1 Corinthians 8:1

The apostle comes here to the case of things that had been offered to idols, concerning which some of them sought satisfaction: a case that frequently occurred in that age of Christianity, when the church of Christ was among the heathen, and the Israel of God must live among the Canaanites. For the better understanding of it, it must be observed that it was a custom among the heathens to make feasts on their sacrifices, and not only to eat themselves, but invite their friends to partake with them. These were usually kept in the temple, where the sacrifice was offered (Co1 8:10), and, if any thing was left when the feast ended, it was usual to carry away a portion to their friends; what remained, after all, belonged to the priests, who sometimes sold it in the markets. See Co1 10:25. Nay, feasts, as Athenaeus informs us, were always accounted, among the heathen, sacred and religious things, so that they were wont to sacrifice before all their feasts; and it was accounted a very profane thing among them, athuta esthiein, to eat at their private tables any meat whereof they had not first sacrificed on such occasions. In this circumstance of things, while Christians lived among idolaters, had many relations and friends that were such, with whom they must keep up acquaintance and maintain good neighbourhood, and therefore have occasion to eat at their tables, what should they do if any thing that had been sacrificed should be set before them? What, if they should be invited to feast with them in their temples? It seems as if some of the Corinthians had imbibed an opinion that even this might be done, because they knew an idol was nothing in the world, Co1 8:4. The apostle seems to answer more directly to the case (ch. 10), and here to argue, upon supposition of their being right in this thought, against their abuse of their liberty to the prejudice of others; but he plainly condemns such liberty in ch. 10. The apostle introduces his discourse with some remarks about knowledge that seem to carry in them a censure of such pretences to knowledge as I have mentioned: We know, says the apostle, that we all have knowledge (Co1 8:1); as if he had said, "You who take such liberty are not the only knowing persons; we who abstain know as much as you of the vanity of idols, and that they are nothing; but we know too that the liberty you take is very culpable, and that even lawful liberty must be used with charity and not to the prejudice of weaker brethren." Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth, Co1 8:1. Note, 1. The preference of charity to conceited knowledge. That is best which is fitted to do the greatest good. Knowledge, or at least a high conceit of it, is very apt to swell the mind, to fill it with wind, and so puff it up. This tends to no good to ourselves, but in many instances is much to the hurt of others. But true love, and tender regard to our brethren, will put us upon consulting their interest, and acting as may be for their edification. Observe, 2. That there is no evidence of ignorance more common than a conceit of knowledge: If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. He that knows most best understands his own ignorance, and the imperfection of human knowledge. He that imagines himself a knowing man, and is vain and conceited on this imagination, has reason to suspect that he knows nothing aright, nothing as he ought to know it. Note, It is one thing to know truth, and another to know it as we ought, so as duly to improve our knowledge. Much may be known when nothing is known to any good purpose, when neither ourselves nor others are the better for our knowledge. And those who think they know any thing, and grow fain hereupon, are of all men most likely to make no good use of their knowledge; neither themselves nor others are likely to be benefited by it. But, adds the apostle, if any man love God, the same is known of God. If any man love God, and is thereby influenced to love his neighbour, the same is known of God; that is, as some understand it, is made by him to know, is taught of God. Note, Those that love God are most likely to be taught of God, and be made by him to know as they ought. Some understand it thus: He shall be approved of God; he will accept him and have pleasure in him. Note, The charitable person is most likely to have God's favour. Those who love God, and for his sake love their brethren and seek their welfare, are likely to be beloved of God; and how much better is it to be approved of God than to have a vain opinion of ourselves!

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

VIII.

(1) Now as touching things offered unto idols.—A new subject is here introduced, and occupies the whole of this chapter. In Corinth and other cities meat was offered for sale which had been used for sacrificial purposes in the heathen temples, having been sold to the dealers by the priests, who received a large share of the sacrifices for themselves, or by the individuals who offered them, and had more remaining of their own share than they could use themselves. Thus, a Christian might unconsciously eat of meat, either at the house of a friend (see 1Co_10:27) or by purchasing it himself in the public shambles, which had been previously brought in contact by sacrificial usage with an idol. There were some in Corinth who felt no scruple on the subject. An idol was nothing in their opinion. It could neither consecrate nor pollute that which was offered in its temple. Such Christians would, to show how completely and effectively their Christianity had dispelled all their previous heathen superstition, buy meat without caring whence it came, partake of a heathen friend’s hospitality, regardless of what use the meat had been put to, and even join in a repast held in the outer court of a heathen temple (1Co_8:10), where the meat would almost certainly be what had been saved after the sacrifice. That St. Paul would have done so himself, so far as his own personal feelings alone were concerned, we can scarcely doubt. To him, therefore, those who acted upon his authority appealed upon this subject.

There were others at Corinth, however, who felt some scruples upon the subject. There were heathen converts who had not completely got rid of every vestige of the old superstition, or whose conscience would accuse them of not having wholly given up idolatry if they took any part even in its social aspect: for many social acts, as well as purely religious ceremonies, were in the heathen mind included in acts of worship. And there were Jews, the intensity of whose traditional hatred of idolatry could not allow them to regard as “nothing” that against which Jehovah had uttered His most terrible denunciations, and against which He had preserved their race as a living witness.

To both these sections of the Church the conduct of the more liberal party would prove a serious stumbling-block. The argument used by those who asked St. Paul’s advice was evidently that the Christians have knowledge enough to feel that an idol is nothing, and that, therefore. there can be no harm in partaking of what has been offered to “nothing.” “We know,” says St. Paul, in reply, taking up the words of their own letter, “we know that we all have knowledge: we know that an idol is nothing.” The last clause of 1Co_8:1 and 1Co_8:2-3 form a parenthesis; and in 1Co_8:4 the opening words of 1Co_8:1 are repeated, and the line of thought which this parenthesis interrupted is again resumed.

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.—Those who grounded everything on knowledge are reminded parenthetically that knowledge by itself may have a bad effect, and also (1Co_8:2-3) that there is an element in the consciousness of our knowledge which destroys the truth and purity of that knowledge itself. Knowledge puffs up the man himself. Love builds up the whole Church. The word “edify” has now only a moral significance. Originally it could be applied to moral conduct only figuratively. The substantive “edifice” has retained its original literal meaning. In Spenser “edify” is used in its literal sense; and in Hakluyt’s Travels (1553) the “edification” of the castle of Corfu is mentioned. The use made by St. Paul of this figure is of some importance. The word is used only by St. Paul, and once by St. Luke (Act_9:31), and the idea which it conveys is not so much the improvement of the individual as the building-up of the whole Christian edifice. We have come to speak of an “edifying discourse” if it helps the individual. St. Paul would have spoken of an “edifying work” if it built up the Church. “We are sometimes too apt to treat Christianity as if it were monolithic” (Howson). (See 1Co_12:19; 1Co_14:3; 1Co_14:5; 1Co_14:12; 1Co_14:17; Eph_4:12-16; 1Th_5:11.) It is worth noting that the word used in the original in Heb_3:3-4; Heb_9:11, is quite different from the word employed, here and elsewhere, by St. Paul.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. as touching things offered unto idols] These were the parts of the sacrifice not consumed by fire, but reserved, as in the Jewish peace-offerings (see Lev_7:15-16; Lev_22:30), for the use of the priest and the worshipper. Sometimes (see ch. 1Co_10:25) the meat not consumed was sold in the shambles as ordinary butcher’s meat, without any notification that it had ever formed part of a sacrifice. “Most public entertainments,” says Dean Stanley, “and many private meals, were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice.… This identification of a sacrifice and a feast was carried to the highest pitch among the Greeks. Sacrifices are enumerated by Aristotle (Ethics viii. 9), and Thucydides (ii. 38), amongst the chief means of social enjoyment.” Hence the difficulty referred to in the present chapter was likely to be an extremely pressing one. Among the Jews (Num_25:2; Psa_106:28) to partake of these sacrifices was strictly forbidden. See also Rev_2:14. For a description of heathen sacrifices, see Homer, Iliad, Book 1. 606–13. Cf. also Horace, Odes iii. viii. 6, 7: “Voveram dulces epulas et album … caprum.”

we know that we all have knowledge] Some have supposed a parenthesis commencing at ‘we all have knowledge,’ and including the whole passage between these words and ‘we know that an idol,’ &.c., in 1Co_8:4, where the construction in 1Co_8:1 is resumed. But it is better to regard the parenthesis as beginning at ‘Knowledge puffeth up,’ and extending thence to the end of 1Co_8:3. These words are not to be regarded as ironical. Admission into the Christian Church brought with it a vast amount of spiritual, and even intellectual, enlightenment. “I do not undertake to teach you as men destitute of knowledge; but ye are to be admonished to use what ye have well and prudently.” Estius. This commentator further remarks that there is no contradiction between this verse and 1Co_8:7, inasmuch as here it is knowledge generally that is spoken of, whereas there a particular sort of knowledge is meant. The meaning of this apparent digression is, “We all know that Christians, by virtue of their fellowship with Christ, possess knowledge; but it is not upon their knowledge that they are to rely. ‘And yet shew I you a more excellent way.’ ”

but charity edifieth] Rather, love. So Tyndale. Nothing has done more to obscure the connection between different passages of the New Testament, and to weaken our sense of the identity of sentiment between its different writers, than the use sometimes of the English word love, and sometimes of the word charity, derived from the Latin caritas, to translate the Greek word uniformly used throughout. To edify means to build up, a metaphor taken from the gradual building of a house (aedes), and applied either (1) to the gradual formation of individual character, or (2) to the growth of the Christian Church. The word is found in both significations in ch. 1Co_14:4, but it is more commonly used in the second. See ch. 14 throughout; Eph_4:12; Eph_4:16, &c., and note on ch. 1Co_3:17, 1Co_6:19. ‘It is love that edifieth;’ love that builds up both the character of the individual man and the society, each member of which is ‘chosen in Christ,’ to be ‘holy and without blame before God in love.’

Ch. 1Co_8:1-13. The Question of Meats offered in Sacrifice to Idols

There is a great general similarity between this chapter and Romans 14. The question comes before the reader there in a somewhat different form. There rules are laid down concerning clean and unclean meats; here about meats offered in sacrifice to idols. There the weak brother is a Jew; here he may be also a Gentile. See note on 1Co_8:7. But this difference only brings out in stronger relief the identity of the principle, as laid down in ch. 1Co_6:12 of this Epistle (where see note). Matters of this kind are purely indifferent in themselves. It is only so far as they are likely to affect the conduct of others that they become important. The Christian was not to be over-scrupulous; not to fret himself about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this or that particular act, but to consider all questions of this kind on the broad general ground of the welfare of the community, and therefore, as a matter of course, of the individuals who composed it. By the decision in Act_15:23-29, the Gentile converts were specially forbidden to eat meats offered to idols. Why does St Paul, it may be asked, make no reference to that decision here, and in some cases give a different one? It would seem that the directions given in Acts 15 were intended for special circumstances, and not for an universal rule. The letter containing them was addressed only to the churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and was probably intended to allay the violence of the dissensions between Jewish and Gentile converts. So Bp. Lightfoot, Commentary on Galatians, p. 308.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 honor 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 honor of the idol gods on the meat that was offered in sacrifice; see 1Co 8:10, of this chapter, and 1Co 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 1Co 8:10. To this Paul replies in the course of the chapter, and particularly in 1Co 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:

In a “parenthesis” in 1Co 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 people up and to make them proud, but that they ought to act rather from “charity,” or love; and, That though the mass of them might have this knowledge, yet that all did not possess it, and they might be injured, 1Co 8:7.

Having stated this argument of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge, in 1Co 8:1, Paul then in a parenthesis states the usual effect of knowledge, and shows that it is not a safe guide, 1Co 8:1-3. In 1Co 8:4, he “resumes” the statement (commenced in 1Co 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 1Co 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 1Co 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 1 Cor. 1; 2; 3); 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 human beings, 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; and to fill him with vain ideas of his own importance; and thus to lead him into error and to sin.

But charity edifieth - Love (ἡ ἀγάπη hē agapē); 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 favorable opinion which we entertain of others when they seem to be in error or fault. The word in the Scripture means simply “love.” See the notes on 1 Cor. 13. 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 people. 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1Co_8:1-13

How as touching things offered to idols.

Liberty and love

1. The question about meats necessarily arose in a society partly heathen and partly Christian. Every meal was dedicated to the household gods by laying some portion of it on the family altar. On a birthday, a marriage, or a safe return from sea, &c., it was customary to sacrifice in some public temple. And after the legs of the victim, enclosed in fat, and the entrails had been burnt on the altar, the worshipper received the remainder, and invited iris friends to partake of it either in the temple itself, or in the surrounding grove, or at home. A convert might therefore naturally ask himself whether he was justified in conforming to this custom. Thus personal friendships and the harmony of family life were threatened; and on public occasions the Christian was in danger of branding himself as no good citizen, or by compliance of seeming unfaithful to Christ.

2. Apparently a good deal of ill-feeling had been engendered by the different views taken, as is always the case with morally indifferent matters. They do little harm if each holds his own opinion genially and endeavours to influence others in a friendly way. But in most instances it happens as in Corinth: those who saw that they could eat without contamination scorned those who had scruples; while the scrupulous judged the eaters to be worldly time-servers.

3. As a first step towards the settlement of this matter, Paul makes the largest concession to the party of liberty. Their clear perception that an idol was nothing in the world was sound and commendable. But do not, says the apostle, think that you have settled the question by reiterating that you are better instructed than your brethren. You must add love, consideration of your neighbour, to your knowledge. Men of ready insight into truth are prone to despise less enlightened spirits; but however such vaunt themselves as the men of progress and the hope of the Church, it is not by knowledge alone the Church can ever solidly grow. Knowledge does produce a puffing-up, an unhealthy, morbid, mushroom growth; but that which builds up the Church stone by stone, a strong, enduring edifice, is love. It is a good thing to have clear views of Christian liberty; but exercise it without love, and you become a poor inflated creature, puffed up with a noxious gas destructive of all higher life in yourself and in others.

4. It is easy to imagine how all this would be exemplified at a Corinthian table. Three Christians are invited to a party in the house of a heathen friend. One is weakly scrupulous, the others are men of ampler view and more enlightened conscience. As the meal goes on the weak brother discerns some mark Which identifies the meat as sacrificial, or, fearing it may be so, he inquires of the servant, and finds it has been offered in the temple, and at once says to his friends, This has been offered to idols. One of them, knowing that heathen eyes are watching, and wishing to show how superior to all such scruples the enlightened Christian is, and how genial and free the religion of Christ is, smiles at his friends scruples, and accepts the meat. The other, more generous and truly courageous, declines the dish, lest by leaving the scrupulous man without support he should tempt him to follow their example, contrary to his own conviction, and so lead him into sin. It need not be said which of these men conies nearest to the Christian principle of Paul.

5. In our own society similar cases necessarily arise. I, as a Christian man, and knowing that the earth and its fulness are the Lords, may feel at perfect liberty to drink wine. But I must consider the effect my conduct will have on others. There may be some among my friends whose temptation lies that way, and whose conscience bids them refrain. If by my example such persons are encouraged to silence their conscience, then I incur the guilt of helping to destroy a brother for whom Christ died. Or again, a lad brought up in a Puritanic household has been taught, e.g., that the influence of the theatre is demoralising; but on entering the life of a great city he is soon brought in contact with some genuine Christians who visit the theatre without the slightest twinge of conscience. Now either of two things will probably happen. The young mans ideas of Christian liberty may become clearer; or being daunted by overpowering example and chafing under the raillery of his companions, may do as others do, though still uneasy in his own conscience. What is to he observed is that the emboldening of conscience is one thing, its enlightenment quite another. Constantly it happens that men who once shrank from certain practices now freely engage in them, and they will tell you that at first they felt as if they were stealing the indulgence, and that they had to drown the voice of conscience by the louder voice of example. The results of this are disastrous. Conscience is dethroned. The ship no longer obeys her helm, and lies in the trough of the sea swept by every wave and driven by every wind. It may indeed be said, What harm can come of persons less enlightened being emboldened to do as we do if what we do is right? The harm is this, that if the weak brother does a right thing while his conscience tells him it is wrong, to him it is wrong. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Note two permanent lessons--

I. The sacredness or supremacy of conscience. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. A man may possibly do a wrong thing when he obeys conscience; he is certainly wrong when he acts contrary to conscience. He may be helped to a decision by the advice of others, but it is his own decision by which he must abide. His conscience may not be as enlightened as it ought to be. Still his duty is to enlighten, not to violate, it. It is the guide God has given us, and we must not choose another.

II. That we must ever use our Christian liberty with Christian consideration of others. Love must mingle with all we do. There are many things which are lawful for Christian, but which are not compulsory or obligatory, and which he may refrain from doing on cause shown. Duties he must, of course, discharge, regardless of the effect his conduct may have on others. But where conscience says, not You must, but only You may, then we must consider the effect our using our liberty will have on others. We must forego our liberty to do this or that if by doing it we should shock a weak brother or encourage him to overstep his conscience. As the Arctic voyager who has been frozen up all winter does not seize the first opportunity to escape, but waits till his weaker companions gain strength enough to accompany him, so must the Christian accommodate himself to the weaknesses of others, lest by using his liberty he should injure him for whom Christ died. (M. Dods, D. D.)

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.--

A twofold knowledge

I. A pride generating knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up. One that is--

1. Merely intellectual. A stock of mental conceptions, concerning objects material or spiritual, referring to the creature or to the Creator. Now such knowledge tends to self-conceit.

2. Essentially superficial. The more superficial mere intellectual knowledge the stronger its tendency. The men who go farthest into the essence of things, take the widest view of the domain of knowledge, will be the least disposed to self-elation.

II. A man-edifying knowledge.

1. Charity, or love to God, is the true knowledge. Love is the life and soul of all true science. Love is the root of the universe, and you must have love rightly to interpret love.

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

3. This true knowledge insures the approval of God (1Co_8:3). In the last day, Christ will say to those who have not this love, I never knew--i.e., approved of--you. This love for God in the heart converts the tree of intellectual knowledge into the tree of life. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The difference between Christian and secular knowledge

A great controversy is going on in the matter of education. One partly extols the value of instruction, the other insists that secular education without religion is worse than useless: Paul spoke of both as secular and worthless without love. That knowledge which he treated so slightingly was--

I. Knowledge without humility. It is not so much what is known as the spirit in which it is acquired which makes the difference between secular and Christian knowledge (1Co_8:2). The greatest of modern philosophers and historians, Humboldt and Niebuhr, were both eminently humble men. So, too, you will find that real talent among mechanics is generally united to great humility. Whereas those puffed up by knowledge are those who have a few religious maxims and shallow doctrines. There are two ways therefore of knowing. One is that of the man who loves to calculate how far he is advanced beyond others; the other, that of the man who feels how infinite knowledge is, and how little he knows.

II. Liberty without reverence. The men whom the apostle rebukes were free from many superstitions. An idol, they said, was nothing in the world. But it is not merely freedom from superstition which is worship of God, but loving dependence on Him; the surrender of self. If any man love God, the same is known of Him, i.e., God acknowledges the likeness of spirit. There is much of the spirit of these Corinthians now. Men throw off what they call the trammels of superstitions, and then call themselves free: they think it grand thing to reverence nothing. This is not high knowledge. It is a great thing to be free from mental slavery, but suppose you are still a slave to your passions? From bonds of the spirit Christianity has freed us, but it has bound us to God (1Co_8:5-6). The true freedom from superstition is free service to religion: the real emancipation from false gods is reverence for the true God. And not merely is this the only real knowledge, but no other knowledge buildeth up the soul. He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Separate from love, the more we know, the profounder the mystery of life, and the more dreary existence becomes. I can conceive no dying hour more awful than that of one who has aspired to know instead of to love, and finds himself at last amidst a world of barren facts and lifeless theories.

III. Comprehension without love to man. These Corinthians had got a most clear conception of what Christianity was (1Co_8:4-6). Well, said the apostle, and what signifies your profession of that, if you look down with supreme contempt on your ignorant brothers, who cannot reach to these sublime contemplations? Knowledge such as this is not advance, but retrogression. How immeasurably superior in the sight of God is some benighted Romanist who has gone about doing good, or some ignorant, narrow religionist who has sacrificed time and property to Christ, to the most correct theologian in whose heart there is no love for his fellow-men. Breadth of view is not breadth of heart; the substance of Christianity is love to God and man. Hence it is a precious fact that St. Paul, the apostle of liberty, whose burning intellect expounded the whole philosophy of Christianity, should have been the one to say that knowledge is nothing compared to charity, nay, worse than nothing without it: should have been the one to declare that knowledge shall vanish away, but love never faileth. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

Knowledge and charity

No person ever entertained a higher idea of true wisdom than St. Paul, but he saw that learning makes not the man of God perfect, and that the complete scholar may fall short at last of the kingdom of heaven. He saw that spiritual, like bodily wealth, unless used for the benefit of others, would prove no blessing to its owner. And therefore, that the wise man might not glory in his wisdom, the apostle determines that, not only human learning, but the knowledge of all prophecies and mysteries, will profit nothing if charity be not superadded.

I. Knowledge without charity endeth in pride.

1. It produces an inflation in the mind, which, like a tumour in the body, carries the appearance of solidity, but has in reality nothing within, and only indicates a distempered habit. And, indeed, knowledge, as well as faith, if it be alone, is vain--it is dead. For all knowledge is given as a means to some end. The means, abstracted from their end, cease to be means, and answer no purpose whatsoever. The end of knowledge is action (Joh_13:17). Every article of the creed involves in it a correspondent duty, and it is practice alone that gives life to faith and realises knowledge. The manifestation of the Spirit (as that Spirit Himself testifies) is given to every man to profit withal. Otherwise it is of no effect, and the man becomes a cloud without water; raised aloft it sails before the wind, proudly swelling in the sufficiency of its own emptiness, instead of dropping plenty on the lands over which it passes.

2. Consider the instances of this truth.

(1) Ascend into heaven and there view the glories that once encircled Lucifer (cf. Eze_28:12). He saw, he knew; but he loved not, and through pride he fell. A proof, to the learned of all ages, that knowledge without charity will turn a good angel into an evil one.

(2) Yet this has all along been the fatal mistake, and the tree of knowledge still proved the occasion of a fall. Knowledge wrought destruction by pride. The serpent, says Eve, beguiled me; lit., elated, puffed me up. All the fruits of error and vice have sprung from the same root of bitterness.

(3) Take the case of the Gentiles (Rom_1:21). Lack of knowledge was not their original fault; they knew God. But knowledge in the understanding for want of charity in the heart did not operate to a holy obedience. When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.

(4) Turn to the Jew. Having the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law. Yet knowledge puffed him up; his privileges became an occasion of boasting himself against his brethren, and envy ate out his charity. Going about to establish his own righteousness upon the strength of his own wisdom, he rejected the Lord his righteousness, and nailed Him, who is the source of wisdom, to the Cross.

(5) When the distinction of Jew and Gentile ceased, and one Church comprehended all believers, knowledge puffed men up into heretics and schismatics. Pride made them rather choose to see themselves exalted at the head of a faction, than the Church edified by their labours in an inferior station. This was the case in the Church of Corinth, and has been the cause of every heresy and schism since.

II. Charity directeth knowledge to its right end--the edification of the Church. This will be seen in some instances the reverse of the foregoing.

1. If we ascend a second time into heaven, we shall find that the principle which triumphed over the proud knowledge of Lucifer was the wisdom of God actuated by love. In our redemption, wisdom contrived, power executed, but love set all to work, and perfected and crowned the whole.

2. To reverse the sad effects of a vain thirst after knowledge in our first parent, Divine love became incarnate. All that He did and suffered was because He loved us. Because man, by the temptation of knowledge, was seduced to infidelity and disobedience, He encountered and overcame the tempter by the Word of God, and by love keeping the commandments. The treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Him were not suffered to rust and canker, locked up from the public by a supercilious reservedness, but out of them He continually dispersed abroad, and gave to the poor in spirit. On the Cross love regained what pride had lost, and the wound made in our nature by the fruit of the tree of knowledge was healed by the leaves of the tree of life.

3. To combat the vain wisdom of the Greek, and the self-justifying arrogance of the Jew, the apostles were sent forth. The strongholds of false knowledge could not stand before the gospel. Blasted by the lightning of inspired eloquence, the arm of false philosophy withered and lost all its holds on the minds of men. The Roman empire wondered to see itself Christian; to see the Cross exalted in triumph over the globe, and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ. But what was it that gained this victory over the pride of earth and hell? What, but the same all-suffering, and, therefore, all-subduing charity which taught the disciples of a crucified Jesus, after His example, to endure all things for the salvation of their brethren?

