lead them into this sin. He had told them,
indeed, that God was faithful; and yet he did not expect God would keep
them without any effort of their own. He therefore exhorts them to flee
from all approaches to it, and from all the customs which would have
a tendency to lead them into idolatrous practices. He returns,
therefore, in this verse, to the particular subject discussed in
chapter 8--the propriety of partaking of the feasts in honour of idols;
and shows the danger which would follow such a practice. That danger he
sets forth in view of the admonitions contained in this chapter, from
1 Corinthians 10:1-12. The remainder of the chapter is occupied with a
discussion of the question stated in 1 Corinthians 8, whether it was right
for them to partake of the meat which was used in the feasts of
idolaters.
{c} "beloved" 1 John 5:21
Verse 15. I speak as to wise men. I speak to men qualified to
understand the subject; and present reasons which will commend
themselves to you. The reasons referred to are those which occupy the
remainder of the chapter.
Verse 16. The cup of blessing which we bless. The design of this
verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by
partaking of the Lord's Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service
of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge him as their Lord, and
dedicate themselves to him; and that, as they could not and ought
not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time,
so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honour of idols, or
in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged.
1 Corinthians 10:21. He states therefore,
(1.) that Christians are united and dedicated to Christ in the
communion, 1 Corinthians 10:16,17.
(2.) That this was true of the Israelites, that they were one people,
devoted by the service of the altar to the same God, 1 Corinthians 10:18.
(3.) That though an idol was nothing, yet the heathen actually
sacrificed to devils, and Christians ought not to partake with them,
1 Corinthians 10:19-21. The phrase, "cup of blessing," evidently refers to the
wine used in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is called "the
cup of blessing" because over it Christians praise or bless God for his
mercy in providing redemption. It is not because it is the means of
conveying a blessing to the souls of those who partake of it--though
that is true--but because thanksgiving, blessing, and praise were
rendered to God in the celebration, for the benefits of redemption.
See Barnes "Matthew 26:26" Or it may mean, in accordance with a
well-known
Hebraism, the blessed cup; the cup that is blessed. This is the more
literal interpretation; and it is adopted by Calvin, Beza, Doddridge,
and others.
Which we bless. Grotius, Macknight, Vetablus, Bloomfield,
and many of the Fathers suppose that this means, "over which we bless
God;" or, "for which we bless God." But this is to do violence to the
passage. The more obvious signification is, that there is a sense in
which it may be said that the cup is blessed, and that by prayer and
praise it is set apart and rendered in some sense sacred to the
purposes of religion. It cannot mean that the cup has undergone any
physical change, or that the wine is anything but wine; but that it has
been solemnly set apart to the service of religion, and by prayer and
praise designated to be used for the purpose of commemorating the
Saviour's love. That may be said to be blessed which is set apart to a
sacred use, (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11;) and in this sense the cup may be said
to be blessed. See Luke 9:16: "And he took the five loaves and the
two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed THEM," etc. Comp.
Genesis 14:9; 27:23,33,41; 28:1; Leviticus 9:22,23; 2 Samuel 6:18; 1 Kings 8:14.
Is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? Is it not the emblem
by which the blood of Christ is exhibited, and the means by which
our union through that blood is exhibited? Is it not the means by
which we express our attachment to him as Christians; showing
our union to him and to each other; and showing that we partake
in common of the benefits of his blood? The main idea is, that by
partaking of this cup they showed that they were united to him and
to each other; and that they should regard themselves as set apart
to him. We have communion with one, (\~koinwnia\~, that which is in
common, that which pertains to all, that which evinces fellowship,)
when we partake together; when all have an equal right, and all
share alike; when the same benefits or the same obligations are
extended to all. And the sense here is, that Christians partake
alike in the benefits of the blood of Christ; they share the same
blessings; and they express this together, and in common, when they
partake of the communion.
The bread, etc. In the communion. It shows, since we all partake of
it, that we share alike in the benefits which are imparted by means of
the broken body of the Redeemer. In like manner it is implied, that if
Christians should partake with idolaters in the feasts offered in honour
of idols, that they would be regarded as partaking with them in the
services of idols, or as united to them, and therefore such participation
was improper.