4. If we view the unity of a primitive church, as opposed to the sad divisions and distractions since produced by heresy and schism, it will appear that charity built up that solid and durable edifice. As at its formation, the Spirit descended upon the disciples, when they were all with one accord in one place, so, in like manner, after more were added to them, it is remarked that the multitude of the believers were of one heart and one mind. The spirit of unity knit all the members together, insomuch that if one member suffered the rest sympathised with it, And thus they grew up into Him in all things, even Christ … made increase of the body to the edifying itself in love. (Bp. Horne.)

Knowledge and love

I. Knowledge puffeth up.

1. This applies to all knowledge, whether human or Divine, when unaccompanied with love to God.

2. Its effect is--

(1) To inflate mens notions of the powers of human reason and the importance of human knowledge.

(2) To encourage self-confidence and conceit.

3. The reason--

(1) Knowledge without faith acts upon the intellect, but leaves the heart untouched.

II. Love edifieth.

1. Love--

(1) Depends on faith.

(2) Implies confidence, submission, obedience, sacrifice.

2. Its effect. It edifies--

(1) By strengthening the understanding and the will.

(2) By building up the moral character.

(3) By elevating the spirit.

(4) By bringing man into direct communion with God. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Knowledge and love

This knowledge is not secular as distinguished from Divine and theological, but knowledge of Divine things without love--knowledge by itself as distinguished from the knowledge of Divine things with love. The same contrast is drawn out more at length in chap. 13.; but as there he is led to speak of it chiefly by insisting on the superiority of active usefulness to spiritual ecstasies, so here he is led to speak of it by insisting on the superiority of that love which shows a regard for the consciences of others, over that knowledge which rests satisfied in its own enlightened insight into the folly of human superstition. Knowledge such as this may indeed expand the mind, but it is a mere inflation, as of a bubble, which bursts and vanishes away. Love alone succeeds in building up an edifice tier above tier, solid alike in superstructure and in basis, so as to last for ever. (Dean Stanley.)

The two guides--knowledge and love

I. They are both excellent.

1. The pupil of Gamaliel would have been the last to speak slightingly of real knowledge. How much has knowledge accomplished in the world! Ignorance is a fools paradise; knowledge is power.

2. And how excellent is love. How dull and sad and more prolific in crime the world would be without it! Ones only regret is that there is so little of it. Herein heaven and earth contrast. The triumphs of knowledge are great, but greater are the victories of love.

II. They are complementary.

1. Knowledge without love leads to--

(1) Pride.

(2) Intolerance.

(3) Selfishness.

(4) Injury to others.

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

2. Love without knowledge leads to moral catastrophe. Knowledge is necessary to determine within what limits we may rightly act; love determines what within the limits of the lawful we should choose.

3. Knowledge and love united lead to that more perfect, penetrating, true practical knowledge, the opposite of that described in 1Co_13:2. E.g., a man may know God as God--have some conception of the Divine attributes, &c., but when he loves God his knowledge makes incalculable strides. (W. E. Hurndall, M. A.)

Knowledge and love

These beautiful words are introduced into a discussion which has long ceased to have any practical interest. In pagan Corinth the banquet and the sacrifice were part of the same proceeding. The animal was slain and offered to the gods. Then the priest claimed his part, and the rest was taken home and used in providing a feast. To these feasts the pagans invited their friends, and some of these friends might be Christians. The question was, Could they conscientiously go? Some, the most simple, honest, earnest souls, said, No. It was recognising idolatry, it was disloyalty to Christ; or, to say the best of it that could be said, it was going into evil associations and temptation. Others who prided themselves on their superior knowledge laughed at these scruples. We know, they said, that there are no gods except One. The offering of the sacrifice to them is an empty farce. The meat has not been polluted at all. We have discernment enough to share in the feast without recognising the occasion of it. We can rejoice with these pagans, and at the same time smile at their superstitions. It is only weak, ignorant natures that will hold aloof from these harmless enjoyments through the fear of being drawn into sin. The pride of knowledge and its accompanying disdain and want of consideration towards their less-instructed brethren were their distinguishing features. Knowledge puffeth up, charity edifieth. Knowledge passeth away, charity abides for ever. Knowledge sees through coloured glass darkly, love sees face to face. Knowledge may be greatest in devils, love makes angels and saints. Knowledge is temporal and earthly, ever changing with the fashions of earth; love is God-like, heavenly, immortal, enduring like the mercy of the Lord for ever. Now, if any other of the apostles had written in this way about knowledge, men would have been found ready to quote against him the old fable of AEsop about the grapes. Untutored peasants and fishermen lifting up their voices in disparagement of knowledge would have furnished the intellectual scorner with a convenient sarcasm. Ah, yes, these men were ignorant! Knowledge was beyond their reach, and therefore they depreciated it. Singularly enough, however, it is St. Paul, the one learned man in the apostolic band, who talks in this way. Never once did those unlearned fishermen, Peter, James, and John, write slightingly of knowledge. That was left to Paul, the scholarly man. Had not his own learning made him a hard, haughty, cruel Pharisee, shutting out the vision of God, hiding from him the beauty of Jesus Christ, filling him with violent prejudice and hatred against all men save those of his own class? With all his knowledge, he had been blind to whatsoever things were lovely, and just, and reverent, and Divine. He had reason, indeed, to write, Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Knowledge puffeth up. Yes, from the raw schoolgirl to the man of greatest literary attainments, this is the effect of knowledge when it is found without the warm and generous and tender emotions of the heart. There is the young man with his smattering of literary attainments, with little more than an outward daub of culture. He has little reason to be proud; not a bit of that knowledge of which he makes his boast has been his own discovering. It has been drilled into him by patient, painstaking teachers. There is no more reason to be proud of knowledge received from another person than there is for a beggar to be proud of receiving alms. How wise he thinks himself in dealing with religious things, in measuring the preacher, in criticising the Bible, in disposing of questions of faith, in setting down the old-fashioned people who in their simple ignorance have been content to believe all that has been taught them! You see it in literary circles, and in the utterances of the scientist. How conspicuous by its absence is the grace of humility! Because they know something more about letters, and words, and cells, and germs, and rocks, and chemical elements than other people, they write and talk as if their judgments on all subjects were to be received ex cathedra as authoritative and unquestionable. Their word on all the great subjects of morality, faith, inspiration, the Bible, God, is to be deemed final and conclusive. They write as if all men were fools who dare to dispute their conclusions. Yet there is more genius, insight, and real vision in one of Davids psalms than there is in all the books they have written. An artist or a poet who has none of their knowledge will see more of beauty and glory and reality in a moment than they would see in a thousand years. We are always boasting that knowledge is power, that knowledge has enriched the world, that knowledge has done wonderful things for humanity. It is the idlest of delusions. Knowledge by itself has done very little. Even the greatest material inventions have come through men who had rather the swift insight of genius than the lore of the schools. They were not knowing men who gave us the railway, the steam-engine, the telegraph. Still less were they knowing men who enriched the world with the sweetest poems, with the noblest pictures, with the most charming stories. Titian, and Raphael, and Shakespeare, and Bunyan, and Burns, and Thomas a Kempis, not to speak of Homer, and David, and Isaiah, and the evangelists, and the fishermen, Peter and John--from these men, who had less knowledge on most things than any undergraduate of the present day, we have inherited the wisdom and the immortal thoughts and words which are beyond all wealth. They were men with great hearts, seeing things with the keen, clear eyes of love, rather than men whose heads had gathered a large stock of culture. Heart rather than head has given to humanity its noble inheritance; love rather than knowledge. Think of the martyrs, the reformers, the defenders of liberty, the philanthropists, the missionaries. And who are doing the best work in the world now?--its purifying, saving, uplifting work? Not the men who call themselves the cultured class. No; knowledge for the most part sits in judgment on the work of others, criticises, and sneers; while love goes on its way, its loins girded for service with quenchless faith in God, and hope which nothing can discourage. It is love, not knowledge, that carries light and sweetness and health into the dark, foul places of city life; it is love, not knowledge, that generates all the power of sweet activities. In the highest kind of knowledge what the world calls knowledge breaks down utterly. What can mere intellect know about God ? His greatness infinitely transcends the grasp of the most cultured mind. Before His wisdom the profoundest reaches of the human intellect are folly. Yes, it is to the pure, gentle, tender heart that God tells His secrets. You can hardly prove the simple fact of Gods existence, still less the supremely good, loving, and tender character of God, except to those whose hearts by their very likeness to Him beget their own witness of Him. His own love helps him to grasp the love Divine. So with immortality. All the knowledge of Butler and Plato could not prove it. Men who are only wise in the things of nature never find it there. But when the heart of man has found by experience the measureless power of its own love, found out what a human soul is capable of in long-suffering, patience, self-forgetfulness--how great, how even infinite the soul is in the power of loving--then the proof comes. God could not have made the soul thus and not made it immortal. And the loving heart, too, understands the mystery of sorrow and pain as the head does not and never can. The heart which loves God, and feels His love, knows that beyond all the sorrows and the darkness there is brightness and joy. So give me love and not knowledge, for knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (J. G. Greenhough, M. A.)

Love edifieth

Think of love--

I. As the essential spirit of all other graces. It is the life, beauty, strength, very soul of them all. Consider its position in the circle of the Divine attributes. Truth, justice, purity, &c., are perfections of the Divine character; but God is love. A similar position does love occupy in the ideal character of His true children.

II. As the bond of christian unity. Keenness of spiritual insight, zeal for truth, fidelity to conscience, may of themselves have a separating effect; but love draws and cements men together in a real fellowship. Differences in opinion, &c., become of comparatively small account.

III. As an incentive to christian activity. Love is the fulfilling of the law, the end of the commandment. Get your soul filled with love, and you will never want for an effectual motive to all noble living. As the materials of the building arrange themselves and rise into their finished form in obedience to the thought and will of the architect; as the notes fall, as if by an instinct of their own, into their due place according to the inspiration of the musician; as the words flow in rhythmic cadence in answer to the mood of the poets genius; as the grass, flowers, and corn grow by the spontaneous energy of the creative and formative mind that animates them all--so will you rear for yourself the structure of a beautiful and useful Christian life, if your heart is filled with love.

IV. As the mightiest of all instruments of blessing to others. By the sweet constraint of His love Christ wins the heart of those for whom He died. By the almightiness of His love He will ultimately conquer the world and build up that glorious temple to His praise--a redeemed humanity. Let His love be the inspiration of our life, and we wield a moral force akin to His and share His triumph. (J. Waits, B. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

N.B.

1.—See the question discussed in this chapter homiletically treated under 1Co_6:12.

N.B.

2.—Note how Paul here (as in Romans 14, 15.) bases nothing of his reply to the Corinthian questions upon the decree of Acts 15, though dealing so directly in this Epistle with two of its points—fornication and things offered to idols. He is dealing—as Stanley points out—not with the Cephas, the Jewish party in the Church, but with the (self-styled) party of Paul and Apollos; i.e. not with the scrupulous, conservative section, but with the too progressive, too much emancipated section; and these would not be likely to pay very much heed to the decree of a Church council in Jerusalem. Moreover, the Epistle is to become part of the permanent revelation of God to universal mankind. Its very method of dealing with questions and problems of practical ethics is not a small part of its revelation. This question, therefore, is here discussed and determined, not on the basis of submission to an external ordinance, however authoritative, but by reference and appeal to abidingly, universally, valid principles of right reason and right heart. Authority will always have its function and place and use; but the best legislation and its sanctions will be such as are also rooted in the intelligent, moral conviction of a spiritual mind and heart.

N.B.

3.—Good note in Stanley as to the “eating meat offered to idols.” “The act of sacrifice amongst all ancient nations was an act, not merely of religious worship, but of social life. In most cases, only a part of the victim was consumed as an offering to the god” [as with the Hebrew “peace offerings,” Lev_7:15-18; Lev_7:20; Lev_17:2-6. Cf. 1Sa_14:32 sqq., especially 34]; “the rest fell to the portion of the priests, or was given as a banquet to the poor, or was sold again in the markets for common food, either by the priests, or by such sacrificers as could not afford or did not wish to undergo the expense of the whole victim. Hence most public entertainments, and many private meals, were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice; most animals killed for butcher’s meat had fallen by the hand of the sacrificer.” [Hence, he points out, the close connection, occasioning some ambiguity in the use of the word for “kill” (e.g. Act_10:13), between killing for sacrifice and killing for ordinary purposes.] “ ‘Sacrifices’ are enumerated by Aristotle and by Thucydides amongst the chief means of social enjoyment.… At Corinth the conquerors in the Isthmian games used to give a banquet to the people, immediately after the sacrifices, in the temple itself of Poseidon. That these banquets often took place in temples appears from the stories which relate how Claudius and Vitellius, in their ungovernable greediness, rushed in from the streets to partake of the feasts round the altar.” [So in 1Sa_9:23 the cook brings up a shoulder which has remained over from the sacrifice and banquet of 1Co_8:11-13. Cf. also 1Sa_2:13-17.] “Closely as the whole social life of the ancient world was interwoven with its religious worship” [see how revolutionary for that reason Christianity was socially in, e.g., England: Green, Conquest of England, i. 8, 9], “the decision of this question affected the whole relations of the Christian society with its heathen neighbours; and, in fact, involved all the similar, though more complicated, questions discussed in the first four centuries of the Christian Church, respecting the lawfulness of attending on the spectacles, or receiving the honours, of the Roman Empire.” (Stanley, in loco.) E.g. N.B.

4.—“The council of Ancyra condemned them to a two years’ suspension from the Sacrament who sat down with their heathen friends upon their solemn Festivals in their Idol Temples, although they brought their own Provisions along with them, and touched not one bit of what had been offered to the Idol” (Cave, Prim. Chr., Part I., chap 5.).

1Co_8:1.—New topic, in reply to an inquiry from Corinth, resumed in chap. 10, after a digression, the resumption growing out of 1Co_9:19-21, and out of the discussion of the, in some respects, analogous Love-feasts and Lord’s Supper. We know … knowledge.—Spoken ironically; q.d. “ ‘We all have knowledge.’ Oh yes! I quite understand that. I said so in the first sentences of my letter (1Co_1:5). No doubt you are really a very understanding people” (Deu_4:6). Then with sudden change of tone, almost bitterly: “Well, well; you with your ‘knowledge’! Take care! It may be a danger, instead of a glory or a help.” N.B.

5.—The margin; also same word in 1Co_8:10 (margin).

1Co_8:2. Thinketh.—Like “I think so,” in Anglican Ordination Service; i.e. not with any doubt, but with all—as he believes, reasonable—certainty. So 1Co_10:12; Php_3:4; (Gal_2:9). Ought.—In the fitness of things in the Divine life of the soul. But Beet says “must needs know,” for all salvation and spiritual life come through the intelligence (Joh_17:3). N.B.

6.—“Know … knowledge” have different roots in Greek.

1Co_8:3.—N.B.

7. Evans (in Speaker) makes last clause of 1Co_8:3 mean, “He (viz. God) is known of him” (viz. the “know something” of 1Co_8:2). Observe rather how (as in Gal_4:9) Paul shrinks from saying outright, “He knows God” (Mat_11:27). Observe also how Paul speaks almost as if in the dialect of John.

1Co_8:4. Nothing in the world.—Not to be joined in the colloquial sense, “nothing in the world.” But, “In the world there is no reality as of a divinity, behind, and corresponding to, the idol.” Observe the slightly variant translation in. Cf. 1Co_10:19.

1Co_8:5.—The (so-called) Olympian gods, and the crowd of inferior earth-dwelling divinities. No stronger sense to be attached to “there are” than to “there be that are called,” as if allowing any reality to the gods; emphasis is upon “many,” not upon “are”; q.d. “As, in fact, in current belief and speech, there are indeed many such so-called ‘gods.’ ”

1Co_8:6.—As usual, the “Father” is called “God,” yet not so as to exclude the Son from Godhead, any more than to call the Son “Lord” excludes the Father from Lordship. N.B.

8.—The term [the unity of God] is used only by analogy. Though there is one “Divine nature, the unity of God is not a unity of kind, because there are not individuals of the same species, and therefore, as for other reasons, the word is inapplicable to the Divinity. Of all other objects of thought we can imagine fellows or reproductions. But in God there is absolute soleness—SOLEITAS; though what lies hidden in the mystery of this essential ONENESS we know but partially. It is wrong to dogmatise upon the nature of a unity to which we have no parallel, and which we cannot define by comparison or illustration” (Pope, Compend. Theol., i. 258). This unity not to be so emphasised as to reduce the Unity to three manifestations of the One God, successive but in different modes—Sabellianism. Paul is still so far a Jew that, speaking in the presence of heathen idolatries and of Jewish sensitiveness, his language is coloured by the Monotheism in which he had been trained from early boyhood. Yet “Lord” is the New Testament appropriation of the LXX. equivalent for Jehovah, and he, above all others, makes it the customary designation of Jesus of Nazareth, his risen Master. [See, as to the practical usefulness of the Unity of God, Rom_3:20 (therefore one way of justification before Him, for Jew and Gentile); 1Ti_2:5-6 (therefore prayer should be offered for all men); Gal_3:20 (most obscure introduction of the thought; perhaps the meaning is—therefore a Promise from Him Who is one and alone in giving it, is a transaction of a different nature to a Covenant, which implies two or many parties); Act_17:26; Eph_4:6; Mar_12:29; Mar_12:33 (one object of worship, therefore one undivided heart-allegiance).] N.B.

9.—Observe the carefully distinguished prepositions, indicating origin, end, midway condition, respectively. The rivers of being came from and return unto God, the Sea, their Source and Good (cf. Ecc_1:7). Their midway course is conditioned at every point by Christ; all is through Him. [N.B.

9.—Look at Joh_1:3; Heb_1:2-3; in Col_1:16 notice how Christ is, like the Father here, made the goal and end; in Rom_11:36 the “through” here connected with Christ, is associated with God. This interchangeableness of God and Christ in such relations, speaks significant things as to Paul’s inspired estimate of the Jesus whom Peter and many still living had known in the flesh and “after the flesh.”] We.—Amongst the “all things.”

1Co_8:7. Important new reading (as in text) now in great favour. Choose between (the old, which meant) “still finding a moral difficulty for conscience in the idol,” and (the new, which means) “still under the influence of inveterately habitual association of ideas.” Both, no doubt, true difficulties to all converts. Robertson (Lectures) aptly parallels a modern instance: “Science has banished an express faith in the existence [of apparitions], yet … much credulity on the subject remains. The statute book is purged from sentences on witchcraft, yet a lingering feeling remains that it may still exist in power.” So, he continues, the heathen deities “were dethroned as gods, but they still existed, to the imagination, as beings of a lower order,—as demons who were malicious to men and enemies to God.” [But does this last satisfy 1Co_10:20?]

1Co_8:8. Meat.—Wider, of course, than merely “flesh-meat”; distinction drawn in 1Co_8:13. Equivalent to “what is eaten.” Commend.—For the figure see, e.g., Rom_5:8, or 2Co_4:2. Notice the reversed order of clauses, as in the new, better reading. The diffident, morbidly scrupulous, are first reassured; then the too confident, inconsiderately “broad,” “liberal” people are cautioned. Notice the marginal literal rendering in the Rom_14:17 is parallel.

1Co_8:9. Liberty.—Really “power”; connected with “are lawful,” 1Co_6:12; not supposed by Paul to be any unauthorised “liberty,” thus taken by the Corinthian who eats. Right enough, in the light of clear, abstract knowledge.

1Co_8:10. Emboldened.—Literally “built up” a new turn given to the word of 1Co_8:1. “Ruinosa œdificatin,” Calvin.

1Co_8:11. Perisheth.—Note this present, not future, tense in the best reading. As always, “salvation” and “perdition” are continuous conditions, begun already and simply continued, though intensified, into eternity (so Act_2:47; 2Co_2:15). Also note the theological deduction drawn from this; with a force the stronger, just because the point occurs incidentally, an understood and accepted truth, both to Paul and to the Christian, in dealing with whom he makes it a sure basis of appeal;—a man may be even now perishing for whom Christ as much and as really died as for those who are now being saved.

1Co_8:12.—How Paul had learned the lesson of Act_9:4. (See the homiletic treatment of “The Body of Christ,” 1Co_12:27.)

1Co_8:13.—Different word for “stumble” here from that in 1Co_8:9. That really is “stumbling-block”; this is (always) rather a trap or snare, which catches, by entangling, the feet.

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—Whole Chapter

Whole chapter may be grouped around the two clauses of the concluding sentence of 1Co_8:1.

A. The teachings of knowledge (1Co_8:1-8).

B. The teachings of love (1Co_8:9-13).

A.

I. The great central truth is the existence and unity of God.—This has been the peculiar work of Israel, to preserve and exhibit the truth about Him. Others might speculate about an Eternal Matter, a self-originated, self-sustained, Creation, eternal a parte ante; Israel knew only an Eternal Creator, “of Whom … to Whom,” etc. Others might confuse Him with His work; Israel knew—and the Church knows—of a personal Creator distinct from His Creation. Others might “solve” the problem of the presence of evil, physical and moral, by a Dualism which conceived of a co-ordinate, independent author and worker of the evil, side by side with the Author and Worker of good; Israel, and the Church, testify to a personal worker and author of evil, indeed, but one who is the creature of God, working in strictest, though enforced, subjection to the limitations of the will of the one only God, and mysteriously subservient to the purposes and glory of that ONE Only GOD. “Unto Whom.”

II. The new stage, just then being reached by the world in the unfolding of God’s revelation of Himself, discovered this God in relation to another “personal” existence within His own essence. A “Father,” loving and loved by a “Son,” Who had stepped forth from the unseen, within then very recent years, and in human form had taken His part and place in the history of the race, the historical “Jesus,” the “Christ” for whom Israel had been for ages waiting, the “Lord” in the life and worship and thought of Christians, Jew and Gentile alike. And a yet more profound and mysterious truth connected with this Jesus Christ, the Lord, was coming into view. He is seen standing a Midway Term, a Mediating Condition, making possible, actual, the (intellectually difficult) passage between Creator and Creation: “apart from Him nothing made that was made”; “the worlds framed by the (Personal) Word of God” (Joh_1:3; Heb_11:3). Further, as for their origin, so for their continuous maintenance in order, beauty, life, all created things depend mediately, not directly, upon God, “through” Christ; the God of Providence, as of Creation, is God in Christ. [To a Christian, therefore, Providence is no mere bare, hard, perfect, governmental system, but the rule of a God with a heart; a God Whose heart has been seen and known in Christ. To a Christian, Providence is not only wisdom, but love; not only power, but grace.]

III. There is, further, another Creation, another world, with its order and beauty and life and government,—the spiritual; a glorious Sub-section, a grand Episode, in the larger Whole of God-originated, God-sustained Being; taking shape in a Church; repeated, too, in all its essential characteristics, but on a smaller scale, in the new order, beauty, happiness, rule, within the individual life of the Christian. Nowhere is it more true than of the Church and of the Christian, “we are through Him,” viz. Christ. The Church, the individual believer, is nothing, has nothing, becomes nothing, could retain nothing, except through Christ. He and His work and grace are the great underlying, foundation, Condition, assumed in all God’s dealing with them; presupposed in all the new creation from first to last. Remove Him from the facts of the case as between God and man, and all disappears,—Redemption, Pardon, the Grace of the Spirit; all life, knowledge, good; all hope, all heaven. [“Things which are not” have become and, moment by moment, subsist—“we are”—through Christ (1Co_1:28; 1Co_1:30).]

IV. This once apprehended and made the working basis of thought and practice, “An idol is nothing.” [God and Providence once fully believed in and trusted, all Luck, Chance, Evil-eye, Omens, Astrology, and a host of heathenish fears and superstitions and sinful traffickings with demons and the dead, disappear from Christian life.] The image may have meant in better, earlier, [very occasional] instances an attempt to assist the worshipping instinct and craving in man to realise and approach some Presence vaguely apprehended and believed in, in Nature. But there could be no real correspondence between the idols and the true God. [Paul on Mars’ Hill pointed across to the Acropolis of Athens, with its temples and statues. “God—God that made the world—dwells not even in such glorious shrines as those. God, whose offspring Men are, is no thing of stone or ivory or gold like even those.”] There were—could be—no beings to be represented by the crowds of idols, “gods many, lords many,” in every heathen pantheon. The one Divine Presence and Power and Ruler “in the world” is the God Whom we know; the idol stands for nothing, represents and makes visible no reality, signifies nothing—is a mere piece of carved or molten matter, a work of art perhaps, but nothing to be worshipped or feared, and has no meaning to the religious instinct. [Except in the indirect sense that the Adversary of God and of all good avails himself of the idol, to divert to himself and his “demons” the homage of the worshipping heart in men, and perverts into the occasion of gross sin the very ceremonial of the worship of heathen systems (1Co_10:20).]