Verse 17. For we. We Christians.
Being many. Greek, The many. \~oi polloi\~. The idea is not, as our
translation would seem to indicate, that Christians were numerous, but
that all (for \~oi polloi\~ is here evidently used in the sense of
\~pantev\~, all) were united, and constituted one society.
Are one bread. One loaf; one cake. That is, we are united, or are
one. There is evident allusion here to the fact that the loaf or cake
was composed of many separate grains of wheat, or portions of flour
united in one; or, that as one loaf was broken and partaken by all, it
was implied that they were all one. We are all one society; united as
one, and for the same object. Our partaking of the same bread is an
emblem of the fact that we are one. In almost all nations the act of
eating together has been regarded as a symbol of unity or friendship.
And one body. One society; united together.
For we are all partakers, etc. And we thus show publicly that we are
united, and belong to the same great family. The argument is, that if we
partake of the feasts in honour of idols with their worshippers, we
shall thus show that we are a part of their society.
{*} "one bread" "Loaf"
Verse 18. Behold Israel. Look at the Jews. The design here is to
illustrate the sentiment which he was establishing, by a reference
to the fact that among the Jews those who partook of the same
sacrifices were regarded as being one people, and as worshipping
one God. So, if they partook of the sacrifices offered to idols, they
would be regarded also as being fellow-worshippers of idols with
them.
After the flesh. See Romans 4:1. The phrase, "after the
flesh," is designed to denote the Jews who were not converted to
Christianity; the natural descendants of Israel, or Jacob.
Are not they which eat of the sacrifices. A portion of the sacrifices
offered to God was eaten by the offerer, and another portion by the
priests. Some portions of the animal, as the fat, were burnt; and the
remainder, unless it was a holocaust, or whole burnt-offering, was
then the property of the priests who had officiated, or of the persons
who had brought it, Exodus 29:13,22; Leviticus 3:4,10,15; 4:9; 7:3,4; 8:26.
The right shoulder and the breast was the part which was assigned to the
priests; the remainder belonged to the offerer.
Partakers of the altar? Worshippers of the same God. They are united
in their worship, and are so regarded. And in like manner, if you partake
of the sacrifices offered to idols, and join with their worshippers in
their temples, you will be justly regarded as united with them in their
worship, and partaking with them in their abominations.
{a} "after the flesh" Romans 4:1,12
{b} "are not" 1 Corinthians 9:13
Verse 19. What say I then? This is in the present tense: \~ti oun fhmi\~,
what do I say? What is my meaning ? What follows from this?
Do I mean to say that an idol is anything; that it has a real existence?
Does my reasoning lead to that conclusion--and am I to be understood as
affirming that an idol is of itself of any consequence? It must be
recollected that the Corinthian Christians are introduced by Paul
(1 Corinthians 8:4) as saying that they knew that an idol was nothing in the
world. Paul did not directly contradict that; but his reasoning had
led him to the necessity of calling the propriety of their attending on
the feasts of idols in question; and he introduces the matter now by
asking these questions, thus leading the mind to it rather than directly
affirming it at once. "Am I in this reasoning to be understood as
affirming that an idol is anything, or that the meat there offered
differs from other meat? No; you know, says Paul, that this is not my
meaning. I admit that an idol in itself is nothing: but I do not
admit, therefore, that it is right for you to attend in their temples;
for though the idol itself--the block of wood or stone--is nothing,
yet the offerings are really made to devils; and I would not have you
engage in such a service," 1 Corinthians 10:20,21.
That the idol is any thing? That the block of wood or stone is a real
living object of worship, to be dreaded or loved?
See Barnes "1 Corinthians 8:4".
Or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? Or that
the meat which is offered differs from that which is not offered; that
the mere act of offering it changes its qualities? I do not admit or
suppose this.
{c} 1 Corinthians 8:4
Verse 20. But. The negative here is omitted, but is understood. The
ellipsis of a negative after an interrogative sentence is common in
the classical writers, as well as in the Scriptures.--Bloomfield.