V. Hence follows a complete emancipation of the use and enjoyment of the creature from any superstitious restrictions.—All the creation of God is free to man, God’s designated lord of creation. [Woods, streams, mountains are no longer haunted by, possessed by, a host of divinities.] No regard need any longer be had to any connection between a “divinity” supposed in the idol, and the thing useful or needful for man. The food which has been upon an idol altar has lost nothing nor gained anything in that fact. It was morally neutral before; intrinsically it is non-moral still to partake of it. [Hard for any except those to-day living or working in countries and societies beginning to be affected by Christianity, to realise what an emancipation it brings to mind and heart and practice to find the heathen pantheon, whether poetically beautiful or fearsomely dreadful, benignant or malevolent, swept away, and the world seen to be a great temple filled with God, and that God known in, ruling by, to be worshipped in, Christ. It is a revolutionising emancipation. The dread is gone, which perpetually overhung life; the shadow disappears from nature and from the future; there is a new sense of security and freedom. Men breathe freely, walk with a new buoyancy, move and work and enjoy, in a world whose atmosphere is filled with the presence of God in Christ.]

VI. One other fact is assumed as between Paul and his correspondents: “Christ died even for a man who perishes.”—Redemption is no fatalism; no hard compulsion which necessitates ultimate salvation. Redemption has brought a grace to every man, which is the basis on which the Spirit and the man himself may co-operate to build up a saved life. All “natural” goodness, all the so-called “innate” knowledge of what is “right” and what “wrong,” all “freedom” and “power” of will toward God and good, all the (often very strong) drawings toward God, and the (often very strong) holdings back from sin; all ability to respond to God’s “command” that men should repent (Act_17:30); all ability to believe with a saving faith; all knowledge of, sensibility to, love for, Divine things; all the light given even to the heathen;—all are fruits of the redemptive work of Christ, availing literally for all men. This may be followed up or sinned away. It is always enough to make condemnation just, if a man be unfaithful to it; whilst out of it may grow a true salvation. This makes Christ the “light which lighteth every man coming into the world” (Joh_1:5). Every man is born of a redeemed stock; because of a Redeemer’s grace, every man may be saved. Whatever be the eternal issue of the life of the individual, or his present moral condition—however sunk or degraded or dark—the great facts of the Redeemer’s work remain unalterably facts, independently of any use or neglect of them by the man himself. They are the foundation of all hope for the Christian worker, as he seeks to lift and save others; they are the basis of all work; they are the warrant for prayer for the salvation of souls.

VII. Knowledge has its perils.—

1. Such knowledge is no achievement to be boasted of; it is a privilege, a mercy, a favour, a grace. The wisdom of the world does not “know” all this. It is to-day avowedly “Agnostic” in regard to all such questions. It will affirm nothing, will deny nothing; it has no scientific basis or right to say “we know.” The ancient philosophies never reached any certain conclusions on such topics. Each teacher was successful rather in criticising his predecessor’s system and logic than in constructing his own, or in bringing to any restful certainty the mind and heart. God was not, is not, found by searching. The Fatherhood, with its correlative Sonships, Divine and human, was never so much as guessed or suspected. The history of speculation and nquiry, ancient and modern, conclusively establishes this, that upon this last point we have to choose between believing a revelation and complete ignorance; and, further, that as to the existence, nature, unity, creative work, and providential government of God, nothing beyond guesses, which may ripen into hope, are attainable by unassisted reason.

2. So, then, knowledge should be, (a) grateful, (b) humble, and (c) patient towards ignorance or less-advanced knowledge. There is a delight in the winning of knowledge which is intoxicating; there is a glorious sense of mastery when new ground has been occupied, when new worlds of facts have been possessed; the sense of enlargement reveals to a man how glorious a thing is his manhood, with its capacity for apprehending and appropriating such great truths. But the wise man should remember that all he knows is all a gift, a grace. He should be grateful. He should remember how limited, after all, is his knowledge at its widest, and be humble. “There remaineth yet much land to be possessed.” He has only yet made and occupied a small clearing in a boundless forest of dark recesses and intricate growths. Above all, he needs to be patient to those who have not yet reached his point of advance and clear vision. [The sixth-form scholar is impatient with the firstform boy, that he cannot at once see what is to himself so obvious.] He must not forget the days when he was himself toilsomely climbing the hill whose top, with its broad horizon of knowledge, he has now reached. He must keep his sympathy for those whose knowledge is yet only in process towards the relative completeness which is, after all, all he has himself even now attained. Self-sufficiency, self-conceit, unsympathetic impatience with imperfect enlightenment, are some of the moral perils of the man “puffed up” with his “knowledge.” [Even in merely secular, natural knowledge also, error is not far off when this is the temper of an inquirer; the student who would still go on to “know,” must be humble, simple, docile to Nature and its facts. Carelessness and inaccuracy of methods, or their application, are also perils not far away from such students.]

B. The teachings of love.—

1. Knowledge and love are in no necessary opposition. They are made for each other. Their union produces the perfect life. They are both found in closest alliance, each perfect, in God. No need to exalt love at the expense of knowledge. Knowledge is not sinful, or godless, per se. (See Paul’s prayer for his beloved Philippians, Php_1:9.) The Godlike life needs, embodies, combines, both. Indeed, in the highest sense, and in regard to the highest things, love is the condition of knowledge. Only the man who “loves God,” knows God; or (let us say) can have that life of fellowship with God whose not least precious privilege it is to rejoice to lie all open and “known” to the scrutiny of the eye of God.

2. Love without knowledge is liable to become fanatical, and easily led into mischievous error. Knowledge without love is apt to become, as we have seen, impatient of weakness, cold, hard, repellent, pitiless; in its self-contained, self-satisfied exaltation following out its conclusions to their rigorous, logical issues, regardless of the consequences in other lives. Apt to be lifted up to a mountain-top of self-glorification, and to forget or despise the struggling, troubled, tempted, weaker multitudes on the lower levels of common life. In the region of the clear, cold light of its definite convictions and assured conclusions, it walks confidently, securely, and does not understand or allow for the difficulties and perils of the lives which walk in the mists and darkness of weakness or half-enlightenment. The knowledge of the logical mind is specially liable to be cruelly reckless of what pressing perfectly warranted conclusions to their full length may cost to the men and women who cannot live by logic; who largely follow “custom,” and with difficulty find their way into new paths, whether of belief or practice; who do not readily emancipate mind or “conscience” from long-established ideas, or prepossessions or prejudices; who find it harder than do the men of “knowledge,” to unlearn the mental and moral habits and training of a lifetime. To such, for example, a public banquet in a heathen temple was not yet a thing simply of social and civil life. The place itself was not neutral ground, and the fact that some of the provisions had been offered upon idol altars gave the very food upon the table a moral taint. Let the man of knowledge press them upon the point; they can give him—can give themselves—little or no satisfying reason for their instinctive shrinking from participation. “But you believe that there are no such gods as the idols represent?” “Yes.” “And you believe, too, that the temple floor is part of the world which all belongs to your God?” “Yes.” “And you surely see that a heathen divinity which is really non-existent cannot have affected the food put upon its altar?” “Yes. Y-e-s. But—” “And you understand that God takes no account of you, favourable or unfavourable, merely because of what you eat or don’t eat, or drink?” “Yes.” And yet the habit of regarding the banquet and the food as affected by its consecration to a god is not readily to be uprooted; conscience cannot see clearly yet that, because the idol is nothing, the effect upon the food is morally nothing.

3. Whilst, then, Knowledge lives too readily in an unreal world [almost in a moral vacuum], and takes too little account of the complexity of moral questions in the concrete of daily life, Love says to Knowledge: “Do not disregard the prejudice born of habit, and the difficulty born of half-enlightenment of conscience. Do not by your action force on too fast in his mental development, and in his moral growth, the less-advanced man next you in the Church. Do not stand too stiffly upon, nor exact for yourself too rigorously, the fullest liberty which in the abstract you might claim. His foundation will not carry your building as yours can. Remember he is likely to emulate you, disliking perhaps to be thought weak, fearing perhaps the scornful verdict implied in the very contrast with you; he will try to build as fast and as high as you; he will try to go as far. That respect for conscience and its teaching which is a primary principle of all moral life will be injured. It is part of the foundation of his character; you help him to disturb it. And then, with a shaken foundation, and a building too high for it, if even it were in unimpaired strength, no great wonder if he “perish”; beginning with violence done to his moral sensitiveness, he will go on to some more positive transgression, tempted by the scenes and company into which you embolden him to thrust himself. What wonder if all his ideas, his moral convictions, his practice, come toppling down in soul-destroying ruin! And if he “perish,” what follower are you of that Christ “who died” to redeem and save him? “Knowledge?” “I see as clearly as any of you how absolutely nothing in intrinsic significance are all such accidents of the food I eat. They are nothing to it, or to me; they in no way affect my standing before God. But rather than even contribute to the moral wreck of even one soul, rather than spread a snare for an unwary or unsteady and uncertain foot, I will abstain always and in all circumstances from anything which creates difficulty or danger to my brother’s soul.” Hardly necessary to think that Paul in actual practice abstained from flesh-meat, except in the particular case here under discussion. The “I” is somewhat rhetorical. He is, in part, indirectly suggesting to a Corinthian what his heart ought to make him say.

HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS

1Co_8:1-3. Knowledge weighed in the Balances against Love.—The verdict is: “Found wanting.”

I. The reference is special—to knowledge in relation to Divine things. This is due to the special occasion out of which Paul’s words have arisen. But 1Co_8:2 is true of knowledge on all subjects, in any field of inquiry.

1. True knowledge will only be arrived at by the man who is a patient inquirer; recognising himself the servant, not the master or the maker, of Facts; acknowledging that truth is paramount, and before any question of his own reputation or consistency as a theorist or a teacher. He must never, in his confidence that “he knows,” be so wedded to his own first conclusions as not to admit their modification or complete setting aside, if new light and new facts be forthcoming, especially when these are the result of the inquiry and the work of others. He will be humble, recognising the limitations of his powers, of his field; that his results are often only provisionally and relatively true, and that when absolutely true they are only part of the whole Truth. Nature—Natural Science—has little or nothing to reveal to the man full of prepossessions or prejudices; who will not always have the spirit of a learner; who, confident in his own results, too promptly closes doors, and refuses to allow to himself further inquiry, or to new truth any entrance, in any particular direction. One of the surest results of the widest knowledge is the knowledge how much there is to know, and how little any one man can or does know. (Cf. Homily on “We know in part,” 1Co_13:9.)

2. The humble, teachable, patient temper is still more emphatically a sine quâ non of all knowledge in relation to Divine things. “The little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Indeed, “the little child alone enters into,” and so arrives at any true knowledge of, “the kingdom of heaven.” The man of prepossessions—against Revelation or any part of its contents, or for Reason, making it the one, supreme organon of knowledge, and the sole test of truth; who will insist that everything, indeed, shall satisfy his reason—will arrive at no true knowledge of God. The man, in spiritual things “wise in his own conceits,” is not really wise. To a “spiritual” man whom “love” has “built up” in real knowledge, it is amusing to hear the dogmatically confident pronouncements upon points of theology and the experimental life. [These two stand in the most intimate association. The heart makes the theologian. The knowledge of God and things Divine is a grace of the same Spirit Who awakens and sustains the experimental life of God within the soul. He will, He can, teach nothing to the man who is not first morally receptive.] He may be a very scantily educated, a very little cultured, man; but on these topics he says, with much pity and some amusement, “Ah, my wise friend, you know nothing yet as you ought to know.”

II. Of knowledge and love in contrast we say:

1. Knowledge puffs the man up; love builds him up. Love is the basis of the noblest character; above all, of the distinctively Christian character. This begins in the love of God shed abroad in the heart; this awakens an answering love to God, “because He first loved us.” Love lays all new knowledge under contribution for practical life; it is the supreme, the summarised, Law of life; it is the one adequate, self-acting, reliable, motive power, as well as the director of all Christian activity. Love and knowledge need each other. The sentence is antithetically strong in its form; but facts, and the reason of the thing, agree to make it clear that love alone cannot build up a strong character. Love without knowledge tends to become mere feeble sentimentalism; a mere impulsive, impressionable thing, at the mercy of the latest influence brought to bear. Knowledge ought to give “bone,” rigidity, resistant power, to the spiritual “constitution.” But knowledge alone can make no constitution; love is the health of the soul, without which all the food which knowledge brings, only “puffs up,” not feeds. Thus increase of knowledge may become a real danger to the soul, unless it be turned to practical account, as a new ability to serve God and man better, in loving devotion to both. Turn all new light into new activity. Light should be force. “If ye know, happy are ye if ye do.”

2. Knowledge puffs the man himself up; love seeks to build others up. Paul’s point here. The clear, confident, instructed man, to whom all the idolatry of his old life was now a transparent sham, by the keen vision of his knowl dge, seen through and through in all its empty unreality, was apt to be a selfish man. Proud in his superiority to the vulgar, unreasoning prejudices of the common run of his fellow-Christians; puffed up with a sense of mental grasp and large view; his danger was to live for himself, to pursue his own course, reckless what souls he ran down and wrecked in the unfaltering, unswerving, severely logical, adherence to his own clearly traced path, followed out to its utmost logical consequences. The peril of knowledge is fastidiousness, intolerance, and lack of sympathy for other and less perfect views, a cruel insistence upon its own rights and liberty; summum jus working summam injuriam. Love in its very nature goes outside itself; looks at others, tries to understand their ignorance, the difficulties of their half-enlightenment, both of understanding and conscience; is patient with their slower progress, accommodates its own pace to their slower advancement. Mere knowledge pushes ignorance impatiently aside, and holds on its own way; love stops to help and encourage, and carry forward in its company to its own goal. Knowledge alone is apt to be the intellectual priest or Levite; Love stops to be the Samaritan, seeking to save and build up again the soul in peril, or perplexity, or ignorance. Knowledge says, “This people that knoweth not the law are cursed.” Love says, “Come unto me, ye that are burdened and heavy laden; I will give you rest.”

III. Love, and not mere knowledge, brings into fellowship with God.—The Devil knows—none better—how true is everything Paul asserts in this chapter. Conceivable that a man may acquire and retain a full, accurate, trained knowledge of the didactic and controversial literature of divinity in all its topics, whilst losing the love which brought him into union with God. But, the love gone, the life is gone; the link between God and the soul is sundered. If he do not love God, he cannot know God. [How constantly we say, “So-and-so will never know or understand me; he does not like me.”] God will know him, indeed, as He knows all His works (Act_15:18). But He will “know the proud” man of knowledge “afar off” (Psa_138:6). There will be no love in God’s knowledge. No affectionate, complacent regard, as a father knows his child, or a friend his friend. The man who loves knows God. They look into each other’s heart, and know each other.

1Co_8:6. Christian Monotheism.—The Jew was the monotheist of the ancient world. [Modern inquiry and fuller knowledge are making it clear that Cyrus was no such strict monotheist as until recently was supposed. Moreover, the Persian religion recognised as secondary, but independent, Being, the Author and Worker of evil. It was really Dualism, not Monotheism.] The Christian, as well as the Jew and the Mahometan, is a modern monotheist. “To us there is but one God.” The name “Unitarian” is now understood, and has become a convenience; but every Christian Trinitarian claims to be also in the true sense “unitarian”: a monotheist in the strictest sense. (See also further in the Critical Notes.) This Christian belief in the unity of God by no means denies Godhead to the Lord Jesus Christ [or to the Spirit]. [It is understood that all language on this topic is negative of error, rather than positive assertion of truth, and must be accepted and used with that proviso. It walks on a narrow, edgelike path, with pitfalls of error, of overstatement, or deficient statement, on either hand.] With sufficient frequency to make belief in His Godhead secure, are Divine names given to Him, and a Divine position, in the language, affections, life, work, of the men of the New Testament. Yet, prevalently, the name “God” is given to the “Father.” This verse is typical in its style of language in regard to Christ.

1. Something may be due to the “local colouring” of the men, their Jewish race and upbringing, their idolatrous age and surroundings. The unity of God still needed emphasising in the presence of a polytheistic world. Also they had themselves known, or knew well those who had known, the Son of God,—had eaten with, lived with, seen, heard, handled, the Son in the familiar guise of the Man, Jesus, of Nazareth. Perhaps permissible, and in accordance with the analogy of all God’s dealings, to say that they were not yet so far emancipated from their old monotheistic predispositions, as that their habitual language should yet fully express their actual belief in the Godhead of their Master. The heart did, but not yet fully their tongue.

2. More is due to the fact that from (say) Act_2:22 to (say) 1Jn_5:20 the Spirit is, with increasing clearness, revealing the Divine Son. In this verse the language is still transitional.

3. But, after all, there is not only that degree of relative truth in the restricted attribute of the name “God” to the “Father”; there is also the absolute truth which has sometimes been called the “Principatus” of the Father. [Neither this, nor “subordination” in regard to the Son, may be overpressed. They are working conventionalisms of language, rather than exact statements of the whole truth; these latter are, indeed, impossible to us. In Pearson’s well-known, cautious words (Creed, article i.), “Some kind of priority we must ascribe unto Him Whom we call the first, in respect of Him Whom we call the second.… Now this privilege or priority consisteth not in this, that the essence or attributes of the one are greater than the essence or the attributes of the other, … but only in this, that the Father hath that essence of Himself, the Son by communication from the Father.” Above all, add to this, that New Testament language ordinarily has regard to the Father and the Son, as they are seen related, and active, in the working out of Redemption.

4. Multiplied, often verified, experiment in all ages, in all lands, in persons of all ages and types, has shown that, with the smallest exception, the Godhead of the “Lord Jesus Christ” has not only created no difficulty in regard to the Oneness of the Godhead, but has proved to be the truth which has satisfied alike the most cultured intellects and the simplest hearts. For the child, or the heathen, or the untrained adult mind at home, “Jesus” is the “God” with Whom their heart has practically to do. [A thing this, quite distinct from the formal, theologically precise Swedenborgian assertion that the One God is He Whom we know as the Son, Jesus Christ.] History and the reason of the thing show that

I. Christian, Trinitarian Monotheism is the one form of teaching about God which has for any long period preserved unimpaired the doctrine of the unity of God.—“The mere abstract unity of the Godbead, which does not include a multiplicity, soon leads to a cold and lifeless Deism; and as soon as it has reached this point, is forced to seek refreshment from the pantheistic religions of nature. After the Jews and Mahometans had rejected the idea of a Son who is of the same Divine essence with His Father, as idolatry, they were fated to find their absolutely monotheistic conceptions of God utterly empty and lifeless, so that they yearned after the warm vitality of Pantheism. This is a phenomenon which is clearly evident from the history of the Jewish philosophers (especially Spinoza) as well as of the Indian and Persian Pantheists. And so, too, it could not but happen that philosophical Pantheism should tread on the heels of German Deism and Rationalism. As long as Theism distinguishes only between God and the world, and not between God and God, it will always have a tendency to Pantheism, or some other denial of absolute Being.… (The) One has taken to Himself all life, and neutralises all the vital fulness of nature. We no longer feel love or joy. There is but One around whom all things move, and He is a cold, mathematical quantity, a point of pure abstraction. Abstract Monotheism has too little life-blood to offer an enduring resistance to the pantheistic deification of nature.… In [the Trinity] we have a Unity; not, however, unloving and lifeless, a cold numerical One, but a complex of living and loving energies—a living Unity embracing a Plurality, and bearing the sacred name of Father, Son, and Spirit.” [Christlieb, Modern Doubt and Christian Belief, pp. 266, 267. To similar effect, and very nobly, Huntington, Christian Believing and Living, pp. 343, 344, who says:] “Two errors divide the unchristianised world between them. Either the personality of God is sacrificed to the infinity, or the infinity is sacrificed to the personality. In the former case men may imagine that they recognise an Infinite Being; but it is only an abstraction, or a principle, or a bundle of laws, or a loose mass of sequences and phenomena, from which the attribute of infinity itself as well as of personal consciousness is soon found to have ebbed away. In the latter case the innate longing for a veritable Divine Person, with personal traits answering to ours, may be met; but it will soon begin to appear that, though a Person remains, the Eternal and Uncreated and Almighty God of glory is gone.… Both the errors spring from desires and demands of man’s nature which in themselves are right.… Despairing to conceive of personality without limitation, some men rush over to Pantheism. Others, despairing of retaining a Deity near enough for love and sympathy who is literally infinite, stop short with a Deity who is not God.… [And he adds:] These implanted wants are wonderfully satisfied in the Divine Trinity. In the Absolute and one only Godhead, all man’s highest, purest, largest, most far-reaching conceptions, stretching away into the regions of Infinitude, Eternity, Almightiness, have their full and complete exercise. In the Incarnate Christ, taking up our humanity, the longing for a personal, sympathising, companionable, Deity is blessedly answered—and yet God is there: there is no loss of the essential and veritable Deity. In the Holy Spirit, the natural desire of the devout mind to connect God with all the operations of the present world, the processes of Creation, the welfare, renewal, revolutions, sanctification of the Human Family, finds its lawful verification.” “I have long thought that without an eternal Logos you must have an eternal cosmos; and I therefore suspect that a monopersonal Theism is impotent against the Pantheist. So that since the controversy has passed from its old atheistic phases, I doubt if either Deist, or Socinian, or Mahometan, will be able to cope with the Pantheist. In short, I doubt if any but a Trinitarian can do so adequately.” (Dr. Duncan, in Colloquia Peripatetica, p. 96.)

II. “The conception of the triune God furnishes us with the sole bridge that can fill up the breach between God and the world, … the void which separates the transcendent unity of God from the rich and manifold organisation of natural life.… The Word which becomes incarnate, in order to do and suffer for mankind, and the Spirit who by His power begets fresh life, both stand between God and the world as mediate causes which not only render the creation of the world a possibility, but also guarantee the Divine presence in it, and its return to God. Here we have all the fulness and freshness of Pantheism combined with the truth of Monotheism, whilst the element in which the latter is wanting, viz. a real connecting link between God and the world, is here supplied.… [So particularly by the Incarnation and the Atonement.] We have a connecting link between God and man in the person of the Incarnate Logos, who is the eternal Archetype of the whole creation, and especially of man, and who for all future æons will be the head of the whole body.… The spiritual chasm which yawns between sinful man and the absolutely sinless God-man is filled up by the regenerating and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. Hence the doctrine of the Trinity affords the most important aids in determining our practical relation to God.” (Christlieb, p. 270.)

(For the relations of this Doctrine to the spiritual life, see in the Critical Notes.)

1Co_8:10-13. The Rights of Conscience.—N.B. of even an ill-instructed, half-enlightened, needlessly sensitive, conscience.

I. It has rights

(1) as against the man himself. It claims to be listened to, and obeyed, especially when restricting liberty and condemning action. The man may grow more enlightened by-and-by, better instructed, clearer in view, and stronger in character. But, until he does, let him rigorously compel himself to obey conscience. The eye will so be kept healthy, and ready to receive new light; the ear will be kept sensitive, and ready to receive new direction from God. More hope, more possibilities, for a conscientious heathen than for a well-instructed Christian who at every step is doing violence to his clear knowledge of wrong and right. “To him that hath, (and is faithful to, even one talent of knowledge and light) shall be given (more light).” God is honoured, Whose gifts both the faculty and any degree of enlightenment it possesses are. Obedience to conscience is the germ out of which all true morality must grow. A man must not do what his conscience forbids.

(2) As against the better instructed, fully enlightened Christian. Such a one must deal gently with the “weaker” brother. Especially may he need to abridge his own liberty for his sake. “No doubt, to the large, free, enlightened mind of Paul, all these scruples and superstitions must have seemed mean, trivial, and small indeed. It was a matter to him of far less importance that truth should be established, than that it should be arrived at truly—a matter of far less importance, even that right should be done, than that right should be done rightly. Conscience was far more sacred to him than even liberty.… The scruple may be small and foolish, but it may be impossible to uproot it, without tearing up the feeling of the sanctity of conscience, and of reverence for the law of God, associated with the scruple. Therefore … Paul counsels … to abridge their … liberty.… For two reasons: the first, one of Christian feeling. It might cause exquisite pain to sensitive minds to see those things which appeared to them to be wrong done by Christian brethren.… Further, if any man, overborne by authority or interest were [to eat], not according to conscience, but against it, there would be a distinct and direct act of disobedience—a conflict between the sense of right, and the gratification of his appetites or the power of influence; and then his compliance would as much damage his conscience and moral sense as if the act had been wrong in itself.” (Robertson, Expos. Lectures, in loco.)

II. Yet conscience has no absolute right of acquittal.—

1. Look, e.g., at 1Co_4:4 : “I know nothing against myself, yet,” etc. Conscience holds barely a “court of first instance.” Every verdict must be reported to the Great Judge. He alone knows absolute wrong and right. Conscience is no independently authoritative fountain of law. It does good, though only provisional, service if (as here) a man is led to use what is perhaps an excess of caution. It cannot blamelessly enlarge liberty, if the enlargement mean sin. Conscientious ignorance can only be “excused” when it has led to “sin,” if the man be, as the foundation of all his status before God, a sinner trusting in Christ, and if he have also sought for light with all simplicity and earnestness, and have followed, as before God, all the light he has.

2. Also no regard for another man’s scruples or ignorance may require a Christian to suppress or conceal truth, or to do what to himself is wrong. His conscience in its turn has its rights, and must be obeyed. [Indeed, obviously, the whole field within which Paul’s counsel and its underlying principle are binding or operative, is a narrow one, limited to questions not of absolute, abiding, universal, wrong and right, but only to the relative wrong and right which may vary according to the circumstances of the man or the time, to expediency, or the demand of brotherly forbearance.] [“Christ died” for such! How much will you deny yourself of to save a soul from difficulty or temptation? What father will not banish drink from his table, if his boy is in danger? What teacher will not dress more quietly, if her Sunday scholars are in danger of pleading her example to defend their vanity or waste in dress? What friend will not give up his cards, or his novel, or his opera, if his practice is a stumbling-block, or a real temptation, to his friend—though perhaps very illogically and unfairly so? It would not be the Spirit of Christ which says: “Why should I give up my novel, my billiards, my opera, my alcohol, my cards, for the sake of these poor creatures who cannot use without abusing? For the sake, e.g., of these children, these new converts, these narrow and prejudiced ‘evangelicals’!”]

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

1Co_8:1-13

A.—Not knowledge, but love the rule

1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. 2Knowledge puffeth up, but charity [love] edifieth. And [om. And1 ] if any man think that he knoweth [has known2 ] anything, he knoweth [has known3 ] nothing yet4 as he ought to know. 3But if any man love God, the same is known of him. 4As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other5 God but one. 5For though there he that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there he gods many, and lords many,) 6But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 7are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience6 of the idol unto this hour7 eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8But meat commendeth [will not affect8 ] us not to [before] God: for [om. for9 ] neither, if we eat, are we the better 9[worse]; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse [better10 ]. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.11 10For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened [edified, οἰκοδομηθήσεται] to 11eat those things which are offered to idols; And [For] through12 thy knowledge shall [om. shall] the weak brother [om. brother13 ] perish, [perishes14—the brother] for whom Christ died? 12But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The instructions and exhortations contained in this paragraph, relate to a still further question proposed to the Apostle in the letter from Corinth, and to the conflict which had arisen in consequence, between two parties in the Church. On the one side were those who, as they believed in the nothingness of idolatry, and were fully conscious of their Christian liberty in reference to all that which was not in conflict with the nature of their calling, maintained their perfect right to buy and eat the meat offered for sale in the market, which had been sacrificed to idols, and also to partake of that which was set before them at table in the houses of heathen—yea, even to participate at their sacrificial feasts,15 because, as they affirmed, this flesh was like all other flesh, and that in partaking of it they came into no injurious connection with idols, since idols were nothing in themselves, and so, incapable of harm. On the other side were those who utterly reprobated such conduct, and deemed it pollution; for they still believed idols to be veritable, active agents, that exerted a malign and defiling influence on those who in any way came in contact with them—as, for example, those seemed to, who ate of the flesh of beasts sacrificed to them. That the latter were heathen and not Jewish converts, is to be inferred from 1Co_8:7 th, where the expression: “unto this hour,” points to the continuance of an earlier state, and implies, that those spoken of had been heathen, and were still held captive by their old heathenish notions about the reality of idol gods whom they had come to regard as subject to the one supreme God. This inference cannot be disputed; although it must be conceded also that even by the Jews (Jewish converts) idols were regarded as demons, that were exerting a veritable power in heathendom, and exercised a baleful and defiling influence upon all those who in any way came in contact with heathen forms of life. [“To offer ‘polluted bread’ upon the altar of the Lord, or to eat the meat of idolatrous princes, had been condemned by the warning of Malachi (1Co_1:7-12), the good example of Daniel (1Co_1:8), and Tobit (1Co_1:10-11), and the evil example of Israel at Baalpeor (Num_25:2; Psa_106:28).” Stanley]. And this class also must be supposed to have felt a holy horror at the polluted meat, and shown no little solicitude as to the manner it was to be dealt with. The dispute which thus originated, we have no reason to believe had anything to do with the party divisions spoken of in chap. 1. There is no propriety, therefore, in supposing that the more stringent, scrupulous ones, belonged to the party calling themselves after Cephas or after Christ; although it were more plausible to regard the more liberal-minded as belonging rather to the Paulinists, or Apollinarians.

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

[“The importance of the controversy which thus arose is obvious. Closely as the whole social life of the ancient world was interwoven with its religious worship, the decision of this question affected the whole relations of the Christian society with its heathen neighbors; and, in fact, involved all the similar, though more complicated questions, discussed in the first four centuries of the Christian Church, respecting the lawfulness of attending on the spectacles or receiving the honors of the Roman Empire. Accordingly, this, although the chief, is not the only passage in which the point is discussed. See Rom_14:2; Rom_14:21; Rev_2:14-15; Act_15:29.” Stanley].

1Co_8:1-6. Now concerning.—[Here we have the introduction of a new topic with περὶ δὲ, just as in chap. 7],—idol sacrifices,—εἰδωλοθύτων. This is a topic which we see to have already been brought up in discussion, and a decision rendered upon it in the first council at Jerusalem (Act_15:29). To that decision it is remarkable that Paul makes no allusion. [“Probably this is to be traced to his wish to establish his position as an independent Apostle, endowed with the Holy Spirit sufficiently himself to regulate such matters.” Alford].—We know that we all have knowledge.—[Many commentators regard these words as quoted from the Epistle to the Corinthians, and assented to, at the start, in a general way, and in a conciliatory manner. They are not, therefore, to be interpreted strictly, nor is “all” to be emphasized. Kling questions this view (see below), but hardly on sufficient grounds. It is quite in the spirit of Paul]. From 1Co_8:1 to 1Co_8:3, there is a logical parenthesis, as may be seen from the resumption of these words in 1Co_8:4. Before the contents of the knowledge here alluded to are brought out, he introduces an observation respecting knowledge and love, designed to furnish a rule for the whole subject. This parenthesis some [Luther, Bengel, Griesb., Winer, Bloom., Olsh.], regard as beginning with the words: ὅτι πάντες, which is then construed as a casual sentence, and the meaning would be: “We know,—(because, or for, (ὅτι) we all have knowledge,” [—‘we as well as you’). Olsh.]. But, in such a case, the clause following ought to read: ἡδε γνῶσις, “but knowledge,” etc. It is also opposed by 1Co_8:4, where the ὅτι following οἴδαμεν, we know, plainly means, as it does here, that. The parenthesis, then, must begin with the clause: “knowledge puffeth up”—a thought suggested by what just precedes. [So Chrys., Beza, Grot.,Calv., Meyer, Alford]. The ‘things offered to idols’ were the remnants of victims, whose bitter portions only had been offered in sacrifice, the rest falling partly to the priests, and partly to the offerer. These were sometimes sent to market for public sale, and sometimes appropriated to festivals, either at the temple, or in private houses. And it was about the propriety of Christians eating of these that the question arose. The knowledge Paul speaks of, must be understood to denote a practical insight into the real nature and effects of the things offered (1Co_8:4); from which, however, it by no means follows that περί is grammatically dependent on γνῶσιν ἕχομεν. And certainly it is remarkable that while claiming this knowledge for all in 1Co_8:1, he says precisely the opposite of this in 1Co_8:7 : “but all have not this knowledge.” By way of reconciling this contradiction, some suppose that these words, as also the clause beginning at 1Co_8:4 : “that an idol is nothing”—unto the end of 1Co_8:6, were taken from the letter of the Corinthian Church, and that Paul contradicts these in 1Co_8:7. But in this case Paul would not have introduced these words without some formula of citation; [but is this necessary when some sentiment of another is simply re-affirmed?] and he would have included the observation (1Co_8:1-3) in his counter statement; [not necessarily, for that was directly suggested by the word γνῶσις, and should follow upon it]. Others make a distinction between γνῶσις and ἡ γνῶσις, taking the former to mean a certain degree of knowledge in general, and the latter a definite insight into the relation between the form and the influence of idolatry. (Olsh.). But this is arbitrary, since γνῶσις, knowledge, is already defined as to its contents in 1Co_8:1; 1Co_8:4. Another supposition is, that the Apostle is speaking generally and theoretically in 1Co_8:1, and then in 1Co_8:7, with direct reference to the Corinthians (De Wette [Stanley, Hodge, Alford]). But with this the πάντες in 1Co_8:1, compared with 1Co_8:7, does not suit. [But why not? As Alford says: “The common sense view of two such statements would, in ordinary preaching or writing be, that the first was said of what is professed and confessed, the second of what is actually and practically apprehended by each man. Thus we may say of our people in the former sense, ‘all are Christians; all believe in Christ;’ but in the latter, ‘all are not Christians; all do not believe’ ”]. Still again, a fourth device is to apply ἐν πᾶσιν, in all, to strangers coming to Corinth (Schrader); but of this the text gives no hint. Finally, the existence of the “knowledge in all,” is distinguished from the “having knowledge,” as being more thorough-going, while the latter is supposed to imply a more superficial knowledge; but this is arbitrary. The simplest solution of the difficulty is [?], that in 1Co_8:1 Paul is speaking of himself, together with the more liberal-minded; but in 1Co_8:7, where he speaks in the third person of all, he takes the word in a wider sense; so Theoph. and Meyer. In this case there would be no necessity for resorting to the supposition of an ironical statement (Grotius), which would be inconsistent with the general tenor of what is said in the following verse.

The disposition to pride oneself on this possessionof knowledge, he earnestly opposes, by condemning those aspects in which it showed itself, as among the liberals of the Corinthian Church.—Knowledge puffeth up.—[The parenthesis is introduced without any particle of connection. This abruptness of transition is characteristic of Paul, and indicates the rapid rush of his thought. It makes an impression of force, which must not be weakened by any attempt to supply the lack. “Ἡ γνῶσις, knowledge, abstract,—scil, when alone, or improperly predominant, knowledge, barely.” Alford]. This higher insight so much prized—this knowledge which professes to rise superior to all manner of prejudices, wherever it prevails for its own sake alone, proves an element far removed from Christian perfection,—yea, injurious to it through the influence it exerts on the person possessing it. Its effect is to fill the mind with pride, and so to undermine the foundation of that perfection, and disqualify the possessor for furthering the same among others; since for this work there is required, above all things, condescension of spirit,—a disposition to enter humbly into the position and necessities of those whom we would instruct. This, however, is just what love (ἀγάπη) begets,—but love edifieth.—In opposition to the self-exaltation, manifested by those who, with their higher insight, look down upon others as narrow and bigoted, love empties a person of self, and prompts him to enter into another’s condition, and makes him ready for every service, even to the offering up of his own for others’ benefit. Accordingly, while knowledge works injuriously and destructively upon the Christian life of others (comp. 1Co_8:9-12), love works edifyingly, building up that life either in the salvation of a brother, or in the well-being of the Church (comp. οἰκοδομεῖν, 1Co_14:24; Rom_14:19; Eph_4:12; and Osiander, in hoc loco). “The thought and expression in οἰκοδομεῖ, edifieth, is altogether peculiar to Paul’s mode of looking at and speaking of things. The whole Christian life is contemplated by him as a building, resting on the one foundation, Jesus Christ—a figure which finds a point of connection with our Lord’s statement concerning the house built on the rock and on the sand. The edification here meant combines the theoretical and practical elements, and comprises every thing which serves to advance the Christian life.” Neander. The contrast thus briefly indicated, ̀is now further expanded. While the “knowledge which puffs up” is stigmatized as something purely imaginary, as something which in its very effects shows itself to be wanting in the truth, love, on the other hand, is declared to possess the highest intelligence.—If any one thinks that he has known any thing.—In place of γνῶσις, he here puts, δοκεῖ εἰδέναι (ἐγνωκένά) τι; and to a person of this sort he denies any such knowledge of a thing as one ought to possess.—He as yet knows nothing as he ought to know it—(καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι). By this he means that full, deep, penetrating, exhaustive, morally effective knowledge, which, as a moral necessity in the sphere of true religion, exists in Christianity, and to which Christianity, wherever it has its full moral effect, inevitably leads (δεῖ—oportet). Some adopting the reading, οὔπω ἔγνω, take καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι as the objective clause to ἔγνω: ‘he has not the substance of that knowledge which belongs to it;’ ‘he has not apprehended it;’ but this is contrary to the usage of καθῶς. The full, entire morally effective knowledge, exists only where love is (comp 1Co_13:2). [Hodge’s comments on the profoundness of this seemingly incidental aphorism of Paul are excellent. He concludes: “The relation between the cognitive and emotional faculties, is one of the most difficult problems in philosophy. In many systems they are regarded as distinct. Paul here teaches that with regard to a large class of objects, knowledge without feeling is nothing; it supposes the most essential characteristics of the object to be unperceived. And in the following verse he teaches that love is the highest form of knowledge. To know God is to love him; and to love him is to know him. love is intelligent, and knowledge is emotional. Hence, the Apostle says, If a man thinketh that he knoweth any thing; that is, if he is proud or conceited, he is ignorant”]. From this we should now expect the statement to follow: ‘but if any one loves, he knows as he ought to know.’ But Paul at once mounts higher. Proceeding from the love of neighbor to its root in the love of God, and from human knowledge to its fountain-head, even Divine knowledge, he says:—But if any man loves God, the same is known by him.—Where love for God exists,—of which love his affection for his neighbor is the essential consequence and expression (comp. 1Jn_4:20),—there the individual is known by God. God has, in knowing him, taken him up into Himself, and by this he is translated into the sphere of the spiritual light and life of God, whence there streams into him the very light of knowledge. Thus the being known by God has intelligence for its essential results, even as the love of God begets in us the love of neighbor, (brotherly love). “The active knowledge of God follows the passive knowledge. He was known, and, therefore, he knoweth.” Bengel. (Comp. Osiander: “the assimilation of love and knowledge with their objects”). Without recognizing this inward connection, Meyer says, Ed. 1 Corinthians 3 : “This is a case of pregnant construction. Instead of saying in full:—‘such a person not simply has knowledge of the right sort, but is also himself known of God,’ Paul simply states the latter, the more important thing, from which the former is understood of itself. The fact of being known by God, exhibits the high worth of love, for if God knows a man, there is presupposed in this no indifferent and ineffective relation of God to man, but an activity of God which passes over upon the man, so that he, as the object of the Divine knowledge, experiences also the efficacy of that kindly feeling in which and with which God knows him, and hence becomes a partaker of His love, and of His kindly care, etc. The idea consequently is that of an effective knowledge on the part of God, which becomes an inward experience on the part of man, a knowledge which is causa salutis, so that God in knowing the man, carries out in him that salvation which had been decreed in His own counsels.” That the Divine knowledge includes in itself a loving participation and complacency, is clear also from other passages (Joh_10:14; 2Ti_2:19; Gal_4:9; Mat_7:23; Psa_1:6). This is all evacuated in the explanation: approbatus est (Grot. and others); and that given by Calvin: inter filios censeri, goes beyond the meaning of the word. But the Hophal construction: edoctus est, is taught by Him, adopted by Nössett and others [Augustine, Beza, Locke, Mackn., Hodge, Bloomf.], and also by the Church fathers, is directly contrary both to the usages of the New Testament and of the classic Greek. [Yet it was very natural to one accustomed to the Hebrew forms of thought and speech, as Paul was]. Billroth hits the truth more nearly when he translates the phrase: ‘God perceives Himself in him;’ but he puts it in a speculative, pantheistic form. The mystical view of Olshausen, that in γινώσκεσθαι, the bridal relation of the soul to God is indicated, goes both too far and not far enough—too far, in as much as the context alone affords the analogy; not far enough, in as much as the relation, not of the bride, but of the bridegroom is indicated by the word γινώσκειν,when taken in a sexual sense.

In 1Co_8:4. the Apostle turns to the exposition of the subject in hand, which is at once denned more particularly—concerning therefore the eating of things offered to idols.—[“The οὑν, therefore is epanaleptic, and simply resumes the thread of discourse”].—And the thing known is,—that no idol exists in the world (ὅτι οὐδεν ἔιδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ).—Judging from the position of the words, and from the parallel clause, we can hardly separate οὐδεν from the subject, and make it a predicate as if it were: ‘is nothing:’ [as in the E. V., comp. 1Co_10:19; Joh_21:24; Jer_10:3]. He means that there is no such thing as an idol in the whole world of realities. Of course it will be understood that by the word ‘idol,’ not the image, but the object represented by it—the idol god is meant. To this he denies all reality, within the sphere of existing things. But according to 1Co_8:5, and 1Co_10:20, this cannot be taken to mean the veritable non-existence of the objects of heathen worship, but only that they do not actually exist in the form conceived and honored by the heathen, e. g., in the forms of a Jupiter, Apollo, etc.,—that these as divinities dwelling in the images are but heathen fantasies, and that there is no god, but the One. The εἰ μή is to be referred simply to οὐδείς.

This statement, that there is no other god but One, he at once proceeds to explain and confirm in 1Co_8:5-6.—For even supposing that.—Εἴπερ, which, when the main clause confirms and intensifies the hypothetical one, means, if indeed, if otherwise, if namely, in those instances where the latter is contrasted with the former, is to be translated, even if, or although indeed (Passow I., 2, 197).—there are.—Εἰσι from its antecedent position, carries the emphasis, and in both clauses denotes not merely ideal existence in the opinion of the heathen, but real existence as is evident from the subsequent confirmatory ὥσπερ εἰσί.—those called gods.—By the epithet ‘called’ (λεγόμενοι) he here limits the seeming concession, and brings his statement into harmony with 1Co_8:4,—they are only called gods, and are not the Divine powers which the heathen imagine.—whether in heaven, or whether upon earth.—The terms embrace the whole sphere of pagan divinities, [who were scattered about, occupying distinct realms above and below, and thus stood in marked contrast with the Christian’s God, who filled all things]. This clause is not to be connected with the following, and so made to imply that by “gods” were meant the good angels resident in heaven, and by “lords” the demons precipitated to earth, as some suppose.—as there are gods many and lords many.—[There is a question as to the real import of this parenthesis. Does it concede the fact that there are supernatural powers that are entitled to the name of “gods” and “lords,” carrying the chief emphasis in the word “are?” or are we to supply the word ‘so called,’ and regard it as merely stating that the imaginary deities of the heathen were many in number? The latter is the more common view, adopted by de Wette, Stanley, Barnes, Scott, etc. But the former is best maintained as being most in accordance with the position of the words, and entirely in harmony with Scripture doctrine. Hodge referring to Deu_10:17; Jos_22:22; Dan_2:47, says: “These passages show that the words god and lord are applied in a wide sense to other beings than to the true God.” And while it must be affirmed that “the whole heathen mythology is a fable—there are demons in abundance, of various ranks and powers, called gods. The two things which the Apostle means to deny are: 1. The existence of such beings as the heathen conceived their gods to be. 2. The real divinity of those supernatural beings, who do really exist, and are called gods; they are mere creatures.” Such is essentially the interpretation of Meyer and Alford. But Kling says]: It might be inferred from 1Co_10:20, that the beings intended were demons, the κοσμοκράτορες of Eph_6:12; comp. 1Co_2:2. But it is by no means necessary in this verse to look for a declaration respecting the reality of the objects of heathen worship; since, as we have seen the words εἴπερ εἰσὶ may also express a hypothetical putting of a case, where the speaker plants himself upon a position of doubt. Neander says: “Εἰσί, are, expresses nothing but a subjective reality. The subjective stand-points of the religious consciousness are merely put into objective statement; q. d.: ‘with the heathen heaven and earth are peopled with divinities; we, however, recognize but one God and Lord;—in general there are many gods, but only for the heathen.’ ”—By not connecting the clause: “whether in heaven or earth,” with this, so as to carry the implication that the term gods referred to the good angels still found above, and the term lords to those who had been precipitated to earth and there become demons, we might be left at liberty to refer both these terms to the angels, who are called gods, on account of their participation in the Divine majesty and worth, as the types and representatives of the same, and lords on account of the influence they exerted in their own spheres and their active relations to each other (in their higher and lower orders), as well to mankind and subordinate creatures (Psa_109:4; Dan_10:13). Comp. Osiander, who at the most concedes “a secondary reference to the demons here, in so far as they had an original part with the good, and also a show of divinity with a certain degree of reality still cleaving to them.”

1Co_8:6 contains now the positive declaration, corresponding to the εἰ μὴ εἶς. The connection is: ‘although so-called gods exist, yet they have nothing to do with us Christians; they stand in no relation to us, and exert therefore no influence upon us,—are for us, as if they were not.—But for us there is only one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we unto him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, also we through him.—Since we in faith hold communion with the one God, the Father, who is the source of all things, and on whom all things depend,—yea even those “gods many” whom the heathen worship, and who is the goal of our existence,—for whose glory we live and in whose service we therefore stand; and since we hold communion with the one Lord who mediates the being and condition of all things,—yea, even of the lords many, whom the heathen fear, and who is the mediator of our existence, viz., of that by virtue of which, the one God the Father has become our end, and therefore of our new divinely consecrated life: therefore are we delivered from all the power and all the controlling influences of those gods and lords; and those things, which the heathen suppose to be related to them and to mediate their influence—such as the flesh offered in sacrifice,—have for us none of this significance; they belong to the ‘all things,’ which are from God and through Christ, and can inflict no injury upon our new life, which has God for its object, and is mediated through Christ. The ἀλλά as 1Co_4:15.

The expression “the Father,” indicates that which Christians have in God. “It brings out prominently the contrast between the standpoints of the heathen and the Christian; for the heathen have no father in this sense. God has become a Father to Christians only, by redemption.” Neander. From this proceeds their spiritual childhood; hence it was not necessary to add: ‘and we from Him’ and the statement: ‘we unto Him;’ has its foundation already. By the words, “from Him” (ἐξ οὑ) God is set forth as the creative principle; but these are to be no more construed according to the Pantheistic theory of emanation, than the words, “unto Him” (εἰς αὐτόν) can be taken to denote a corresponding absorption of all things in Him. But the “all things,” must in both clauses be alike understood, of the sum total of the universe, and be referred to the natural creation, whose mediator is the Son of God (comp. Col_1:16), just as much as He is the Mediator of the new spiritual creation, which is implied in “we through Him” (comp. Eph_2:10). In ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, as well as in ἡμεῖς δἰ αὐτοῦ, the phraseology turns into the demonstrative, as in 1Co_7:13. To take εἰς αὐτόν, unto Him, as equivalent to ἐν αὐτῳ, in Him, is by no means required by the relation of the two phrases, and is contrary to usage. It designates here the destination or tendency to communion with God, and with this to the recognition and the honor of God. But by “we” in this connection, we are to understand, not men in general, but believers.—And by the term “lord” as distinguished from “God,” he intends as little to deny the divine equality, or the essential divinity of Jesus, as he does by the phrase “through Him,” as distinguished from “from Him:” since the all-embracing character of His mediatorial work, far more than the title “Lord” (comp. 1Co_1:2.) points conclusively to this very thing (comp. Osiander h. l. and Gess. pp. 88 and 51). Among the Jews who spoke Greek, κύριος, Lord, was a designation of Jehovah himself. In this text the whole theistic, Christian consciousness is brought out. Billroth and Olshausen here find an exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity; Meyer disputes it. Certainly we do violence to the words if we insist on detecting here an intention to set forth this doctrine; its fundamental relations, however, are all here denoted. “God is the original ground of all existence, Christ is the mediating principle, and God again becomes the final cause of all through the operation of the Holy Spirit.” Neander. In what follows the apostle turns to consider the practical side of the question, in regard to refraining from eating for the sake of the weaker brethren.