The sense is, "No; I do not say this, but I say that there are reasons
why you should not partake of those sacrifices; and one of those
reasons is, that they have been really offered to devils."
They sacrifice to devils, (\~daimonioiv\~, demons.) The heathens used the
word demon either in a good or a bad sense. They applied it commonly
to spirits that were supposed to be inferior to the supreme God:
genii; attending spirits; or, as they called them, divinities, or gods.
A part were in their view good, and a part evil. Socrates supposed
that such a demon or genius attended him, who suggested good
thoughts to him, and who was his protector. As these beings were
good and well disposed, it was not supposed to be necessary to offer
any sacrifices in order to appease them. But a large portion of those
genii were supposed to be evil and wicked, and hence the necessity
of attempting to appease their wrath by sacrifices and bloody-offerings.
It was therefore true, as the apostle says, that the sacrifices
of the heathen were made, usually at least, to devils or to evil
spirits. Many of these spirits were supposed to be the souls of departed
men, who were entitled to worship after death, having been enrolled among
the gods. The word "demons," among the Jews, was employed only to
designate evil beings. It is not applied in their writings to good angels
or to blessed spirits, but to evil angels, to idols, to false gods. Thus
in the Seventy, the word is used to translate \^HEBREW\^, Elilim,
idols, (Psalms 96:5; Isaiah 65:10;) and Shaid, as in
Deuteronomy 32:17, in a passage which Paul has here almost literally used,
"They sacrificed unto devils, not to God." Nowhere in the Septuagint is
it used in a good sense. In the New Testament the word is uniformly used
also to denote evil spirits, and those usually which had taken possession
of men in the time of the Saviour, Matthew 7:22; 9:33,34; 10:8; 11:18;
Mark 1:34,39, et alii. See also Campbell on the Gospels, Pre. Diss.
vi., part i., & 14--16. The precise force of the original is not,
however, conveyed by our translation. It is not true that the heathens
sacrificed to devils, in the common and popular sense of that word,
meaning thereby the apostate angel and the spirits under his direction;
for the heathens were as ignorant of their existence as they were of the
true God; and it is not true that they designed to worship such
beings. But it is true,
(1.) that they did not worship the supreme and the true God. They were
not acquainted with his existence; and they did not profess to adore him.
(2.) They worshipped demons; beings that they regarded as inferior
to the true God; created spirits, or the spirits of men that had been
enrolled among the number of the gods.
(3.) It was true that many of these beings were supposed to be malign
and evil in their nature, and that their worship was designed to
deprecate their wrath. So that, although an idol was nothing in itself,
the gold or wood of which it was made was inanimate, and incapable of
aiding or injuring them; and although there were no real beings such as
the heathens supposed--no genii or inferior gods--yet they
designed to offer sacrifice to such beings, and to deprecate their
wrath. To join them in this, therefore, would be to express the belief
that there were such beings, and that they ought to be worshipped, and
that their wrath should be deprecated.
I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. I would not
that you should have communion with demons. I would not have
you express a belief of their existence; or join in worship to them;
or partake of the spirit by which they are supposed to be actuated--
a spirit that would be promoted by attendance on their worship. I
would not have you, therefore, join in a mode of worship where
such beings are acknowledged. You are solemnly dedicated to
Christ; and the homage due to him should not be divided with
homage offered to devils, or to imaginary beings.
{a} "devils" Leviticus 17:7; Deuteronomy 32:17; Psalms 106:37
{*} "devils" "demons"
Verse 21. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, etc. This does not
mean that they had no physical ability to do this, or that it was a
natural impossibility; for they certainly had power to do it. But it must
mean that they could not consistently do it. It was not fit, proper,
decent. They were solemnly bound to serve and obey Christ: they
had devoted themselves to him; and they could not, consistently
with these obligations, join in the worship of demons. This is a
striking instance in which the word cannot is used to denote not
natural but moral inability.
And the cup of devils. Demons, 1 Corinthians 10:20. In the feasts in
honour of the gods, wine was poured out as a libation, or drunk by the
worshippers. See Virg. AEn. viii. 273. The custom of drinking
toasts at feasts and celebrations arose from this practice of pouring
out wine, or drinking in honour of the heathen gods; and is a practice
that partakes still of the nature of heathenism. It was one of the
abominations of heathenism to suppose that their gods would be pleased
with the intoxicating draught. Such a pouring out of a libation was
usually accompanied with a prayer to the idol god, that he would
accept the offering; that he would be propitious; and that he would grant
the desire of the worshipper. From that custom the habit of expressing a
sentiment, or proposing a toast, uttered in drinking wine, has been
derived. The toast or sentiment which now usually accompanies the
drinking of a glass in this manner, if it mean anything, is now also
a prayer: but to whom? to the god of wine? to a heathen deity? Can
it be supposed that it is a prayer offered to the true God--the God of
purity? Has Jehovah directed that prayer should be offered to him
in such a manner? Can it be acceptable to him? Either the sentiment is
unmeaning, or it is a prayer offered to a heathen god, or it is mockery
of JEHOVAH; and in either case it is improper and wicked. And it may as
truly be said now of Christians as in the time of Paul, "Ye cannot
consistently drink the cup of the Lord at the communion table, and the
cup where a PRAYER, is offered to a false god, or to the dead, or to the
air; or when, if it means anything, it is a mockery of JEHOVAH." Now,
can a Christian with any more consistency or propriety join in such
celebrations, and in such unmeaning or profane libations, than he could
go into the temple of an idol, and partake of the idolatrous celebrations
there?
And of the table of devils. Demons. It is not needful to the force
of this that we should suppose that the word means necessarily evil
spirits. They were not God; and to worship theta was idolatry. The
apostle means that Christians could not consistently join in the
worship that was offered to them, or in the feasts celebrated in honour
of them.
{b} "cup" Deuteronomy 32:38
{*} "devils" "demons"
Verse 22. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? That is, shall we, by
joining in the worship of idols, provoke or irritate God, or
excite him to anger? This is evidently the meaning of the word,
\~parazhloumen\~ rendered "provoke to jealousy." The word \^HEBREW\^, usually
rendered by this word by the seventy, has this sense in Deuteronomy 32:21;
1 Kings 14:22; Ezekiel 8:3; Psalms 78:58. There is a reference here, doubtless,
to the truth recorded in Exodus 20:5, that God "is a jealous God," and
that he regards the worship of idols as a direct affront to himself. The
sentiment of Paul is, that to join in the worship of idols, or in the
observance of their feasts, would be to participate in that which had
ever been regarded by God with peculiar abhorrence, and which more than
anything else tended to provoke his wrath. We may observe, that any
course of life that tends to alienate the affections from God, and to
fix them on other beings or objects, is a sin of the same kind as that
referred to here. Any inordinate love of friends, of property, of honour,
has substantially the same idolatrous nature, and will tend to provoke
him to anger. And it may be asked of Christians now, whether they
will by such inordinate attachments provoke the Lord to wrath?
whether they will thus excite his displeasure, and expose themselves to
his indignation? Very often Christians do thus provoke him. They
become unduly attached to a friend, or to wealth, and God in anger takes
away, that friend by death, or that property by the flames: or they
conform to the world, and mingle in its scenes of fashion and gaiety,
and forget God; and in displeasure he visits them with judgments,
humbles them, and recalls them to himself.
Are we stronger than he? This is given as a reason why we should
not provoke his displeasure. We cannot contend successfully with
him; and it is therefore madness and folly to contend with God, or
to expose ourselves to the effects of his indignation.
{c} "provoke" Deuteronomy 32:21; Job 9:4; Ezekiel 22:14
Verse 23. All things are lawful for me. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 6:12".
This is a repetition of what he had said before; and it is here applied
to the subject of eating the meat that had been offered to idols. The
sense is, "Though it may be admitted that it was strictly lawful to
partake of that meat, yet there were strong reasons why it was
inexpedient; and those reasons ought to have the binding force of law."