1Co_8:7. From what has been said it is plain that the eating of sacrificial flesh has for Christians, by reason of their higher stand-point of faith, no religious significance whatever, and can be accordingly nothing defiling. But, he continues, this consciousness, this knowledge, is not in all. There are some whose Christian faith is not yet so emancipated from the religious convictions of their old heathen state, and who are still in the bonds of their former conscience, moulded by heathen ideas. This was in fact an infirmity of their new life, and of their Christian conscience,—yet an infirmity which was to be treated with mildness and consideration:—Howbeit there is not in all this knowledge.—In reference to the seeming contradiction between this and 1Co_8:1, compare what is said on 1Co_8:1. The article before γνῶσις, knowledge, indicates it as one which has just been spoken of, and is equivalent to this.—The antithetic positive statement is introduced by δέ, and introduced in such a manner that the reason of the weakness of some, perhaps a small portion of the church, conspicuously appears.—But some in conscience of the idol even until now eat as a thing offered to an idol,—therefore, not as common flesh, which “as a creature of God is good ”(1Ti_4:4, comp. 1Co_10:26), but as something that would bring them into real connection with idolatry, (Osiander). According to the order in the received text, the words “until now” belong to the verb “eat;” but for critical reasons, these words ought to be placed before τοῦ εἰδώλου, ‘the idol,’ and thus taken to qualify τῆ συνειδήσει, in conscience, to which it is attached without the article, according to classic usage, and as in 2Co_11:23; Php_1:26. (comp. Meyer, [Hodge]).—Συνειδησις does not mean opinion in general, or judgment, or conviction, but, as uniformly in the New Testament, it means conscience, a person’s consciousness in its moral and religious aspect. Συνειδήσις του εἰδλου, then, denotes this consciousness as having for its contents or object, an idol, and that too, according to the context, as a real influential power, just as in 1Pe_2:19, συνειήσις θεοῦ, means a conscience testifying of God. Here it denotes a conscience possessed with the idea that an idol is a real being; so that this idea influences his judgment in regard to his conduct: and in this case it stamps the eating of that flesh, as an immoral, sinful act, altering the whole religious state and relations of the Christian who eats, because it is the eating of something connected with a veritable idol, and therefore defiling in its nature.—and their conscience being weak.—The weakness is found in the fact that it cannot deliver itself from these false notions; nor assure the person of the entire nullification of his relations to idols and to all their defiling influences by his fellowship with Christ, or of the restoration of his true relations to God, and consequently also to the totality of all things, as dependent on God alone and belonging to Him (πίστις—Rom_14:23). By reason of this, its weakness, it—is defiled—i.e., by eating. The defilement consists in a conviction of guilt, the conscience being troubled by a sense of the Divine displeasure pervading it. “Conscience—the moral sentiment of honor—the watchman of our moral purity, is itself pure so long as it remains true to its own determinations; hence μολύνεσθα, to be defiled, is a striking expression, denoting the desecration of that which according to its nature and intent is holy.” Osiander. If we take the reading συνηδείᾳ,—which may be a correction for συνειδήσει on the ground that it was unsuitable, or else a gloss—the sense would be: ‘by their habitual wontedness to idols, i.e., because they had hitherto accustomed themselves to idols, had held intercourse with them, the idea of their presence, especially in the eating of the sacrificial flesh, was to them a common one.’ In any case the Dative shows the ground on which the defilement takes place.—After this exposition of the real facts in the case, he proceeds to exhort the Corinthians in reference to the conduct which the more liberal-minded among them, ought to adopt. And first of all he points to the utter indifference of the matter of eating or not eating in a religious point of view, and cuts off all pretext for their unwillingness to adapt themselves. to the weak.

1Co_8:8. But meat will not affect our relations to God; for neither if we eat are we the worse; neither if we eat not are we the better.—It is not to be assumed that Paul is here citing the language of the Corinthians themselves in vindication of their eating of idol sacrifices [Barnes], since there is no formula of citation. Nor does the supposition of Osiander, that he is here obviating the scruples of the narrow-minded agree with Osiander’s own exposition further onward. [Rather, he is laying down a broad principle, applicable to all parties, showing the weak the error of their scruples, and the strong why they ought to accommodate themselves to the weak, and not insist on their rights. This is shown in the selection of words, and in the more critically approved order of the two latter clauses]. The δέ is not adversative, but progressive. By many παραστήσεἵ is construed as precisely equivalent to συνίστημι, to recommend (which also appears in the gloss συνίστησι); but this has no foundation in usage. The idea is not that of a presentment before God as a punitive judge (context), nor that of an offering in sacrifice (on account of the subject βρῶμα, if nothing else), nor yet that of a presentation of one’s self for service (for the sane reason); rather it is that of placing in specific relation, as vox media, so that the two following clauses may be subsumed under it. Accordingly, the meaning is: ‘meat will in no way affect our relations to God; neither so that we shall lose standing with Him in case we eat not, nor so that we shall be better in His sight in case we eat.’ [So Alford; though Olsh., Robinson, Hodge, Bloomf., keep to the common rendering. The one given above has, however, the decided advantage, as it suits with the following clauses alike]. This explanation of παραστήσει, however, may, perhaps, be too abstract, and we might underlay it with a conception of God as Judge, and regard the presentation as taking place before Him in that capacity; yet it must be in such a way as to anticipate alike a favorable as well as an unfavorable judgment. The sense would then be, that meat had no influence upon God’s judgment concerning us, to determine it in one direction or the other (akin to Rom_14:17). So Bengel: “neither to please him in judgment, nor yet to displease him.” “Paul reminds those who ate idol sacrifices out of opposition, in order to demonstrate their liberal-mindedness, that they by this means were not rendered purer and better.” Neander.

“1Co_8:9-13. Here follows the warning itself against all reckless use of the liberty [above asserted], or of superior intelligence [in regard to it], grounded upon the injury which would thereby accrue to the weaker brethren, resulting in great coldness of affection, and in severe offences against Christ Himself.—But.—The δέ is not merely transitional, but also adversative, q. d., ‘eating and not eating are, in themselves, morally indifferent, but,’ etc.—take heed lest your power.—Ἐξουσία=power to do or let alone—liberty of choice springing from the indifferent character of any act in a religious point of view—become a stumbling-block to the weak.—Πρὀσκομμα, any thing over which a person stumbles and falls; here, an occasion to sin by awakening an inclination to imitate conduct that is in conflict with conscience,—[“a practice above all others dangerous to a Christian1.” Alford]. (Com. Rom_14:13; Rom_14:20). This he at once explains more fully.—For if any man,—i.e., any one who is weak in the sense above mentioned.—see thee who hast knowledge (comp. 1Co_8:4) [“This seems to imply that the weak brother is aware of this, and looks up to thee as such,” Alf.].—sit at meat, [κατακεἰμενον lit. recumbent, the usual posture at meals].—in an idol’s temple.—Εἰδωλεῖον, an idol temple, just as in 1Ma_1:50; 1Ma_10:83. [“This is a term used only by Jewish writers, apparently to avoid designating heathen temples by the sacred word ναός, used to express the temple at Jerusalem. It is a kind of parody on the names of temples as derived from the divinities to which they are dedicated.” Stanley]. This extreme exercise of liberty he here touches upon only in reference to its prejudicial consequences. It is in 1Co_10:14 that he first comes to oppose it with earnest dissuasions, after he has cast light upon it from another side. Some expositors, for the sake of abating the scandal of such procedures, construe εἰδωλεῖον with a local signification, making it mean only a feast furnished with idol sacrifices; but this is contrary to usage. Others (Osiander) take it to denote a sort of domestic chapel, where sacrificial feasts were held; which is not impossible, but very doubtful. As a rule, the sacrificial festivals were certainly observed in the temple. The consequences of beholding a Christian at such places, are introduced with an earnest interrogative.—Shall not the conscience of him who is weak be edified?—The verb οἰκοδομεῖσθαι is not equivalent to impelli, or confirmari, to be determined thereto, to be betrayed, or, to be strengthened, i.e., in the purpose to do something not allowable; but, as in the New Testament throughout, to be edified,—only that it is here used antiphrastically, in an ironic sense. [So Alf., Stan., Mey., de Wette. But Hodge, without good grounds, says the interpretation “is out of keeping with the whole tone of the passage”]. It is an ædificatio ruinosa, as Calvin expresses it, a being furthered to something which is destructive to a person that is weak in the faith (comp. 1Co_8:11)—a bad way of enlarging the spiritual edifice, inasmuch as it comes to the doing of something heretofore avoided, and that, too, without any conviction of its rectitude, but simply after the precedent of another who has no scruples in the matter, by reason of his superior insight, and in comparison with whom one is unwilling to seem contracted. Any conjectural change of reading is needless. Also the surrender of the interrogative form (on account of οὐχι, and because then εἰς τό should be equivalent to ἐν τῳ is ungrammatical. The assumption that there is a play upon words in the Epistle to the Corinthians is gratuitous.

1Co_8:11, whether we read with the Rec. και ἀπολεῖται, or καὶ ἁπόλλυται, might be construed as continuing the question, [as in the E. V.]. But it would be more emphatic to suppose here a new affirmative sentence,—for there perishes.—But the most probable text is ἀπόλλυται γάρ, for there perishes. And since the for created difficulty, some put οὖν, therefore, instead of it; others, since they found both γάρ and οὖν in different manuscripts, rejected the one as well as the other, and wrote καί before ἀπόλλ. [so Lach. and Stanley]. The γάρ serves for the solving of the antiphrastic irony involved in οἰκοδομηθήσεται, and that, too, in a fearfully emphatic way, q. d., ‘a fine way of edifying, indeed! for, instead of building up, this is a tumbling to utter ruin.’ The destruction (ἀπώλεια) here meant is the same as in 1Co_1:18, viz., the forfeiture of salvation, that everlasting destruction which comes from acting without faith and against conscience; not, as Bengel says, the loss of faith itself; and still less, a gradual apostasy or moral depravation, or a loss of inward peace. If the word is taken passively, is ruined, the guilt of the person causing this ruin by the abuse of his liberty, will appear still more prominent—over this thy knowledge.—Whether we read ἐπὶ, or ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, the sense is the same. We have here the cause of the ruin. This is a reckless and unloving use of knowledge. Τῇ σῇ, this thy, i. e., ‘which thou hast, and in which thou boastest.’ The guilt involved appears enhanced still further by three particulars, which stand out yet more distinctly in the proper collocation of words now critically verified (ὁ ἀδελφός after ἐπὶ τῇ σῃ γνώσει).—the weak one,—the one who, of all others, ought to be treated with considerate forbearance, and from whom nothing should be exacted beyond his strength.—the brother,—a person bound to thee by the closest tie, and who ought to look to thee for assistance in the way of salvation, rather than for a stumbling-block over which to fall and perish. [“The isolated and final position thus given to ‘the brother’ gives a pathetic close to the whole sentence.” Stanley].—for whom Christ died.—And this is the most aggravating circumstance of all—‘thy conduct frustrates the purposes of Christ’s atoning death (comp. Romans 14), since thou, in behalf of him, for whom this great sacrifice was made, hast shown thyself unwilling to make the petty sacrifice of surrendering thine own right’ [(comp. Rom_15:1-3). There is a pathos and power in these words not to be overlooked. But mark the possibility implied—that persons, for whom Christ died, may perish. But whether they ever will or not, will be decided by each one according to the type of his theology]. The result of such conduct next follows.—In so sinning against the brethren.—He here passes over into plural, and gives them also to understand that he is now treating of no indifferent matter. [The manner in which they had used their liberty, had rendered the otherwise allowable act positively sinful]. As explanatory of this, he adds:—and wounding their weak consciences.—Τύπτοντες,striking, and thereby painfully affecting, inasmuch as the conscience thereby is rendered evil and impure. [The word is used to exhibit more forcibly the meanness of the conduct in question; for what is meaner than to strike a thing that is weak]?—Ye sin against Christ.—Here is where the act culminates and exhibits its exceeding guiltiness. In what way this is done, is shown in the previous clauses. It thwarts the ends of the Saviour’s death. It is true that Christ, as the head of the body, suffers also in the affliction of his members; but this is not the thought here brought out, (is not even indicated in the words: “the brethren”). “As in the main clause, the third item mentioned in 1Co_8:11 is again taken up, so are the first two, in the participial clauses.” Osiander. This unloving use of liberty he shames to the very lowest, in expressing, as the result of these deliberations, his own purpose of self-denial.—Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend.—The verb σκανδαλίζειν, found in 2Co_11:29; Rom_14:21, and frequently in the Gospels, means literally, to cause a person to fall by laying a snare in his path; hence, to seduce or betray into sin, especially by bad example.—I will not eat flesh:—κρέα, the particular food of which he is speaking.—for ever;—εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα: “while the world standeth”—a strong hyperbole, intensifying the strong negative οὐ μή. “Here, in 1Co_8:13 the ethical principle for regulating the use of things indifferent, is shown to be love.” Neander. [“The whole argument closely resembles Rom_14:19-22, even to the particular phrases employed.” Stanley].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

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

[“For the connection of knowledge and love, see 1Jn_4:7-8 : ‘Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God; he that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love.’—For the identification of God’s knowledge with His love, comp. Exo_33:17; ‘Thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name.” Also Joh_10:3 : “He calleth His own sheep by name.”—For the identification of God’s knowledge of man with man’s knowledge of God, comp. the similar blending of the spirit of man with the Spirit of God in Rom_8:15-16; 1Co_2:11; also Joh_10:15 : “As the Father knoweth me so know I the Father.”—And then for the general turn of the whole expression, as implying that every part of our redemption, but especially our knowledge of God, is more properly His act than ours, see 1Co_13:12 : “Then I shall know, even as also I am known;” Gal_4:9 : “Now having known God, or rather having been known by Him;” Php_3:12 : “If I may apprehend that for which I am apprehended by Christ.” Stanley].

2. Christian liberty, its nature and limitations. According to Luther’s spirited exposition in his tract entitled “The freedom of a Christian,” a Christian through faith becomes free from all men, but through love is made the servant of all. This truth finds application also here as well as in 1Co_7:29 (see “Doctrinal and Ethical” in loco). In the consciousness of his fellowship with God the Father through Jesus Christ the believer knows himself to be exalted above all things. His Father is the one God who is the ground of all things and on whom all things depend; and the mediator of this new life in fellowship with God is the one Lord through whom are all things. In this their relation to God through Christ, then he ought to regard and use all things. However these may be regarded and used by others, to him they are nothing else than the works and gifts of God; through them, the Supporter of their being and existence becomes the Supporter of his life in the family of God; to him are they furnished for free use and enjoyment, entirely apart from all other associations which they may awaken in the consciousness of others. Thus to the Christian the flesh of those beasts, which have been offered to idols, is only the component part of a creature of God, the enjoyment of which is granted him by the Creator; and so far as he partakes of it with thanksgiving for the goodness therein shown, it is to him pure and harmless (comp. 1Ti_4:3).—But although free through faith, the believer is, on the other hand, bound through love, and comes into dependence on his brethren. If the use of the creature in question is a matter of indifference as it respects his fellowship with God and his worth in God’s sight, while yet, on the other hand, in the view of his weaker brethren, who have not acquired that fulness of faith, and whose religious convictions on the point are still wavering, such conduct is questionable, by reason of its seeming contact with idolatry, and if they are not yet sufficiently independent to refrain from following the example of a person held in repute for superior discernment, then love demands that we pay regard to such characters, and not set before them an example which will betray them into sin, nor do aught that will prove a stumbling-block in their path. To be reckless on this point and to enjoy our liberty regardless of how we defile the consciences of others, undermine their relation to God, and hazard their eternal salvation, is to evince an utter lack of love by reason of which not only is the weak brother injured, and fraternal obligations violated, but also the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who for the sake of this very brother offered up His own life, is aggrieved in the frustration of the ends for which His sacrifice was made. Hence it follows that the love of Christ—this love which embraces alike the weak and the strong and by faith becomes an indwelling and controlling power in the heart of every true Christian, must prompt the strong to condescend toward the weak, and to become as weak to the weak (1Co_9:22), and in their conduct relatively to them to seek to avoid whatever for themselves may be of indifferent character whenever there is reason to fear that the religious life of the weak may be endangered.

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

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

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Augustine:

1Co_8:1. What art thou, O man, thou who art inflated with conceit! Let it suffice thee that thou art full (Eph_1:23)! He who is full, is rich; who is puffed up, is empty.

Bernhard:

1Co_8:3. So much as thou lovest, so much thou knowest.

Starke:

1Co_8:1-3 (Hed.). Pride corrupts all, even the best things. Knowledge is good; but with pride, poison; a bubble in its iridescence is beautiful to look upon, yet full of wind. The knowledge even of divine things, not possessed with humility, nor applied to right uses, is vanity in the sight of God.—Love must be the queen of life; heart, of the understanding; aim, of the undertaking. Love is the infallible token of those in favor with God.—1Co_8:4-6. There is, indeed, only one God. But does not every sinner make to himself as many gods as there are creatures he loves, and so erect idols in his heart? Let each search and see (Col_3:5; Php_3:19). O joy! many lords, yet only One; they have the title, but the One alone has the right and the might of lordship; and He is Christ unto whom it becomes us to live and to die (Rom_14:8).

1Co_8:7. Were Christians more clear and settled in divine knowledge, they would drop much which they consider right, and do many things they now condemn as sinful.—As the smallest grain of sand causes to the eye great pain, so does the slightest deviation from God’s law cause to the wakeful conscience great disquiet.

1Co_8:8. Food belongs to the outer man; therefore, of itself can have no effect on our Christianity.—1Co_8:9-10. The strong in faith must take heed to his conduct for the sake of the weak, lest they see and hear of something which may cause them to stumble and perish (Mat_18:6).

1Co_8:11-13. Even the weakest brother is of great account; since for him Christ died no less than for the strong; and those whom Christ honors are not to be lightly esteemed. The contempt put on such falls on Christ (Mat_18:10 ff.). All sins against our neighbor are also sins against God, who has commanded us to love our neighbor. And this statement holds good of all such acts which, though not in themselves sins, yet cause others to offend, such as associations, amusements, fashions, and the like. Who says, ‘Why should I care? Let him be scandalized who will? God knows my heart, that I do not cling to these things,’ let such a person understand that he has neither repentance, nor faith, nor love in his heart. God knows that he clings not only to these things, but to the world, and the devil, too. What! Thou wilt not yield a hair, and carest not whether thy neighbor find life or death in thy doings!

Berlen. Bible:

1Co_8:1-3. A great outrage is committed when people say: We have clearer knowledge; we have no scruples; we know the matter is of no consequence. A Christian must do nothing except on good grounds, and for this he himself must be grounded in love. Gospel knowledge consists not in vain, lifeless notions, which inflate the mind, but it is a quickening power [which, while it illumines, also sanctifies. Life is the light of men]. Knowledge alone intoxicates; but love sobers. A sound knowledge is essential to Christianity; and this begins to show itself as soon as one loves the right. For as soon as a person turns to God in penitence, God turns and shines on him. He who desires only to love, and for this will humble himself to the very ground, will be instructed of God. As he unites love with knowledge, God will accept him; and being approved by God in his knowledge, he will then, for the first time, rightly know, viz., in the love and power of God; since he will then have the power of the Spirit in his own soul, and feel and possess the Spirit’s presence and operations. Of this kind of knowledge, humanly taught scholastics know nothing.

1Co_8:4-6. An idol does, indeed, exist only in the fancy of its worshippers, yet we are not on this account to deal with it at random. Often are we obliged to be on our guard, even when we see nothing.—Is God verily to us the sole God? The faith which is held is not sufficient; there must also be a faith which holds. God must be to us the all in all. It is then we honor the Father as the father of all that bear the name of children; and who is also our Father; and to whom we shall again return suitably to the purpose of our creation. Christ has battled for us unto blood; hence, He has become anew our Lord, after the flesh. Apart from this, He was our Lord from all eternity.

1Co_8:7. What is not done with assurance of faith, is done lightly or wantonly.

1Co_8:8. Boldness in eating [i. e., in the maintenance of our liberty as to matters indifferent] is no indication of growth in Christianity.

1Co_8:9-11. It does not follow that because an act is in itself allowable and harmless, it may be done without reflection. Nothing that does not accord with the rules of faith and love ought to be practised. A freedman of the Lord does not seek his enjoyment in a lawless liberty.—Many eagerly long for, and quickly grasp at, liberty. But to be truly free, a person must be able and willing at times to give up his freedom. A love that is free looks not to its own advantage, but to the good of others; especially to those whose spiritual foundations are disturbed by the liberty they see taken by their fellows. That is a poor sort of edification—a building upon the sand, when a person blindly abandons himself to another’s guidance, and imitates him on the presumption that he is a wise man.—Take heed that thou provest not the means of destroying the smallest heartfelt obedience in the humblest Christian novice. Consider how near that person stands to thee for whom Christ died.—Vv.12, 13. To look more to one’s self than to others to sin against those to whom we owe affection, to break the bruised reed—this is to sin against Christ—that Saviour who was ever moved to pity and uphold others.—It is a delicate thing to have to deal with a tender conscience. A truly Apostolic spirit voluntarily makes himself the servant of all. Even when in the right, love makes us surrender our rights whenever and because the mind of Christ is in us.

Rieger:

1Co_8:1-7. To be known of God as His, and so to become assured of our knowledge, that it is exercised in the fear and love of God, this is the main thing. God is the origin of all knowledge. In this fact lies the foundation of all humility; and the end and aim of all knowledge [on earth] is the edification of our neighbor.—Through the light of the Gospel shining from the sole Godhead in heaven and upon earth, all false fears and all vain confidences are banished; and we have only to keep our hearts collected in faith, and prayer, and worship, towards this one God, and towards our Lord Jesus Christ, and to maintain fellowship one with another.

Heubner:

1Co_8:1-3. Knowledge is subject to a double danger, viz., that it be without love, and become an end in itself, and that it step beyond Scripture limits, and beget vain self-conceit and contempt toward others.—The conceit of superior wisdom is a mark of folly; true wisdom humbles us, and teaches us how little we know, and brings us to recognize the right end and aim of knowledge in the glory of God and in the salvation of our neighbor.—The humble person, in whose heart love dwells, has the faculty for clear discernment.

1Co_8:4-6. There is only one God; but His worship is injured if we fasten our affection on vanities as if they were realities. Much, in itself innocent, becomes criminal by reason of the thoughts and intentions connected therewith. Even the creations of our fancy may become sin. The vanity of idol-worship should teach us the infinite worth of worshipping the true God, and the great merit of Christianity in that it eradicates this deeply-rooted and widespread superstition. The sum of Christianity, as distinguished from Heathenism and Judaism, is this, that the one God, the Creator, has revealed Himself as the Father through Jesus Christ.

1Co_8:7. The lack of liberal insight is no sin, and can involve no disgrace: but to act against one’s own conscience, and to betray others into doing the like—this is sin. By this rule is every enjoyment to be judged. The question is not, ‘What is it in itself?’ but, How does it appear to others? Hence, the injunction: spare weak consciences.

1Co_8:8. Freely to allow all things, makes no one better; self-restraint, renunciation, obligation, dishonors not. But the fear of appearing weak and pious—this is what makes truly weak.

1Co_8:9. True strength and genuine freedom are best shown in being able to limit our freedom through love to God, and in behalf of others. The stronger, the tenderer, and the more sparing! If thy freedom betrays others, thou fallest thyself! Unfortunate knowledge, which occasions others the loss of a good conscience! Conscience is the holiest, the tenderest thing in man, and it suffers from the slightest touch. Also Christ’s heart is wounded, if we wound one of His believing ones. The enjoyment of our liberty at random, and the offence committed, stand in no comparison with each other. The former is vain, worthless, needless; the latter is corrupting and criminal.

Besser:

1Co_8:1. The first person puffed up was the devil. All refined opinions, which keep superstition far aloof, all correct views of God’s being and word, are empty as wind clouds which bring no rain, when they bring not forth the fruits of love.

1Co_8:2. Not one single item of divine truth has attained to power in us as it should, if it does not divest us of our conceit and selfishness.

1Co_8:4. In the world an idol is nothing; for the world is God’s work, wherein nothing has being which man’s thoughts have created. But in the heart of man, ah! there the idols are, indeed, a frightful something, and “no joke,” as Luther says.

1Co_8:8. Thanks be to Thy mercy, O God, that Thou furnishest to us in Thy Gospel the precious truth (Heb_13:9), that that heart becomes established which is made so not by meats, but through grace.

1Co_8:11. Not merely a conscious obstinacy in disobedience to God’s commands, but also a trifling readiness for any thing which stains the conscience, because it is weak, is sufficient to destroy faith in the heart. So intimate and tender is the bond of fellowship between believing souls and Christ, that it is broken just so soon as any portion of our outward life is withdrawn from the control of the Spirit of grace.

1Co_8:12. Not only do the strong and mature belong to Christ, but also the weak and novices no less.

1Co_8:13. To yield to the arrogant, is to deny Christ; not to spare the weak is to sin against Christ. He who walks in love, avoids both.

[Barnes:

1Co_8:6. Christians, though truly converted, yet may have many erroneous views and feelings in regard to many things. The morning dawn is, at first, very obscure. And so it may be in conversion. This should lead us to charity, towards imperfections; to carefulness not to mislead; and to moderation in our expectations from young converts, especially those in heathen lands.

1Co_8:1-9. Love is a safer and more useful guide than knowledge.