All things edify not. All things do not tend to build up
the church, and to advance the interests of religion; and when they
do not have this effect, they are not expedient, and are improper.
Paul acted for the welfare of the church. His object was to save
souls. Anything that would promote that object was proper; any thing
which would hinder it, though in itself it might not be strictly
unlawful, was in his view improper. This is a simple rule, and
might be easily applied by all. If a man has his heart on the conversion
of men and the salvation of the world, it will go far to regulate his
conduct in reference to many things concerning which there may be no
exact and positive law. It will do much to regulate his dress; his style
of living; his expenses; his entertainments; his mode of intercourse
with the world. He may not be able to fix his finger on any positive law,
and to say that this or that article of dress is improper; that this or
that piece of furniture is absolutely forbidden; or that this or that
manner of life is contrary to any explicit law of JEHOVAH; but he may see
that it will interfere with his great and main purpose, to do good
on the widest scale possible; and THEREFORE to him it will be
inexpedient and improper. Such a grand leading purpose is a much better
guide to direct a man's life than would be exact positive statutes to
regulate everything, even if such minute statutes were possible.
{d} "things" 1 Corinthians 6:12
Verse 24. Let no man seek his own. This should be properly interpreted
of the matter under discussion, though the direction assumes the
form of a general principle. Originally it meant, "Let no man, in
regard to the question about partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice
to idols, consult his own pleasure, happiness, or convenience; but
let him, as the leading rule on the subject, ask what will be for the
welfare of others. Let him not gratify his own taste and inclinations,
regardless of their feelings, comfort, and salvation; but let him in
these things have a primary reference to their welfare." He may
dispense with these things without danger or injury; he cannot indulge
in them without endangering the happiness or purity of others.
His duty, therefore, requires him to abstain. The injunction, however,
has a general form, and is applicable to all Christians, and to
all cases of a similar kind. It does not mean that a man is not in
any instance to regard his own welfare, happiness, or salvation; it
does not mean that a man owes no duty to himself or family, or
that he should neglect all these to advance the welfare of others;
but the precept means, that in cases like that under consideration,
when there is no positive law, and when a man's example would have a
great influence, he should be guided in his conduct, not by a
reference to his own ease, comfort, or gratification, but by a reference
to the purity and salvation of others. And the observance of this
simple rule would make a prodigious change in the church and the
world.
But every man another's wealth. The word wealth is not in the
Greek. Literally, "that which is of another;" the word \~to\~
referring to anything and everything that pertains to his comfort,
usefulness, happiness, or salvation. The sentiment of the whole is,
when a man is bound and directed by no positive law, his grand rule
should be the comfort and salvation of others. This is a simple rule;
it might be easily applied; and this would be a sort of balance-wheel
in the various actions and plans of the world. If every man would
adopt this rule, he could not be in much danger of going wrong; he
would be certain that he would not live in vain.
{e} "Let no man" Philippians 2:4,21
Verse 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles. In the market. The
meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as
well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since
the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change
its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from
attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of
meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed
expressly in honour of idols; but lest they should become too
scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered
indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate
to purchase it, or eat it.
Asking no question for conscience sake. Not hesitating or doubting
as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being
scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be
defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many
things. But,
(1.) that which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It
would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits or any other
intoxicating drinks because they were offered for sale, any more than it
would be to commit suicide because men offered pistols, and bowie-knives,
and halters to sell.
(2.) There are many things now concerning which similar questions may be
asked; as, e.g., is it right to use the productions of slave-labour, the
sugar, cotton, etc., that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that
which is known to be made on the Sabbath; or that which it is known a
man has made by a life of dishonesty sad crime? The consciences of many
persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of
easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case
before us.
(a.) If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the
market, if it be in itself lawful, if there is no ready mark of
distinction, then the apostle would direct us not to hesitate.
(b.) If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and
knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach
of the Sabbath, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living,
then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to
use it. If a man abhors slavery, and Sabbath-breaking, and dishonesty,
then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and
extend these abominations?