1Co_8:10-11. Nothing is of more value than a correct Christian example, particularly in those occupying the more elevated ranks in life. The ignorant look to them for guidance, and their conduct should be such as will conduct safely.

1Co_8:13. A noble instance of Paul’s principles. If all Christians had Paul’s delicate sensibilities, and Paul’s strength of Christian virtue, and Paul’s willingness to deny himself, in order to benefit others, how soon would the aspect of the Christian world change! How many practices now freely indulged in, would be abandoned! (Ad sensum)].

Footnotes:

[1]1Co_8:2.—The Rec. has δέ after ἔι [according to D. E. F. G. K. L. Syr. and many Gr. fathers] but this is a connection not found in good codices [A. B.] and is rejected by the best critics [Meyer, Lach., Alf., Stanley].

[2]1Co_8:2.—Rec. and Meyer [and Alford] read εἰδέναι [according to J. K. and some Greek fathers] but Tisch. [Stanley] and others, ἐγνωκέναι, which is more strongly supported [A. B. D. E. F. G.] but is regarded by Meyer as a sort of Gloss made to suit what goes before and after.

[3]1Co_8:2.—Lach. [Stan.] read ἔγνω [with A. B. D.1 F. G. But ἔγνωκεν is preferred by Meyer, Alf., and others, according to D. 3 E. J. K.]. The κε was probably dropped out in consequence of the eye of the transcriber passing from κ of the κεν to κ of the καθώς following.

[4]1Co_8:2.—Lach. and others [Stanley] read οὔπω ἔγνω, according to good authorities, A. B. and others, but Meyer deems it as probably not original.—[not found D. E. F. G. J. K. and Alf., says that “probably after the erasure of οὐδέν as unnecessary, οὐδεπω thus standing alone was altered to οὔπω.”]

[5]1Co_8:4.—Ἕτερος is rejected by Lach. [Stan.] according to important authorities. But the rejection can be better explained than the insertion. [It is found in J. K. most Syr. MSS. and in the Greek fathers] (comp. Meyer).

[6]1Co_8:7.—Lach. [Tischen. Stan.] and others read συνηθεία, in intercourse with, not without good support, [A. B. and many versions]; but συνειδήσει is the more difficult reading [found in D. E. F. G. J., in most MSS., and the Gr. fathers. “The great weight of authority is in favor of the common reading.” Hodge].

[7]1Co_8:7.—In the Rec. ἕως ἄρτῖ, until now, comes after τοῦ είδώλου—a change on account of the difficult structure; but it is poorly sustained. [The true reading is συνειδήσει ἔως ἄρτι τοῦ εἰδώλου, “with conscience until now of the idol,” and so also Alf., who says ‘the transposition was made, apparently for the purpose of bringing the clauses logically connected more closely together’].

[8]1Co_8:8.—The παρίστησι of the Rec. was occasioned by the present tenses of the following clauses, [and is found in D. E. J. The true reading παραστήσει, occurs in A. B. several cursives—and Gr. fathers, and is adopted by Tisch., Lach., Alf., Stan.].

[9]1Co_8:8.—The γάρ after οὔτε is an interpolation [not found in A. B. and other good authorities].

[10]1Co_8:8.—[Kling inverts the order of these two clauses according to D. E. F. G. J. therein following Tisch., Meyer, Lach. Ed.].

[11]1Co_8:9.—[“The Rec. ἀσθενοῦσιν is apparently a correction to suit ἀσθενῶν below; ἀσθενέσιν is found in A. B. D. E. F. G.” Alf.].

[12]1Co_8:11.—Ἐν instead of ἐπί is well authorized; Meyer regards it a gloss for the less common ἐπί; [see note].

[13]1Co_8:11.—The ἀδωλφός of Rec. is feebly supported [not being found in A. B. D. E. F. G., and is omitted by all the later critical editions. Ὁ ἀδελφός, however, appears after γνώσει in A. B. D. F. Cod. Sin.]

[14]1Co_8:11.—The Fut. άπολεῖται of the Rec. was made to correspond with the foregoing οῖκοδομηθ. [and is found in D.3. E. F. G. J. The pres. ἀπόλλυται appears in A. B. D.1 and in several ancient versions. Alf. says: “The sentence has probably been tampered with to get rid of the apparent awkwardness of the question being carried on through 1Co_8:11.” Some authorities put καὶ before ἀπόλ, which Kling calls a gloss for γάρ understood; others have γάρ, and others still, οὖν after ἀπόλ]

[15][On this point Stanley remarks: “Most public entertainments and many private meals were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice; most animals killed for butcher’s meat had fallen by the hand of the sacrificer; the very word for ‘feast’ in Hebrew was identical with ‘sacrifice,’ and from thence in Hellenistic Greek, the word originally used for ‘killing in sacrifice’ (θὑειν), was diverted to the general signification of ‘killing’ (Act_10:13). This identification of sacrifice and feast was carried to the highest pitch among the Greeks. ‘Sacrifices’ are enumerated by Aristotle (Eth. 8, 9, § 5) and Thucydides (II:38) among the chief means of social enjoyment; and, in this later age of Greece, it may well be conceived that the religious element was even still more entirely thrown into the shade by the festive character of the meal which followed,”—These feasts, it must be remembered, were ordinarily held in the temples themselves. (See Jdg_9:27; Enead. VII Book 174; Herodot. 1Co_1:31)].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 Corinthians

‘LOVE BUILDETH UP’

1Co 8:1 - 1Co 8:13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

CHAPTER 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8:1–11:1 Paul now addresses the Corinthians’ question about food that has been offered to idols: Throughout the Greco-Roman world, there were temples and shrines dedicated to pagan gods. It was common for worshipers of those gods to offer animal sacrifices, and the excess meat was then sold in the market by pagan priests. The question inevitably arose as to whether Christians were free to eat such meat. Is meat taken from an animal that has been sacrificed to a pagan god inherently defiled? Paul makes no mention here of the prohibition made by the Jewish Christian leaders in Acts 15:20, 29 but emphasizes that one’s actions must be governed, above all, by loving consideration of others. After introducing the topic (1 Cor 8:1-13), he provides several illustrations of the principle of giving up one’s rights for the sake of others (9:1-27) and then gives his advice on three specific situations in which believers faced this issue.

8:1 “We all have knowledge” was apparently a common saying of the Corinthian Christians. The knowledge in question is religious knowledge, paraded by certain Christians who might have felt their superior understanding made them unaccountable to the opinions of others.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

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

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_8:1. Δέ] marks the transition to a new subject, which the queries from Corinth led the apostle to discuss.

περὶ τῶν εἰδωλοθ.] Since this is taken up again in 1Co_8:4, it is clear that 1Co_8:1-3 cannot form an independent series of thoughts (Hofmann), but that 1Co_8:3 is the close of a logical parenthesis (not a grammatical one, because at what is its true beginning the construction undergoes no interruption). It is not to be made to begin at ὅτι (for) πάντες, as is done by Luther, Bos, Er. Schmid, Raphel, Wolf, Bengel, Valckenaer, and others, among whom are Olshausen and Maier; for the fact that ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ stands unconnected with what precedes it, and the sense of ὅτι in 1Co_8:4 (that), are decisive against this. The true commencement is only at ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ (so, with older commentators, Pott, Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Ewald, Neander; Billroth is undecided on the point), so that the preceding γνῶσιν ἔχομεν has very naturally given occasion to the warnings which begin with ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ.

εἰδωλόθυτα, things offered to idols, κρέα εἰδωλόθυτα, 4Ma_5:1, are those parts of the animals offered in heathen sacrifices, which remained over after the priests had received their share, and which were either consumed in the temple or at home in connection with sacrificial feasts (Dougt. Anal. I. p. 234 ff.; Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § xxviii. 22), or else (by poor or miserly persons) sold in the flesh market. Comp on Act_15:20.[1303] The Christians might thus easily come to eat such meat, either through being invited to a feast by heathen acquaintances (1Co_10:27), or, again, by buying it in the market (1Co_10:25), and thereby offence would be given to scrupulous consciences; while, on the other hand, those of a freer spirit, and with more of Pauls own mode of thinking, might be apt to make light of the matter, and withal forget how a Christian ought to spare the weak. To assign the strong and the weak to one or other of the four parties respectively, is, to say the least of it, a very uncertain process, whether we are disposed to find the former in the Christ-party (Olshausen, Jaeger) or in the Apollonians (Räbiger). As regards the weak, see 1Co_8:7, and the remark subjoined to it.

οἴδαμεν] should not be joined directly with περὶ κ.τ.λ[1304], but the latter clause is to be taken as in 1Co_7:1 : Now, as respects meat offered to idols, we know that, etc. Hofmann, following Semler, but in the face of all the Versions and Fathers, reads οἶδα μέν (I know, indeed, that), by which he gains nothing but a μέν solitarium, which would be all the more uncalled for, seeing that the corresponding antithetic clause, where he ought to find ἡ δὲ γνῶσις, follows immediately. There is still less reason here for writing it as two words than in Rom_7:14, where it is, in point of fact, succeeded by a ΔΈ. The subject of οἴδαμεν consists of all those, besides the apostle himself, of whom the ΓΝῶΣΙΝ ἜΧΟΜΕΝ holds good, that is to say, of Paul and the (as regards this point) more enlightened Christians: I and those like myself in this. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp Chrysostom): ΠΡῸς ΤΟῪς ΤΕΛΕΊΟΥς ΔΙΑΛΈΓΕΤΑΙ, ἈΦΕῚς ΤΟῪς ἈΤΕΛΕΣΤΈΡΟΥς. Since ΟἼΔΑΜΕΝ and ἜΧΟΜΕΝ must have one and the same subject, Rückert is wrong in taking the first indefinitely: it is well known. Olshausen understands it of all Christians, and seeks to remove the contradiction between that and 1Co_8:7 in this way: he distinguishes γνῶσις and Ἡ ΓΝῶΣΙς, making the former to be a certain ground of knowledge in general; the latter, the specific knowledge of how the form and the power of idolatry stand related to each other. But the γνῶσις in 1Co_8:1, although without the article, has been already defined very exactly as regards its contents by ΠΕΡῚ Τ. ΕἸΔΩΛ., and still more by 1Co_8:4, so that Ἡ ΓΝῶΣΙς in 1Co_8:7 can mean nothing else but the γνῶσις under discussion; consequently the contradiction would remain. De Wettes exposition is better; he holds that in 1Co_8:1 Paul is speaking quite generally, and, as it were, theoretically (comp also Ewald), while in 1Co_8:7 he refers specially to the Corinthians. But such a theoretic generality would have needed to be expressed by the first person alone without πάντες, if the ΟὐΚ ἘΝ ΠᾶΣΙΝ in 1Co_8:7 were to have any logical pertinence; while, on the other hand, if we are to maintain that general meaning in 1Co_8:1 as is stands, we should have arbitrarily to insert into the ΠΆΝΤΕς there the unexpressed idea, properly speaking, all Christians as such (Ewald), or to give to the ἔχομεν the sense of should have.[1307] Others, following Er. Schmid (we at Corinth are all wise enough), regard the Corinthians as the subject, and take (Nösselt, Opuscula, II. p. 152, Rosenmüller, Pott, Heydenreich, Flatt) the words περὶ … ἔχομεν, and then ὍΤΙ ΟὐΔῈΝ ΕἼΔΩΛΟΝ in 1Co_8:4 on to 1Co_8:6, as quotations from the Corinthian letter, the refutation of which begins with 1Co_8:7. But this is unnatural; for in that case Paul would have brought the passage Ἡ ΓΝῶΣΙς ΦΥΣΙΟῖ Κ.Τ.Λ[1308], on to 1Co_8:3, into his refutation as well. Further, it is contrary to the apostles habitual way of writing, for he always marks out the words of an opponent as such by some formula; and lastly, it is quite unnecessary, seeing that the supposed contradiction between 1Co_8:1 and 1Co_8:7 vanishes on considering the change of person (from the first in 1Co_8:1 to the third in 1Co_8:7).

γνῶσιν] have knowledge; of what? is plain from the context, namely, of the way in which flesh offered to idols should be regarded. The contents of the statement are more fully expressed in 1Co_8:4.

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

[1304] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[1308] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

1Co_8:1-3. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to γνῶσιν ἔχομεν.

The article turns the abstract γνῶσις into a noun appellative.

The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (1Co_4:6, 1Co_5:2); but the love (to the brethren; comp Rom_14:14-15) edifieth (1Co_10:23), furthers the progress of the church (viewed as οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ, see 1Co_3:9) towards Christian perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary ἡγεμονικόν to the effectively sympathetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp chap. 13, especially 1Co_8:4.1Co_8:2-3 explain the preceding statement, both from the wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love to God.

Since the γνῶσις in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (1Co_3:18), Paul characterizes here what he before designated by ἡ γνῶσις as a δοκεῖν εἰδέναι τι; and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of believers, he now characterizes the former as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Θεόν. One can hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles.

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

οὐδέπω κ.τ.λ[1311]] he knows nothing at all as yet in such a way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character. In order to the γνῶναι καθὼς δεῖ we must of necessity have love, which regulates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically salutary. Comp 1Co_13:2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luk_23:53; Joh_19:41; Act_8:16), comp Schömann, a[1314] Is. p. 469; Stallbaum, a[1315] Plat. Crat. p. 398 E).1Co_8:3. ΟὟΤΟς] with emphasis: he, to the exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge.

ἔγνωσται ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: God recognises Himself in him; but it means simply: this man is known by Him. The statement is a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete by saying: it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the true sense, but also that he is known of God, the apostle states simply the latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The ἔγνωσται ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accordance with its holiness; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. The idea, therefore, is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis,[1316] so that God in thus knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was purposed in His own counsel, Psa_1:6; Gal_4:9; 2Ti_2:19. Comp Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 258 ff. See also on 1Co_13:12. Other interpreters supply the thought ut suum discipulum (Erasmus) or inter filios (Calvin), and the like. Comp Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 283. But that is to insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est (Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, al[1319], following Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 762). But this is as much against linguistic usage (see on Rom_7:15) as Augustines edoctus est (so, too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nösselt, Rosenmüller, Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a Hophal. Olshausens mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, which demands the simple conception of knowing; he finds in γινώσκειν (as in ידע, see on Mat_1:25) the bridal (?) relation of the soul to God.

[1311] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

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

[1316] Comp. Constit. ap. v. 16. 3 : μὴ γιγνώσκοντες Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κηρύγματος πιστεύσαντες ἔγνωτε αὐτόν, μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγνώσθητε ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος κ. λυτρωτοῦ τῶν ἐλπιζόντων ἐπʼ αὐτόν.

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

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

[1217] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1218] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

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

[1219] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

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

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

[1222] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1223] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

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

[1224] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

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

[1226] grammatical object.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–13. THE QUESTION OF MEATS OFFERED IN SACRIFICE TO IDOLS

There is a great general similarity between this chapter and Romans 14. The question comes before the reader there in a somewhat different form. There rules are laid down concerning clean and unclean meats; here about meats offered in sacrifice to idols. There the weak brother is a Jew; here he may be also a Gentile. See note on 1Co 8:7. But this difference only brings out in stronger relief the identity of the principle, as laid down in ch. 1Co 6:12 of this Epistle (where see note). Matters of this kind are purely indifferent in themselves. It is only so far as they are likely to affect the conduct of others that they become important. The Christian was not to be over-scrupulous; not to fret himself about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of this or that particular act, but to consider all questions of this kind on the broad general ground of the welfare of the community, and therefore, as a matter of course, of the individuals who composed it. The instructed Christian knew well enough that an idol was but a piece of wood or stone. But all were not so enlightened. Each was therefore bound to consider the effect of his conduct on others, and not simply to act as if he were the only party concerned. By the decision in Act 15:23-29, the Gentile converts were specially forbidden to eat meats offered to idols. Why does St Paul, it may be asked, make no reference to that decision here, and in some cases give a different one? It would seem that the directions given in Acts 15. were intended for special circumstances, and not for an universal rule. The letter containing them was addressed only to the Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, and was probably intended to allay the violence of the dissensions between Jewish and Gentile converts.

1. δέ. Next, as we should say. The Apostle answers another of the questions which have been submitted to him.

εἰδωλοθύτων. These were the parts of the sacrifice not consumed by fire, but reserved, as in the Jewish peace-offerings (see Lev 7:15-16; Lev 22:30), for the use of the priest and the worshipper. Sometimes (see ch. 1Co 10:25) the meat not consumed was sold in the shambles as ordinary butcher’s meat, without any notification that it had ever formed part of a sacrifice. ‘Most public entertainments,’ says Dean Stanley, ‘and many private meals, were more or less remotely the accompaniments of sacrifice.… This identification of a sacrifice and a feast was carried to the highest pitch among the Greeks. Sacrifices are enumerated by Aristotle (Ethics VIII. 9), and Thucydides (II. 38), amongst the chief means of social enjoyment.’ Hence the difficulty referred to in the present chapter was likely to be an extremely pressing one. Among the Jews (Num 25:2; Psa 106:28) to partake of heathen sacrifices was strictly forbidden. See also Rev 2:14. For a description of heathen sacrifices, see Homer, Iliad, Book I. 606–13. Cf. also Horace, Odes III. viii. 6, 7: ‘Voveram dulces epulas et album … caprum.’

ὅτι πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν. Some have supposed a parenthesis commencing at ὅτι, ‘because we all have knowledge,’ and including the whole passage between these words and ‘we know that an idol,’ &c., in 1Co 8:4, where the construction in 1Co 8:1 is resumed. But it is better to regard the parenthesis as beginning at ‘Knowledge puffeth up,’ and extending thence to the end of 1Co 8:3, and thus avoid the use of οἴδαμεν ὅτι in two senses in the same passage. The Apostle’s words are not to be regarded as ironical. Admission into the Christian Church brought with it a vast amount of spiritual, and even intellectual, enlightenment. ‘I do not undertake to teach you as men destitute of knowledge; but ye are to be admonished to use what ye have well and prudently.’ Estius. This commentator further remarks that there is no contradiction between this verse and 1Co 8:7, inasmuch as here it is knowledge generally that is spoken of, whereas there a particular sort of knowledge is meant. The meaning of this apparent digression is, ‘We all know that Christians, by virtue of their fellowship with Christ, possess knowledge; but it is not upon their knowledge that they are to rely. “And yet shew I you a more excellent way.” ’

ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ. Knowledge is a good thing in its way, but it needs to be under the guidance of a higher principle. We may know that ‘an idol is nothing in the world.’ And all the use we may make of that knowledge may be to despise the poor creature who does not know what we know, and to use the liberty our knowledge gives us in a way to do him infinite harm. Something else than a knowledge like this is wanted in order to ‘build up’ the Church.

ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ. Love buildeth up. Nothing has done more to obscure the connection between different passages of the New Testament, and to weaken our sense of the identity of sentiment between its different writers, than the use sometimes of the English word love, and sometimes of the word charity, derived from the Latin caritas, to translate the Greek word uniformly used throughout. Οἰκοδομεῖ introduces a metaphor taken from the gradual building of a house, and applied either (1) to the gradual formation of individual character, or (2) to the growth of the Christian Church. The word is found in both significations in ch. 1Co 14:4, but it is more commonly used in the second. See Eph 4:12; Eph 4:16, also ch. 14 throughout; and notes on ch. 1Co 3:17, 1Co 6:19. ‘It is love that edifieth;’ love that builds up both the character of the individual man and the society, each member of which is ‘chosen in Christ,’ to be ‘holy and without blame before God in love.’ Cf. also 1Ti 3:15; 1Pe 2:5.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8:1-11:1.] On the partaking of meats offered to idols, and assisting at feasts held in honour of idols.

Chap.

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

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

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

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

There should be a comma at εἰδωλοθύτων, as the resumed sentence (ver. 4) shews.

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

γνῶσιν, scil. περὶ αὐτῶν.

From ἡ γν. to end of ver. 3 (see above) is a logical parenthesis.

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

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

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

2,

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

8:1-3. General Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The punctuation of Griesbach, Bengel, etc., ὂδαμεν·̔́ὁτι, ‘Now about things offered we know; because we all have knowledge,’ is intolerably harsh. It would be almost impossible in v. 4, and οἵδαμεν ὅτι in the two places are evidently parallel. Lachmann conjectured that the original reading was οἵδαμεν ὅτὶ οὑ πὰντες κ.τ.λ. See Alford.

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

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

Vv. 1-4. “Now, as touching things offered to idols, we know that we all have knowledge, — knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. 2. If any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3. But if any man love God, the same is known of Him — 4. as concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.”

We might take the preposition περί, on the subject of, with its regimen as a sort of title: “As to what concerns consecrated meats....” In that case we must understand: “This is what I have to say to you;” comp. 1Co 7:1. But we might also make this preposition depend on the verb οἴδαμεν, we know, or finally, on the expression γνῶσιν ἔχομεν, we have knowledge; in this sense: “We know that on the subject of meats offered in sacrifice we all have knowledge.” In itself this last meaning might be suitable; but in 1Co 8:4, where the sentence is taken up again (after an interruption), the words: we have knowledge, are omitted, and the περί, on the subject of, can only be explained there, and consequently also in 1Co 8:1, in one of the two first meanings. The first construction is likewise set aside by 1Co 8:4, where the περί can only depend on the verb which follows it, οἴδαμεν, we know. We are thus perforce brought to the second construction: “On the subject of meats...we know.”

After such a verb as we know, it is more natural to give ὅτι the meaning of that, than the meaning of because. This sense is confirmed by 1Co 8:4, where it is evidently the only one possible.

Several (Flatt, etc.) have supposed that these first words: On the subject of...we know that..., were taken word for word by the apostle from the letter of the Corinthians. The most advanced members of the Church, they hold, expressed themselves thus: “We know that every one is sufficiently enlightened on this subject, and consequently we are perfectly free to use our liberty in the matter.” Paul afterwards shows (1Co 8:7), they continue, that this affirmation is far from being exact. But, if it were so, we must also ascribe to the Corinthians 1Co 8:4-6, which are a continuation of the sentence begun at 1Co 8:1; now it is evident that it is Paul who speaks in these verses. The subject of we know is therefore, first of all, Paul and Sosthenes, who address the letter, but at the same time the Corinthians, whom the authors include with them in the same category. Perhaps the Corinthians had written something similar to these opening words; and Paul chooses to emphasize it as his own affirmation: “Yes, undoubtedly, we know, as you love to repeat that...;” comp. the similar maxim reproduced by Paul, 1Co 6:11.

As this beginning of the sentence is taken up again, 1Co 8:4, it must necessarily be held that a parenthesis begins in 1Co 8:1 and continues to the end of 1Co 8:3. The only question is where this parenthesis begins. Luther, Bengel, Olshausen, Heinrici, Edwards, etc., think that it opens with the conj. ὅτι, to which they give the meaning because. We have already set aside this meaning of ὅτι, and we add that the following asyndeton: “knowledge puffeth up...,” would be far from natural so soon after the beginning of a parenthesis; two successive interruptions of the thought are inadmissible. The parenthesis therefore does not begin till the second proposition of the verse: “Knowledge puffeth up....”

All denotes in Paul’s view all those who composed the Church. They had in baptism abjured the errors of polytheism, and accepted what the Church taught regarding the only true God. They had therefore all a certain measure of knowledge. How can Edwards go astray so far as to see in this πάντες, all, an allusion to the other apostles and to the decree of the Council of Jerusalem?

But, at this word knowledge, the apostle all at once stops short; and he gives himself up to a brief digression on the uselessness and nothingness of a certain kind of knowledge, as well as on the true nature of that for which this fair name should be reserved. “Knowledge, yes, every one has it; but when it is only in the head, and the heart is empty of love, knowledge produces only a vain inflation, presumption, vanity, lightness.” With this idea of inflation the apostle contrasts that of edification, that is to say, of a solid and growing building; fulness, that is, reality, in opposition to emptiness and appearance. Love alone can produce in him who knows, and, through him, in his brethren, serious moral progress. Love alone draws from God the real knowledge of Divine things, and teaches him who receives it to adapt it to the wants of his brethren.

Vv. 2. The asyndeton of 1Co 8:2 (the δέ of the T. R. should, it appears, be rejected) does not indicate a new interruption. It is that frequent asyndeton which announces the more emphatic reaffirmation of the previous thought: “Yes, that knowledge devoid of love and of power to edify, when we look at it more nearly, is not even a true knowledge.” The expression εἰ τὶς δοκεῖ, if any one thinketh he knoweth, indicates an empty pretence; real knowing, on the contrary, is denoted by the words, as he ought to know. The reading should certainly be, with almost all the Mjj., ἐγνωκέναι, instead of the εἰδέναι of T. R.; as Edwards says, the second of these terms signifies: to know a fact, while the former signifies: to be thoroughly acquainted with, to have penetrated the thing. Now this second meaning is the only one which is suitable here.