(c.) If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that
has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will be construed
into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain. See
1 Corinthians 10:28. No man is at liberty to patronize slavery,
Sabbath-breaking, dishonesty, or licentiousness in any form. Every
man can live without doing it; and where it can be done, it should
be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up
many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth than for good men to
act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and
of gain that results from oppression and fraud.
{a} "Whatsoever" 1 Timothy 4:4
Verse 26. For the earth is the Lord's. This is quoted from
Psalms 24:1. The same sentiment is also found in Psalms 50:12, and in
Deuteronomy 10:14. It is here urged as a reason why it is right to partake
of the meat offered in the market. It all belongs to the Lord. It does
not really belong to the idol, even though it has been offered to it. It
may, therefore, be partaken of as his gift, and should be received with
gratitude.
And the fulness thereof. All that the earth produces belongs to him.
He causes it to grow; and he has given it to be food for man; and though
it may have been devoted to an idol, yet its nature is not changed. It
is still the gift of God; still the production of his hand; still the
fruit of his goodness and love.
{b} "the earth" Deuteronomy 10:14; Psalms 24:1; 50:12
Verse 27. If any of them that believe not. That are not Christians;
that are still heathens.
Bid you to a feast. Evidently not a feast in the temple of an idol,
but at his own house. If he ask you to partake of his hospitality.
And ye be disposed to go. Greek, "And you will to go." It is
evidently implied here that it would be not improper to go. The Saviour
accepted such invitations to dine with the Pharisees,
(See Barnes "Luke 11:37";) and Christianity is not designed to abolish
the courtesies of social life; or to break the bonds of intercourse; or
to make men misanthropes or hermits. It allows and cultivates, under
proper Christian restraints, the intercourse in society which will
promote the comfort of men, and especially that which may extend the
usefulness of Christians. It does not require, therefore, that we should
withdraw from social life, or regard as improper the courtesies of
society. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 5:10".
Whatsoever is set before you, etc. Whether it has been offered in
sacrifice or not; for so the connexion requires us to understand it.
Eat. This should be interpreted strictly. The apostle says
"eat," not "drink;" and the principle will not authorize us to
drink whatever is set before us, asking no questions for conscience sake;
for while it was a matter of indifference in regard to eating, whether
the meat had been sacrificed to idols or not, it is not a matter of
indifference whether a man may drink intoxicating liquor. That is a
point on which the conscience should have much to do; and on which
its honest decisions, and the will of the Lord, should be faithfully and
honestly regarded.
{*} "bid" "ask"
{c} "is set" Luke 10:7
Verse 28. But if any man. If any fellow guest; any scrupulous fellow
Christian who may be present. That the word "any" (\~tiv\~) refers
to a fellow guest seems evident; for it is not probable that the
host would point out any part of the food on his own table, of the
lawfulness of eating which he would suppose there was any doubt. Yet
there might be present some scrupulous fellow Christian who would
have strong doubts of the propriety of partaking of the food, and
who would indicate it to the other guests.
For his sake that shewed it. Do not offend him; do not lead him into
sin; do not pain and wound his feelings.
And for conscience sake". Eat not, out of respect to the
conscientious scruples of him that told thee that it had been offered to
idols. The word conscience refers to the conscience of the informer,
(1 Corinthians 10:29;) still he should make it a matter of conscience not to
wound his weak brethren, or lead them into sin.
For the earth is the Lord's, etc. See 1 Corinthians 10:26. These
words are wanting in many MSS., (see Mill's Greek Testament,) and
in the Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic versions; and are omitted
by Griesbach. Grotius says that they should be omitted. There
might easily have been a mistake in transcribing them from
1 Corinthians 10:26. The authority of the Mss., however, is in favour
of retaining them; and they are quoted by the Greek fathers and
commentators. If they are to be retained, they are to be interpreted,
probably, in this sense: "There is no necessity that you should
partake of this food. All things belong to God; and he has made ample
provision for your wants without subjecting you to the necessity of
eating this. Since this is the case, it is best to regard the scruples
of those who have doubts of the propriety of eating this food, and
to abstain."
{d} "not" 1 Corinthians 8:10,12
{e} "the earth" 1 Corinthians 10:26
Verse 29. Conscience, I say, not thine own. I know that you may have
no scruples on the subject. I do not mean, that with you this need
be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that ground, as if an
idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the
quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the
ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous,
or of leading them into sin.
For why is my liberty, etc. There is much difficulty in this clause;
for as it now stands, it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the
apostle had been saying: He had been urging them to have respect to other
men's consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their
opinions and feelings. Macknight and some others understand it as an
objection: "Perhaps you will say, But why is my liberty to be ruled by
another man's conscience?" Doddridge supposes that this and
1 Corinthians 10:30 come in as a kind of parenthesis, to prevent their
extending his former caution beyond what he designed. "I speak only of
acts obvious to human observation; for as to what immediately lies
between God and my own soul, why is my liberty to be judged,
arraigned, condemned at the bar of another man's conscience?"
But it is probable that this is not an objection. The sense may be
thus expressed: "I am free; I have liberty to partake of that food,
if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong:
but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to
idols, my liberty--the right which I exercise--will be misconstrued,
misjudged, condemned (for so the word \~krinetai\~ seems to be used here)
by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge,
condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall
in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot
have a good conscience. Under these circumstances, why should I
act so as to expose myself to this censure and condemnation? It is
better for me to abstain, and not to use this liberty in the case, but
to deny myself for the sake of others."
Verse 30. For if I by grace be a partaker. Or rather, "If I
partake by grace--if, by the grace and mercy of God, I have a
right to partake of this--yet why should I so conduct as to expose
myself to the reproaches and evil surmises of others? Why should I lay
myself open to be blamed on the subject of eating, when there are so many
bounties of Providence for which I may be thankful, and which I may
partake of without doing injury, or exposing myself in any manner to be
blamed?"
Why am I evil spoken of. Why should I pursue such a course as to
expose myself to blame or censure?
For that for which I give thanks. For my food. The phrase,
"for which I give thanks," seems to be a periphrasis for food, or
for that of which he partook to nourish life. It is implied that he
always gave thanks for his food; and that this was with him such a
universal custom, that the phrase, "for which I give thanks," might
be used as convenient and appropriate phraseology to denote his
ordinary food. The idea in the verse, then, is this: "By the favour
of God, I have a right to partake of this food. But if I did, I
should be evil spoken of, mid do injury, And it is unnecessary. God has
made ample provision elsewhere for my support, for which I may be
thank. I will not therefore expose myself to calumny and reproach, or be
the occasion of.injury to others by partaking of the food offered in
sacrifice to idols."
{1} "grace" "thanksgiving"
{a} "give thanks" Romans 14:6
Verse 31. Whether therefore ye eat, or drink. This direction should
be strictly and properly applied to the case in hand; that is, to the
question about eating and drinking the things that had been offered
in sacrifice to idols. Still, however, it contains a general direction
that is applicable to eating and drinking at all times; and the phrase,
"whatsoever ye do," is evidently designed by the apostle to make
the direction universal.
Or whatsoever ye do. In all the actions and plans of life; whatever
be your schemes, your desires, your doings, let all be done to the glory
of God.
Do all to the glory of God. The phrase, "the glory of God," is
equivalent to the honour of God; and the direction is, that we should so
act in all things as to honour him as our Lawgiver, our Creator, our
Redeemer; and so as to lead others by our example to praise him and to
embrace his gospel. A child acts so as to honour a father when he always
cherishes reverential and proper thoughts of him; when he is thankful for
his favours; when he keeps his laws; when he endeavours to advance his
plans and his interests;; and when he so acts as to lead all around him
to cherish elevated opinions of the character of a father. He
dishonours him when he has no respect to his authority;
when he breaks his laws; when he leads others to treat him with
disrespect. In like manner, we live to the glory of God when we
honour him in all the relations which he sustains to us; when we
keep his laws; when we partake of his favours with thankfulness,
and with a deep sense of our dependence; when we pray unto him;
and when we so live as to lead those around us to cherish elevated
conceptions of his goodness, and mercy, and holiness. Whatever
plan or purpose will tend to advance his kingdom, and to make him
better known and loved, will be to his glory. We may observe in
regard to this,
(1.) that the rule is universal. It extends to everything. If in so
small matters as eating and drinking we should seek to honour God,
assuredly we should in all other things.