It matters little whether we read with the Alex. οὔπω, not yet, or with the Greco-Lat. and the Byz. οὐδέπω, not at all yet. As to the pron. οὐδέν, nothing, of the T. R., it ought certainly to be suppressed (with the majority of the Mjj.). It weakens the idea instead of strengthening it. It is not the knowledge of this or that which the apostle denies to the man who is full of self and empty of love; it is the very possibility of knowledge. One can only know by assimilating the being to be known, and one can only assimilate him by renouncing self to give himself to him. Love, therefore, is the condition of all true knowledge, and that above all, when, as here, it is God and His thought and will which are in question; comp. 1Jn 4:8: “He who loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.”

Vv. 3 is the antithesis of 1Co 8:2 : Without love, no knowledge (1Co 8:2); with love, true knowledge (1Co 8:3). But why, instead of: “The same knoweth God,” does the apostle say: The same is known of God? Does he mean to deny the first of these two ideas? Assuredly not. But he clears, as it were, this first stage, which is self-understood, to rise at a bound to the higher stage, which supposes and implies it. To be known of God is more than to know Him. This appears from Gal 4:9 : “But now, having known God, or rather being known of Him.” In a residence, every one knows the monarch; but every one is not known by him. This second stage of knowledge supposes personal intimacy, familiarity of a kind; a character which is foreign to the first. We need not therefore seek to give the expression, “to be known of God,” an exceptional meaning, which was done by Erasmus: “he is acknowledged of God as His true disciple;” and by Grotius: “He is approved of Him.” Beza went even the length of giving to the passive ἔγνωσται, is known, the sense of a Hebrew Hophal: “he is rendered knowing, put in possession of the knowledge of God.” The word know is here taken in the same sense as in Psa 1:6 : “The Lord knoweth the way of the righteous,” a passage which Heinrici rightly compares. The eye of God can penetrate into the heart that loves Him and His light, to illuminate it. In this light an intimate communion is formed between him and God; and this communion is the condition of all true knowledge,—of man’s being known by God as of God’s being known by man.

The pronoun οὗτος, this same, does not refer to God, but to man; it signifies: “This same truly,” in opposition to those πάντες, all, to whom the privilege of knowledge was so freely ascribed at Corinth (1Co 8:1).

After this digression, for which there was only too much reason, the apostle returns to the thought which he had begun to enunciate, 1Co 8:1.

Vv. 4. The οὖν, therefore, indicates, as it does so frequently, the resuming of the interrupted sentence; but with this difference, that for the fact of knowledge (the γνῶσιν ἔχειν) Paul substitutes as the object of the we know the contents of the knowledge.

The term βρῶσις, the act of eating, which he here introduces (it did not occur in 1Co 8:1), has in it something disdainful; it emphasizes the lower and material character of the act in question.

The contents of the knowledge which Paul ascribes to all Christians, are the monotheistic creed, as it is summed up in the two following propositions. And first the nothingness of idols; οὐδέν might be an adjective: “no idol.” In that case we must apply the term idol to the false deity itself. None of those deities worshipped by the heathen has any existence in the circle of real beings (the world). So Meyer, de Wette, etc. But, says Edwards, it is doubtful whether εἴδωλον, the idol, can denote the false God, without the image representing it; the examples quoted do not prove this. He explains thus: There is not in creation any visible image of God; the only real image of God is that which is in heaven: Christ (Col 1:15; 2Co 4:4). But one feels at once how foreign this thought is to the context. The subject in question for the time is God; only afterwards will Paul come to Jesus Christ, as the only Lord (1Co 8:6). What has led some to make οὐδέν an adjective, is the following οὐδείς, which evidently signifies no. But why should the construction of the two propositions be the same? The οὐδέν ought to be taken as a predicate: “That an idol is nothing in the world.” It must be remembered that the statue was judged by the heathen to be the dwelling and agent of the god himself, so that the apostle means: If in the world of beings you seek one corresponding to the statue and person of Jupiter, Apollo, etc., you will find nothing.

In the following proposition, the word ἕτερος, other (which is found in the T. R.), must be rejected.

There was certainly not a single Christian at Corinth who had not subscribed to these two propositions; and the apostle may have borrowed them from the Church’s own letter. He himself confirms while explaining them, but at the same time completing and prudently limiting them in the two following verses.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter VIII

Eating of sacrifices offered to idols is not in itself wrong, 1Co_8:1-7. But it should be avoided if it gave offense, 1Co_8:8-13.

On Eating of Sacrifices 1Co_8:1-13

The second subject on which the Corinthians had requested the advice of the apostle was the lawfulness of eating of the sacrifices offered to idols. To the discussion of that question in its different aspects the eighth, ninth and tenth chapters of this epistle are principally devoted. At the council of Jerusalem it was decided by the apostles, elders and brethren, that the Gentile converts should abstain from meat offered to idols, from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, Act_15:29; and this decree was referred to the Holy Ghost as its author, Act_15:28. Yet Paul, though present in that council, not only does not refer to it, but goes directly against it. That decree forbade the eating of meat offered to idols; Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, tells the Corinthians that when exposed for sale in the market, or found on private tables, they might eat it without scruple. These facts do not prove any discrepancy between the apostles gathered in Jerusalem and Paul; nor that the decisions of that council were not obligatory on the church. They only serve to explain the true intent and meaning of those decisions. They show, 1. That there was no permanent moral ground for the prohibition of meat offered to idols. 2. That the ground of the prohibition being expediency, it was of necessity temporary and limited. It had reference to Christians in the midst of those to whom eating such meat was an abomination. It, therefore, ceased to be binding whenever and wherever the grounds of the prohibition did not exist. It is analogous to Pauls condemnation of women appearing in church without a veil. The decisions of that council, therefore, were no barrier to Pauls discussing the question on its merits. In this chapter the subject is viewed in two aspects; first, considered in itself; and secondly, in its bearing on the weaker or less enlightened class of Christians. Most of the questions which disturbed the early church had their origin in the conflicting prepossessions and prejudices of the Jewish and Gentile converts; or at least, of the more and less enlightened of the Christian converts. For it is probable that many of those who had been educated as heathen belonged to the class of weaker brethren. As a body, however, the Gentiles were disposed to latitudinarianism; and the Jews to superstitious scrupulousness. So far as general principles were concerned, Paul sided with the Gentile party. Their views about meats and drinks, and holy days, and ceremonies were derived from the apostle himself, and were therefore approved by him. But the spirit and practice of this party he severely condemns. Thus, in the present instance, he admits that an idol is nothing; that a sacrifice is nothing; that all enlightened Christians know this; that, consequently, eating of the heathen sacrifices was a matter of indifference, it made a man neither better nor worse; and yet eating of them might be, and in their case it was, sinful; because injurious to their weaker brethren. He begins the chapter with the admission, therefore, that all enlightened Christians have knowledge. He reminds them, however, that there is something higher than knowledge; that knowledge without love is, after all, only another form of ignorance. The main thing to be known is not apprehended, 1Co_10:1-3. He admits, however, that Christians know that the gods of the heathen are vanities and lies, that there is but one only, the living and true God, 1Co_10:4. For although the heathen acknowledge a whole hierarchy of deities, celestial and terrestrial, Christians acknowledge but one God and one Mediator, 1Co_10:6. All this is admitted. It is, however, nevertheless true that many Christians, though they know that there is but one God, yet are not persuaded that the heathen deities are nothing, and therefore they stand in awe of them, and could not help believing that eating of sacrifices offered to idols was an act of worship, or in some way defiling, 1Co_10:7. The apostle also admits the second principle relied upon by the Gentile converts, viz., that meat does not commend us to God, that it can have no influence on our spiritual state, 1Co_10:8. It is not enough, however, that an act should be in its own nature indifferent to justify us in performing it. If our doing what is in itself innocent be the occasion of leading others into sin, it is for that reason sinful for us, 1Co_10:9. If, therefore, a weak brother should be led, against the convictions of his own mind, to join his stronger brethren in eating such sacrifices, he would bring himself into condemnation. It was, therefore, a breach of charity and a sin against Christ, to eat of the heathen sacrifices under circumstances which emboldened others to sin, 1Co_10:10-12. The apostle avows his own determination never to eat meat at all, if by so doing he should cause his brethren to sin, 1Co_10:13.

1Co_8:1

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

The idolatry of the Greeks and Romans pervaded their whole life. Their social intercourse, their feasts, the administration of justice, the public amusements, the offices and honors of the government, were all more or less connected with religious services. Christians, therefore, were constantly exposed to the danger of being involved in some idolatrous homage without even knowing it. This gave rise to numerous and perplexing questions of conscience, which were often decided differently by different classes of Christians. One of the most perplexing of these questions related to the use of things offered to idols. Some had no scruples on this point; others thought it sinful to eat of such sacrifices under any circumstances. This was a question which it was necessary to have authoritatively settled, because it came up every day for decision. The victims offered in sacrifices were usually divided into three parts. One was consumed on the altar, another was given to the priest, and a third was retained by the offerer. The portion given to the priest, if not needed for himself, was sent to the market. The portion retained by the offerer was either eaten at his own table, or within the precincts of the temple. The Christians, therefore, if they bought meat in the market, or if invited to the houses of their heathen friends, or to the festivals in the temples, were liable to have these sacrifices placed before them. The two grounds on which the more liberal of them defended the use of such meat, were, first, that the idols were nothing, they were not really gods; and secondly, that meat cannot commend us to God. Both these principles are true, and therefore the apostle concedes them, but at the same time corrects the practical inferences which the Gentile converts drew from them. There were really two distinct questions relating to this subject. The first was, whether eating such sacrifices was lawful? the other, whether it was lawful to eat them within the precincts of the temple? The apostle does not distinguish these questions until the tenth chapter. Here he speaks of the subject only in its general aspects.

Now as touching things offered unto idols. Literally, But, concerning idol-sacrifices. The particle (δέ), but, serves to introduce a new topic. As the fourth verse begins, concerning therefore the eating things offered to idols, the intervening words are a logical parenthesis. This parenthesis may begin immediately after the word idols, or after the word knowledge, so that the first two clauses of the verse are connected. But concerning idol-sacrifices, we know we all have knowledge. This claim to knowledge, though a claim of the Corinthians, and the ground on which they defended the eating of those sacrifices, is not put forward as a point to be contested. The apostle adopts it, or makes it his own, and then proceeds to qualify and limit it, precisely as he did with the aphorism, All things are lawful, in 1Co_6:12; see also 1Co_10:23. The subject of the two verbs know and have in this verse are not necessarily the same. The sense may be: I know we all have knowledge. The knowledge intended is determined by the context. It is the knowledge concerning idols. In this verse Paul says, We all have knowledge; but in 1Co_8:7, he says, This knowledge is not in all. This apparent contradiction may be explained by supposing, what is perfectly natural, that the apostle has reference to different classes of persons in the two passages. In 1Co_8:1 he may intend himself and his followers. We all, that is, all the stronger or more enlightened class of believers. Whereas, in 1Co_8:7, he may refer to Christians generally, including the strong and weak. This knowledge is not in all, for the weak have it not. Or the distinction may be between theoretical and practical knowledge. All Christians admit, as a matter of theory, that an idol is nothing, but this knowledge is not in all believers practical and controlling. This also is natural and satisfactory. It is analogous to the statements of this same apostle in reference to the heathen. In Rom_1:23 he says, They know God, but in 1Co_1:21 he says, they know not God. These statements are perfectly consistent, because the word know has different senses. There is a sense in which all men know God; they all, from the constitution of their nature, and from the works of God, know that there is a being on whom they are dependent, and to whom they are responsible. But this is not the knowledge of God which is said to be eternal life. It is therefore perfectly consistent to attribute the former knowledge to the heathen, though he denies to them the latter. So here it is consistent to say that all Christians have a theoretical knowledge of the truth that there is but one God, and that idols are nothing, and yet say that this knowledge is not practical and controlling in all. It is one of the great beauties of the Scriptures, that the sacred writers in the calm consciousness of truth, in the use of popular, as distinguished from philosophical language, affirm and deny the same verbal proposition, assured that the consistency and intent of their statements will make their way to the heart and conscience. That the apostle is here speaking of theoretical, as distinguished from true, practical knowledge, is plain from what he says of it. It puffeth up. The Greek word here used (φυσιόω), is, in the New Testament, employed in the sense of the word (φυσάω), which means to blow, to fill with wind, to inflate, and then, to render vain and conceited. Mere theoretical or speculative knowledge, that is, knowledge divorced from love, tends to inflate the mind, i.e. renders it vain and conceited. It is a great mistake, therefore, to suppose that there knowledge, without religion, elevates and refines men, or can purify society. It is essential, but it is insufficient.

Charity edifieth. Charity is an inadequate and unhappy translation of the Greek word (ἀγάπη), because, agreeably to its Latin derivation, it properly means the feeling which arises from the perception of the wants and sufferings of others, and the consequent desire to relieve them. Love (ἀγάπη, a word peculiar to Hellenistic Greek,) is much more comprehensive than this, not only because it may have God for its object, but also because, when exercised towards men it includes complacency and delight as well as benevolence. It is of this comprehensive virtue the apostle treats at length in the thirteenth chapter of this epistle, and of which he here says, it edifies. It does not terminate on itself, as knowledge does, but goes out of itself, and seeks it happiness in another, and lives and acts for others. It is, therefore, something incomparably higher than knowledge, when the two are separated and distinguished.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This general word is to be abridged as appeareth verse 7, for there is a kind of taunt in it, as we may perceive by the next verse.

Instructed our neighbor.

He entereth to entreat of another kind of things indifferent, to wit, of things offered to idols, or the use or flesh so offered and sacrificed. And first of all he removeth all those things which the Corinthians pretended in using things offered to idols without any respect. First of all they affirmed that this difference of meats was for unskillful men, but as for them, they knew well enough the benefit of Christ, which causeth all these things to be clean to them that are clean. Be it so saith Paul: be it that we are all sufficiently instructed in the knowledge of Christ. I say notwithstanding that we must not simply rest in this knowledge. The reason is that unless our knowledge be tempered with charity, it doth not only not avail, but also doeth much hurt, because it is the mystery of pride: nay, it doth not so much as discern the name of godly knowledge, if it be separate from the love of God and therefore from the love of our neighbor.

Ministereth occasion of vanity and pride, because it is void of charity.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

CHAPTER VIII.

The question of the Corinthians concerning meats offered to

idols, and the apostle's preface to his instructions on that

head, 1-3.

The nature of idolatry, 4, 5.

Of genuine worship, 6.

Some ate of the animals that had been offered to idols

knowingly, and so defiled their conscience, 7.

Neither eating nor abstinence in themselves recommend us to

God, 8.

But no man should use his Christian liberty so as to put a

stumbling block before a brother, 9, 10.

If he act otherwise, he may be the means of a brother's

destruction, 11.

Those who act so as to wound the tender conscience of a

brother, sin against Christ, 12.

The apostle's resolution on this head, 13.

NOTES ON CHAP. VIII.

Verse 1. As touching things offered unto idols] This was another subject on which the Corinthians had asked the apostle's advice, and we shall understand the whole of this chapter the better when we consider one fact, viz. That there had long subsisted a controversy between the Karaites and the Traditionites, how far it was lawful to derive any benefit or advantage from things used by the Gentiles. The Karaites were a sect of the Jews who scrupulously held to the letter of the sacred writings, taking this alone for their directory. The Traditionists were those who followed the voice of the elders, interpreting the Divine testimonies by their decisions. From a work of the Karaites, entitled Addereth Eliyahu, Triglandus has extracted the following decisions, which will throw light upon this subject. "It is unlawful to receive any benefit from any kind of heathen worship, or from any thing that has been offered to an idol." - "It is unlawful to buy or sell an idol, and if, by accident, any such thing shall come into thy power, thou shalt derive no emolument from it." - "The animals that are destined and prepared for the worship of idols are universally prohibited; and particularly those which bear the mark of the idol. This should be maintained against the opinion of the Traditionists, who think they may lawfully use these kinds of animals, provided they be not marked with the sign of the idol." Thus far the Karaites; and here we see one strong point of difference between these two sects. The Karaites totally objected to every thing used in idolatrous services: the Traditionists, as the Talmud shows, did generally the same; but it appears that they scrupled not to use any animal employed in idolatrous worship, provided they did not see the sign of the idol on it. Now the sign of the idol must be that placed on the animal previously to its being sacrificed, such as gilded horns and hoofs, consecrated fillets, garlands, c. And as, after it had been sacrificed, and its flesh exposed for sale in the shambles, it could bear none of these signs, we may take it for granted that the Jews might think it lawful to buy and eat this flesh: this the Karaite would most solemnly scruple. It may be just necessary to state here, that it was customary, after the blood and life of an animal had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, to sell the flesh in the market indiscriminately with that of other animals which had not been sacrificed, but merely killed for common use. Even the less scrupulous Jews, knowing that any particular flesh had been thus offered, would abhor the use of it and as those who lived among the Gentiles, as the Jews at Corinth, must know that this was a common case, hence they would be generally scrupulous; and those of them that were converted to Christianity would have their scruples increased, and be as rigid on this point as the Karaites themselves. On the other hand, those of the Gentiles who had received the faith of Christ, knowing that an idol was nothing in the world, nor was even a representation of any thing, (for the beings represented by idol images were purely imaginary,) made no scruple to buy and eat the flesh as they used to do, though not with the same intention; for when, in their heathen state, they ate the flesh offered to idols, they ate it as a feast with the idol, and were thus supposed to have communion with the idol; which was the grossest idolatry.

From these observations it will at once appear that much misunderstanding and offence must have existed in the Corinthian Church; the converted Jews abominating every thing that they knew had been used in the heathen worship, while the converted Gentiles, for the reasons above assigned, would feel no scruple on the account.

We know that we all have knowledge.] I am inclined to think that these are not St. Paul's words, but a quotation from the letter of the Corinthians to him, and a proof of what the apostle says below, knowledge puffeth up; but however the words may be understood as to their origin, they contain a general truth, as they relate to Christians of those times, and may be thus paraphrased; "All we who are converted to God by Christ have sufficient knowledge concerning idols and idol worship; and we know also the liberty which we have through the Gospel, not being bound by Jewish laws, rites, ceremonies, c. but many carry their knowledge in this liberty too far, and do what is neither seemly nor convenient, and thus give offence to others."

Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.] This knowledge is very nearly allied to pride; it puffeth up the mind with vain conceit, makes those who have it bold and rash, and renders them careless of the consciences of others. And this knowledge, boasted of by the Corinthians, led them to contemn others; for so the word φυσιοι is understood by some eminent critics.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He now passes on to another question, which he had merely touched upon in the sixth chapter, without fully discussing. For when he had spoken of the avarice of the Corinthians, and had drawn that discussion to a close with this statement — Neither covetous, nor extortioners, nor fornicators, etc., shall inherit the kingdom of God, he passed on to speak of the liberty of Christians — All things are lawful for me. He had taken occasion from this to speak of fornication, and from that, of marriage Now, therefore, he at length follows out what he had touched upon as to things intermediate — how we ought to restrain our liberty in intermediate things. By intermediate things, I mean those that are neither good nor bad in themselves, but indifferent, which God has put in our power, but in the use of which we ought to observe moderation, that there may be a difference between liberty and licentiousness. In the outset, he selects one instance, distinguished above all the others, as to which the Corinthians grievously offended — their having been present on occasion of the sacred banquets, which were held by idolaters in honor of their gods, and eating indiscriminately of the meats that were offered to them. As this gave much occasion of offense, the Apostle teaches them that they rashly perverted the liberty granted them by the Lord.

1. Concerning things offered unto idols. He begins with a concession, in which he voluntarily grants and allows to them everything that they were prepared to demand or object. “I see what your pretext is: you make Christian liberty your pretext. You hold out that you have knowledge, and that there is not one of you that is so ignorant as not to know that there is but one God. I grant all this to be true, but of what avail is that knowledge which is ruinous to the brethren?” Thus, then, he grants them what they demand, but it is in such a way as to show that their excuses are empty and of no avail.

Knowledge puffeth up He shows, from the effects, how frivolous a thing it is to boast of knowledge, when love is wanting. “Of what avail is knowledge, that is of such a kind as puffs us up and elates us, while it is the part of love to edify?” This passage, which otherwise is somewhat obscure, in consequence of its brevity, may easily be understood in this way — “Whatever is devoid of love is of no account in the sight of God; nay more, it is displeasing to him, and much more so what is openly at variance with love Now that, knowledge of which you boast, O ye Corinthians, is altogether opposed to love, for it puffs up men with pride, and leads to contempt of the brethren, while love is concerned for the welfare of brethren, and exhorts us to edify them. Accursed, then, be that knowledge which makes men proud, and is not regulated by a desire of edifying.”

Paul, however, did not mean, that this is to be reckoned as a fault attributable to learning — that those who are learned are often self-complacent, and have admiration of themselves, accompanied with contempt of others. Nor did he understand this to be the natural tendency of learning — to produce arrogance, but simply meant to show what effect knowledge has in an individual, that has not the fear of God, and love of the brethren; for the wicked abuse all the gifts of God, so as to exalt themselves. Thus riches, honors, dignities, nobility, beauty, and other things of that nature, puff up; because men, elated through a mistaken confidence in these things, very frequently become insolent. Nor is it always so; for we see that many who are rich and beautiful, and abounding in honors, and distinguished for dignity and nobility, are, nevertheless, of a modest disposition, and not at all tainted with pride. And even when it does happen to be so, it is, nevertheless, not proper that we should put the blame upon what we know to be gifts of God; for in the first place that were unfair and unreasonable; and farther, by putting the blame upon things that are not blameworthy, we would exempt the persons themselves from blame, who alone are in fault. My meaning is this — “If riches naturally tend to make men proud, then a rich man, if proud, is free from blame, for the evil arises from riches.”

We must, therefore, lay it down as a settled principle, that knowledge is good in itself; but as piety is its only foundation, it becomes empty and useless in wicked men: as love is its true seasoning, where that is wanting it is tasteless. And truly, where there is not that thorough knowledge of God which humbles us, and teaches us to do good to the brethren, it is not so much knowledge, as an empty notion of it, even in those that are reckoned the most learned. At the same time, knowledge is not by any means to be blamed for this, any more than a sword, if it falls into the hands of a madman. Let this be considered as said with a view to certain fanatics, who furiously declaim against all the liberal arts and sciences, as if their only use were to puff men up, and were not of the greatest advantage as helps in common life. Now those very persons, who defame them in this style, are ready to burst with pride, to such an extent as to verify the old proverb — “Nothing is so arrogant as ignorance.”

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

Now as touching things offered unto idols,.... This was another of the things the Corinthians wrote to the apostle about, desiring to have his judgment in; it was a controversy that had been before moved, whether it was lawful to eat things that had been sacrificed to idols. This was considered in the council at Jerusalem, Act 15:28 and it was agreed to, for the peace of the churches, that the Gentiles, among other things, be advised to abstain from them; which, it seems, the church at Corinth knew nothing of, for the controversy was now moved among them: some that were weak in the faith, and had not, at least, clear notions of Gospel liberty, thought it very criminal and sinful to eat them; others that had, or boasted they had, more knowledge, would not only eat them privately at home, having bought them of the Heathen priests, or in the common meat markets, where they were exposed to sale, and at public feasts, to which they were invited by their friends; but would even go into an idol's temple, and sit and eat them there, to the great grief and prejudice of weak Christians; and what they had to plead in their own defence was their knowledge, to which the apostle here replies:

we know that we all have knowledge; said either affirmatively and seriously; and the meaning is, that the apostles and other Christians knew, and were conscious to themselves of their light and knowledge, and were assured, and might affirm with confidence, that they all, or the most part, only some few excepted, see Co1 8:7 had the same knowledge of Christian liberty as they had; knew that an idol was nothing, and that eating meats offered to them could not defile, or do them any hurt; for they were very sensible there was nothing common or unclean of itself, and yet did not think fit to make use of their knowledge to the grieving and wounding of their fellow Christians: or else this is said ironically, we are wise folks; you particularly are men of knowledge, and wisdom will die with you; you know that you know; you are very knowing in your own conceits, and very positive as to your knowledge. It was the saying of Socrates, that that this one thing he knew, that he knew nothing; but men wise in their own opinions know everything:

knowledge puffeth up; not true knowledge; not that which comes from above, which is gentle and easy to be entreated; not sanctified knowledge, or that which has the grace of God going along with it; that makes men humble, and will not suffer them to be puffed up one against another; but a mere show of knowledge, knowledge in conceit, mere notional and speculative knowledge, that which is destitute of charity or love:

but charity edifieth; that is, a man that has knowledge, joined with love to God, and his fellow Christians, will seek for that which makes for the edification of others; and without this all his knowledge will be of no avail, and he himself be nothing.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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

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

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

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

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

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

" Tu bene cavisti, ne te ulla occidere possit

Littera: nam nota est littera nulla tibi."

Thou takest good care the letter kill thee not:

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

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now concerning those things. It appears from this whole passage that the Corinthians had, in a former letter, consulted this apostle, upon the subject of eating meats offered to idols. It was not unusual to reserve some part of the sacrifice of which they made a supper, either in their own family, with their friends, or sometimes even in the temple. Some of the Christians of Corinth attended without scruple at these sorts of feasts, and eat of the meats offered to idols; whilst others, on the contrary, took scandal at this conduct, and thought it a tacit approbation of idolatry. St. Paul being consulted upon this difficulty, gives them his advice in this chapter. (Calmet) --- We know that we all have knowledge about it. That is, all we, who are sufficiently instructed, have knowledge enough to be convinced, that idols are nothing in themselves, nor the meats offered to them better nor worse upon that account. (Witham) --- Knowledge puffeth up, &c. Knowledge, without charity and humility, serveth only to puff persons up. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The apostle proceedeth to a new argument, about which the Corinthians had wrote to him, viz. about the eating of meat offered to idols. Of this meat offered to idols we have this account given us: Feasts upon sacrifices were very usual amongst the heathens; they first offered oxen, sheep, or other cattle to the idol; then the priest offered a part, burning it upon the idol’s altar; other part they restored to the offerers, or took it to themselves. The priests made a feast in the idol’s temple of their parts, and invited friends to it. The offerers either so feasted with the part restored to them in the idol’s temple, or carried it home, and there feasted their neighbours with it; or else carried it into the market, and sold it (as other meat) in the shambles. The question was: Whether it was lawful for Christians, being invited to these feasts by those amongst whom they lived, to go to them, and to eat of such meat, whether it were in the idol’s temple, or at the pagans’ houses; or if any such meat were bought in the shambles, whether they might eat of that? Some amongst the Christians at Corinth thought any of these were lawful, because they knew an idol was nothing but a block, or piece of wood or stone, so could not defile any thing. The apostle tells them, that he knew very many of them had good degrees of knowledge, and every one understood that an idol was nothing; but yet he warneth them to take heed they were not puffed up with their knowledge, that is, swelled in such a confident opinion of it, that they thought they could not be mistaken, and be betrayed, by their conceit of it, to do that which is sinful; for charity edifieth. Charity signifieth either love to God, or love to our neighbour; here the latter seemeth to be intended, and the sense is: That they were not only concerned in the good of their own souls, but of their neighbours’ also, and to do that which might tend to their profit and edification, not to their ruin and destruction.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(b) Food offered to Idols

In these chapters St. Paul answers another question of the Corinthians—as to the lawfulness of eating food which had been offered in sacrifice to idols. This was a very urgent question. The whole worship of the heathen was sacrificial, and sacrifices were offered by them whenever a birthday or marriage was celebrated. Only part of the animal was consumed on the altar. Of the remainder, part became the priest's perquisite, and the rest was returned to the sacrificer, and he and his friends commonly feasted upon it, often in the precincts of the temple. Again, the bond of union between members of a Greek club, or guild, was a feast following a sacrifice. Much, too, of the meat in the market would have been offered in sacrifice, and sold by either priest or offerer. Thus a Corinthian Christian at a feast given by a heathen friend would probably have before him meat which had been offered in sacrifice; this might be the case even with meat bought in the market; and continued membership of these guilds meant joining in their sacrificial meals.

The Corinthians found this problem continually confronting them, and had asked St. Paul's advice. Their letter seems to have suggested that as an idol did not represent a real deity, food could not be polluted by being offered to it, and so might lawfully be eaten. St. Paul, however, admitting the truth of their view of idols, tells them that (1) knowledge must be tempered by love, care being taken to avoid injuring another's conscience; and (2) they must beware of idolatry.

In 1 Corinthians 8 he deals with the general principle, giving caution (1) above. In 1 Corinthians 9 he appeals to his own example, in forbearing, for the sake of others, to exercise rights he actually possessed, and in guarding against self-indulgence in his own life. In 1 Corinthians 10 he warns them against the danger of idolatry, reminding them of the sin and fate of the Israelites, and that the idol feasts mean fellowship with demons (idolatry being a suggestion of the powers of evil), which is inconsistent with the fellowship with and in Christ, bestowed in the Lord's Supper. Finally, he gives the practical advice, not to be needlessly scrupulous oneself, but to respect the scruples of others.

At the Council of Jerusalem, Gentile converts were directed to abstain from things sacrificed to idols (Act_15:29). St. Paul had himself published these decrees in Syria, etc., but does not mention them here, though he says nothing inconsistent with them. Possibly he saw the Corinthians would be more influenced by argument than by appeal to authority, seeing that they prided themselves on their wisdom (1Co_3:18) and their ability to discern spiritual truth (1Co_2:13-15; 1Co_3:1).

(b) Food offered to Idols

(i) The Principle of Selfdenial

Knowledge must be tempered by love. More enlightened Christians must respect the scruples of their weaker brethren in the matter of eating meat which had been offered to idols.

1-13. Paraphrase. 'Your next question relates to meat offered in sacrifice to idols, asking whether it is permissible for a Christian to partake of it. We all know, as you remark, that such food is absolutely harmless to a man's spiritual life; but we must have regard for the feelings of others, and let love regulate our attitude. (2) Any one who prides himself on his knowledge is but a beginner in learning; (3) but if a man loves God, He receives His divine approval. (4) We know, of course, that an idol represents no real deity, for there is but one God. (5, 6) The heathen, doubtless, speak of many deities and demigods, but we know that these have no actual existence: we believe in God the Father and the Creator and in Jesus Christ His Son. (7) There are many Christians, however, not so well instructed as we are, who still think, as they have been accustomed, of an idol as representing an existing deity, and are shocked at the idea of eating meat which has been offered to it in sacrifice. (8, 9) Now it is quite true that whether we eat it or not is, in the abstract, a matter of indifference; it will make us neither better nor worse in the sight of God. But, at the same time, you must take care to do nothing that will shock another's feelings or wound his conscience. (10) If a man who thinks he cannot as a Christian eat in an idol's temple, sees one of you doing so, he may be led to follow your example; although his conscience, which is not so enlightened as yours, tells him he is doing wrong. (11) He is thus led to act against and stifle his conscience; and so the man for whom Christ died is brought to moral ruin by your self-confidence and bravado. (12) If you act in this way, offending the consciences of less self-reliant brethren and leading them into temptation, you sin directly against Christ. (13) Rather than thus do the weakest of my brethren spiritual injury, I would eat no flesh as long as I live, if to eat it is to harm another soul.'

1. We all have knowledge] This remark is probably quoted from the letter of the Corinthians. 1Co_8:2-3 are St. Paul's comment on it. Charity] RV 'love.'

3. Known of him] 'We can only know God by love... They who love Him are known of Him because they have intercourse with Him, and this mutual intercourse enables them to know him personally' (Sadler): cp. Gal_4:9.

4. An idol is nothing] i.e. has no spiritual reality behind it.

6. 'For us there is but one God the Father, the Source of all things, for whose service we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whose agency all things were created, and. we Christians created anew.'

7. With conscience of the idol unto this hour] RV 'being used until now to the idol'; i.e. not having yet been able to shake off the idea that it represents some spiritual power. Their conscience being weak is defiled] i.e. they have a sense of moral defilement, because their conscience is not properly enlightened.

8. But meat, etc.] It is not such matters that make us well-pleasing to God.

9. This liberty of yours] i.e. freedom to eat.

10. See thee.. sit at meat in the idol's temple] This was what their boasted liberty had brought them to. Some of the Christians had actually partaken of a feast held in honour of some of the heathen deities. This was a more serious matter than merely eating (at home or at a friend's house) of meat which had been offered to an idol, and more fraught with danger to others. For it involved some sort of recognition of the heathen deity—at least, the weak brethren would naturally think so. Knowledge] enlightenment, consciousness that idols do not represent a real deity.

11. Perish] The result of acting against conscience: cp. Rom_14:23. 'Whatsoever is not of faith' (i.e. done without thorough conviction that it is right) 'is sin.'

12. Sin against Christ] who identifies Himself with His brethren (Act_9:4; Mat_25:40).

13. Probably this abstaining from flesh would be practised by St. Paul only where circumstances required it, as at Corinth.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. Assuming the first verse to introduce a passage from the Corinthian letter to the apostle, we would print it somewhat thus: Now concerning idol sacrifices, “we are convinced,” [you say,] “that all have knowledge.” Knowledge, [I reply,] puffeth up; it is love that buildeth up; and if any man imagine he KNOWS any thing, he knows nothing as he ought to know.”

Were the words on both sides spoken, not written, we would suppose Paul to cut short their soft, apologetic words rather abruptly, with a firm expression of countenance, softened by a smile, showing that his was a rebuke of love.

Knowledge—Γνωσις. Gnosis—knowledge—is the word whence the Gnostics drew their title, and designates what claimed to be a deep insight into a profound subject, requiring a penetrative mind. And upon this their pet word, knowledge, the apostle plays with a covert sarcasm through the chapter. 1Co_8:2-4; 1Co_8:7; 1Co_8:10-11. Its arrogance was a quality largely belonging to the sect which assumed it as their title.

Puffeth up—An unloving knowledge, even where it is real knowledge, often results in haughty assumption, and in scorn of humbler minds. Knowing perfectly the nothingness of idols, the proud believer might be reckless of the difficulties and dangers of feebler minds.

Charity—An unfortunate rendering of the Greek for LOVE. St. Paul affirms that it is love, mixed with knowledge, which perfects knowledge into true wisdom.

Edifieth— Buildeth the possessor into a true Christian edifice. If knowledge be the bricks of the edifice, love must at least be the mortar.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 1-13. The relation of lore to knowledge with respect to

the question of eating idol offerings.

As touching things offered unto idols. This was doubtless one of the questions on which the Corinthians had asked for advice. We judge from the tone of the questions to which St. Paul here replies that the majority of the Corinthians, being liberal in their views, held that it was a matter of perfect indifference to eat idol offerings; and that, in acting upon this conviction, they contemptuously overrode the convictions of those who could not help thinking that when they did so they committed a sin. The practical decision of the question was one of immense importance. If it were unlawful under any circumstances to eat idol offerings, then the Gentile convert was condemned to a life of Levitism almost as rigorous as that of the Jew. The distinction between clean and unclean meats formed an insuperable barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Wherever they lived, Jews required a butcher of their own, who had been trained in the rules and ceremonies which enabled him to decide and to ensure that all the meat which they ate should be clean (tahor), not unclean (tame). They could touch no meat which was not certified as free from legal blemish or ceremonial pollution by the affixed leaden seal on which was engraved the word "lawful" (kashar). But Gentiles had always been accustomed to buy meat in the markets. Now, much of this meat consisted of remnants of animals slain as sacrifices, after the priests had had their share. So completely was this case, that the word "to sacrifice" had come to mean "to kill" in Hellenistic Greek. Theophrastus, in his "Moral Sketches," defines the close-handed man as one who, at his daughter"s wedding feast, sells all the victims offered except the sacred parts; and the shameless person as one who, after offering a sacrifice, salts the victim for future use, and goes out to dine with someone else. The market was therefore stocked with meat which had been connected with idol sacrifices. The Christian could never be sure about any meat which he bought if he held it wrong to partake of these offerings. Further than this, he would especially if he were poor feel it a great privation to be entirely cut off from the public feasts (sussitia), which perhaps were often his only chance of eating meat at all; and also to be forbidden to take a social meal with any of his Gentile neighbours or relatives. The question was therefore a "burning" one. It involved much of the comfort and brightness of ancient social life (Thucydides, 2:38; Aristotle, "Eth.," 7:9, Cicero, "Off.," 2:16; Livy, 8:32, etc.). It will be seen that St. Paul treats it with consummate wisdom and tenderness. His liberality of thought shows itself in this that he sides with those who took the strong, the broad, the common sense view, that sin is not a mechanical matter, and that sin is not committed where no sin is intended. He neither adopts the ascetic view nor does he taunt the inquirers with the fact that the whole weight of their personal desires and interests would lead them to decide the question in their own favour. On the other hand, he has too deep a sympathy with the weak to permit their scruples to be overruled with a violence which would wound their consciences. While he accepts the right principle of Christian freedom, he carefully guards against its abuse. It might have been supposed that, as a Jew, and one who had been trained as a "Pharisee of Pharisees," St. Paul would have sided with those who forbade any participation in idol offerings. Jewish rabbis referred to passages like Exo_34:15; Num_25:2; Psa_106:28; Dan_1:8 RAPC Tob 1:10, 11. Rabbi Ishmael, in "Avoda Zara," said that a Jew might not even go to a Gentile funeral, even if he took with him his own meat and his own servants. The law of the drink offering forbids a Jew to drink of a cask if anyone has even touched a goblet drawn from it with the presumed intention of offering little to the gods. Besides this, the Synod of Jerusalem had mentioned the eating of idol offerings as one of the four things which they forbade to Gentile converts, who were only bound by the Noachian precepts. (Act_15:29) But St. Paul judged the matter independently by his own apostolic authority. The decision of the synod had only had a local validity trod was inapplicable to such a community as that of Corinth. St. Paul had to suffer cruel misrepresentation and bitter persecution as the consequence of this breadth of view; (Act_21:21-24) but that would not be likely to make him shrink from saying the truth. This treatment of the subject closely resembles that which he subsequently adopted in Romans 14. We know that we all have knowledge. It is very probable that this is a semi-ironical quotation of the somewhat conceited remark which had occurred in the letter from Corinth. No doubt there was a sense in which it might (theoretically) be regarded as true; but it was St. Paul"s duty both to disparage this kind of knowledge and to show that, after all, there were some among them who did not possess it (ver. 7). Knowledge puffeth up. The brief energetic clause, "Knowledge puffeth up; love buildeth up," shows the strong feeling with which the apostle enters on the discussion. There is a wide distance between theoretic knowledge and heavenly wisdom. (Jam_3:13-18) "He who is full is rich; he who is puffed up is empty" (Stanley). "The first person puffed up was the devil" (Beza). Charity edifieth. There is no reason whatever for the rendering of ajgaph sometimes by "love," sometimes by "charity." The fondness for variation which led King James"s translators to do so only obscures the identity of thought which prevails among all the apostles respecting the absolute primacy of love as the chief sphere and test of the Christian life. Edifieth. Helps to build us up as stones in the spiritual temple (ch. 3:9; Romans. Eph_4:12) "If because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love". (Rom_14:15)

Vers. 1-3.

A twofold knowledge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB.

Vers. 1-13.

Strength and weakness; knowledge and love.

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

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

Ver. 1.

Knowledge and love.

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

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

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

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

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL

Vers. 1-11.

The two guides knowledge and love.

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

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

1. Knowledge without love leads to

(1) pride;

(2) intolerance;

(3) selfishness;

(4) injury to others;

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOMILIES BY H. BREMNER Vers. 1-13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Love leads to true knowledge and true edification. The way to knowledge is through love. This is true of the knowledge of God. "If any man loveth God, the same is known of him" (ver. 3). "Every one that loveth is begotten of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love". (1Jn_4:7, 1Jn_4:8) Love gives itself away to the object beloved, opens out the nature to receive impressions, and puts all it has at the service of the loved one. Love to God brings us near to him, and gives us experience of his gracious dealing, while he in turn opens himself to us. It is only where mutual love exists that there is a mutual revelation of heart to heart; and this holds good, with necessary limitations, of our relation to God. We know him only in proportion as we love him, and even his knowledge of us turns upon love. "The Lord knoweth them that are, (2Ti_2:19) in a way that be knows no others. Our knowledge of God is more correctly his knowledge of us; for all we can know of him here is but the alphabet of that more perfect knowledge which comes with perfect love. (comp 1Co_13:12) Now, the knowledge that comes through love is not an empty thing, puffing up the soul as a bubble, but a solid thing, imparting strength and stability. It builds up the spiritual temple within with the stones of truth. The lesson is You can know God only by loving him, and the measure of your love will be the measure of your knowledge.

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

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

1. The idols which the heathen, worship are mere nonentities. Their so called gods, with which they have filled the heaven and the earth, have no real existence. There is no Jupiter, no Mars, no Venus. They are simply creatures of the imagination, having nothing corresponding to them in the universe. This view of the pagan divinities finds frequent expression in the prophets, who ridicule them as mere vanities. (comp. Isa_44:9; Jer_10:3; Psa_115:4) How melancholy a picture does this present of the condition of those who know not the true God! Men must worship, and so strong is this impulse that they first create the objects of worship and then bow down before them. It is the blind groping of the human mind after the Most High a creature, with dreamy recollections of a lost glory, stretching out suppliant hands towards a silent heaven.

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

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

(2) Instead of "lords many," there is "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him." There is but one Governor of the universe, into whose hands all power has been committed, Jesus the Messiah, by whose agency all things were created, and in whom we are made new creatures. This is the second article of our holy faith. Instead of the endless series of gods and demigods, who were supposed to hold sway over different parts of the universe, "there is one God, one Mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus". (1Ti_2:5)

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

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

1. Consider their case. Their conscience was weak, inasmuch as it could net rise to the conviction that an idol is nothing, and was therefore troubled with scruples as to the lawfulness of partaking of a thing sacrificed to an idol. Hence such persons could not eat without defiling their conscience, i.e. without the feeling that they had done wrong. This carries with it principles that have an important bearing upon Christian ethics. It is wrong for a man to do what his conscience tells him is wrong, or what it does not clearly approve. The thing in itself may be good, but if you are in doubt about it you are thereby debarred from doing it. The dictates of conscience are always imperative, but with this there goes the duty of seeing that conscience is instructed. Comp. Rom_14:23, where Paul is treating of the same subject: "He that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Apply this to some forms of amusement, doubtful practices in trade, extravagant living, etc. It is not enough to plead the example of others, if you are in doubt regarding their rightness. "Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." Do not disregard the faithful voice within your bosom, even when it speaks in whispers.

1. The eating of such things has no religious significance. Neither the use nor the abstinence from use commends us to God or affects our standing before him. To abstain from eating for the sake of weak brethren is not to surrender any spiritual benefit. It is a matter of indifference. "The kingdom of God is not eating and drinking". (Rom_14:17) Observe the class of matters to which alone the apostle"s reasoning is meant to apply. They must be such as involve no religious principle cases where accommodation to the weakness of others does not imply the sacrifice of truth or duty. In such cases we are free to consider the condition of our brethren, and to regulate our conduct by a regard to them.

2. The strong must not use their liberty so as to put a stumbling block in the path of the weak. If a weak brother, who had doubts about the eating of sacrificial flesh, should by the example of another be emboldened to eat also, in that case he would sin and his conscience be defiled. The more enlightened Christian would thus be the occasion of stumbling to his brother, bringing him into danger of perishing altogether, and would thereby sin against Christ who died for him. Rather than do anything that might lead to this result, the apostle declares, "If meat maketh my brother to stumble," etc. This is the principle of Christian expediency, of which Paul is the great exponent, and which enters so largely into the believer"s practical life. It has its root in love, which leads us to "bear one another"s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ". (Gal_6:2) It is an outcome of that spirit of self denial which dwelt in him. "Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbour for that which, is good, unto edifying. For Christ also pleased not himself". (Rom_15:1-3) In applying this principle, note:

(1) It applies only to things in themselves indifferent. Where true Christian liberty was in danger, Paul refused to yield. (Gal_2:3-5)

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

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

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE Ver. 1.

Knowledge and love.

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

I THE KNOWLEDGE THAT PUFFETH UP. The case contemplated is one in which the purely intellectual element in the determination of moral questions is divorced from right feeling. It is a knowledge ideal and speculative, not vital and spiritual The knowledge of the theologian, the logician, the casuist; not that of the man whose reason and conscience and heart are alike alive unto God. The characteristic of this knowledge is that it makes men vain, conceited, self asserting, "thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to think." A true knowledge of the things of God has no such tendency as this. "If a man thinketh that he knoweth anything," etc. (ver. 2). Real knowledge in the spiritual sphere is beyond the reach of one who is destitute of humility and love. Even in the realm of purely secular science, true knowledge does not make men vain. The lives of such men as Newton, Herschel, Faraday, etc., illustrate the truth of this. They were men of lowly, childlike spirit. They stood reverently, as with bared head and unsandalled feet, before the infinite mystery of the universe. It is the novice, the mere tyro in learning, the man of shallow thought and narrow view, who is proud of his attainments, dogmatic and self asserting. How much more will it be so in matters purely spiritual, belonging to a region into which our science cannot climb! Take St. Paul himself as an example. While he moved within the narrow circle of Jewish tradition and prejudice, he was probably the very type of personal vanity. His Pharisaic pride was not only that of legal blamelessness, but of theological culture. Had he not sat at the feet of Gamaliel? Who could teach him what he did not know? It is a portrait of himself that he paints in those half sarcastic words: "If thou bearest the name of a Jew, and restest upon the Law," etc. (Rom_2:17-20) But when the light from heaven shone upon him, how was the loftiness of his pride laid low! He "became a fool that he might be wise." Moreover, this mere theoretic knowledge is as profitless in its effect on others as it is to one"s self. It becomes disputatious, "gendering strifes about words," etc. There is no "edifying" quality in it. It does not make men one whit the nobler, purer, more gracious in heart and life. It in no way promotes the reign of those Divine principles of "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," in which the kingdom of God consists.

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

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

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

1. As an incentive to all real Christian activity. It is the distinction of Christianity as a Divine method of moral culture that it bases practical and social virtue on this foundation, casts it freely on the prompting and sustaining power of love. "Love is the end of the commandment, the fulfilling of the Law." Get your soul filled with love, and you will never want for an effectual motive to all noble living. As the materials of the building arrange themselves and rise into their finished form in obedience to the thought and will of the architect; as the notes fall, as if by an instinct of their own, into their due place according to the inspiration of the

2. musician; as the words flow in rhythmic cadence in answer to the mood of the poet"s genius; as the grass and the flowers and the corn grow by the spontaneous energy of the creative and formative mind that animates them all; so will you rear for yourself the structure of a beautiful and useful Christian life, if your heart is filled with love.

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

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Ver. 1.

Knowledge and love.

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

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

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

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now concerning the next question you proposed. All of us have knowledge - A gentle reproof of their self-conceit. Knowledge without love always puffeth up. Love alone edifies - Builds us up in holiness.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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

Knowledge and charity:

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

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

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

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

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

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 8:2

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

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

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

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

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EATING MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS

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

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

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

1 Corinthians Chapter 8

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

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

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1–3. As touching things offered unto idols. Corinth, like all Greek cities, was full of temples to heathen idols. At their altars victims were constantly sacrificed, the flesh of which was afterwards eaten. The question arose whether a Christian could eat of such flesh without the sin of showing deference to an idol. Perhaps the letter to Paul (7:1) had asked about this matter. We all have knowledge. Some pleaded their knowledge that “an idol was nothing,” not divine in any sense. Paul tells them that the question is one, not of knowledge, but of charity. Knowledge puffeth up. Those who professed to be knowing ones put on an air of superiority.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul reminds the believers that though idols have no power, believers must be careful not to affect the weaker believers who might think they care about the idols. He tells believers to be careful with the liberty believers have in Christ.

General Information:

"We" means Paul and, though specifically writing to the Corinthian believers, includes all believers. (See: Inclusive "We")

Now about

Paul uses this phrase to move on to the next question the Corinthians had asked him.

food sacrificed to idols

Gentile worshipers would offer grain, fish, fowl, or meat, to their gods. The priest would burn a portion of it on the altar. Paul is speaking of the portion the priest would give back for the worshiper to eat or sell in the market.

Knowledge puffs up

"Knowledge puffs people up." Here "puffs up" is a metaphor for making someone proud. The abstract noun "knowledge" can be expressed with the verb "know." AT: "Knowledge makes people proud" or "People who think that they know a lot become proud" (See: Metaphor)

but love builds up

The abstract noun "love" can be expressed as a verb. AT: "but when we love people, we build them up" (See: Abstract Nouns)

love builds up

Building people up represents helping them become mature and strong in their faith. AT: "love strengthens people" or "when we love people, we strengthen them" (See: Metaphor)

thinks he knows something

"believes he knows everything about something"

that person is known by him

This can be stated in active form. AT: "God knows that person" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

sacrifice

false god

know

love

God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

Things offered unto idols [ειδωλοθυτων] . See on Rev 2:14. We know that we all, etc. The arrangement of the text is in question. Evidently a parenthesis intervenes between the beginning of ver. 1 and ver.

1Co 8:4It seems best to begin this parenthesis with knowledge puffeth up, and to end it with known of him (ver. 3).

We all have knowledge [