(2.) It is designed that this should be the constant rule of conduct,
and that we should be often reminded of it. The acts of eating and
drinking must be performed often; and the command is attached to that
which must often occur, that we may be often reminded of it, and that
we may be kept from forgetting it.
(3.) It is intended that we should honour God in our families and among
our friends. We eat with them; we share together the bounties of
Providence; and God designs that we should honour him when we partake
of him mercies, and that thus our daily enjoyments should be sanctified
by a constant effort to glorify him.
(4.) We should devote the strength which we derive from the bounties of
his hand to his honour and in his service. He gives us food; he makes
it nourishing; he invigorates our frame; and that strength should not
be devoted to purposes of sin, and profligacy, and corruption. It is an
act of high dishonour to God, when HE gives us strength, that we should
at once devote that strength to pollution and to sin.
(5.) This rule is designed to be one of the chief directors of our
lives. It is to guide all our conduct, and to constitute a test by
which to try our actions. Whatever can be done to advance the honour of
God is right; whatever cannot be done with that end is wrong.
Whatever plan a man can form that will have this end is a good plan;
whatever cannot be made to have this tendency, and that cannot be
commenced, continued, and ended with a distinct and definite desire to
promote his honour, is wrong, and should be forthwith abandoned.
(6.) What a change would it make in the world if this rule were
everywhere followed! How differently would even professing Christians
live! How many of their plans would they be constrained at once to
abandon! And what a mighty revolution would it at once make on earth,
should all the actions of men begin to be performed to promote the glory
of God!
(7.) It may be added, that sentiments like that of the apostle were found
among the Jews, and even among heathens. Thus Maimonides, as cited by
Grotius, says, "Let everything be in the name of Heaven ;" i.e., in the
name of God. Capellus cites several of the rabbinical writers who say
that all actions, even eating and drinking, should be done
in the name of God. See the Critici Sacri. Even the heathen
writers have something that resembles this. Thus Arrian (Ephesians 1:19)
says, "Looking unto God in all things, small and great." Epictetus, too,
on being asked how any one may eat so as to please God, answered, "By
eating justly, temperately, and thankfully."
{b} "Whether" Colossians 3:17
Verse 32. Give none offence. Be inoffensive; that is, do not act so
as to lead others into sin. See Barnes "Romans 14:13".
Neither to the Jews, etc. To no one, though they are the foes of God
or strangers to him. To the Jews be inoffensive, because they think that
the least approach to idol worship is to be abhorred. Do not so
act as to lead them to think that you connive at or approve idol worship,
and so as to prejudice them the more against the Christian religion,
and lead them more and more to oppose it. In other words, do not
attend the feasts in honour of idols.
Nor to the Gentiles. Greek, Greeks. To the pagans who are
unconverted. They are attached to idol worship. They seek every way to
justify themselves in it. Do not countenance them in it, and thus lead
them into the sin of idolatry.
Nor to the church of God. To Christians. Many of them are weak. They
may not be as fully instructed as you are. Your example would lead them
into sin. Abstain, therefore, from things which, though they are in
themselves strictly lawful, may yet be the occasion of leading others
into sin, and endangering their salvation.
{c} "none offence" Romans 14:13; 2 Corinthians 6:3
{2} "Gentiles" "Greeks"
Verse 33. Even as I, etc. Paul here proposes his own example as
their guide. The example which he refers to is that which he had
exhibited as described in this and the preceding chapters. His main
object had been to please all men; i.e., not to alarm their prejudices,
or needlessly to excite their opposition, (See Barnes "1 Corinthians 10:19");
also 1 Corinthians 10:20-23", while he made known to them the truth, and
sought their salvation. It is well when a minister can without
ostentation appeal to his own example, and urge others to a life of
self-denial and holiness, by his own manner of living, and by what he is
himself in his daily walk and conversation.
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP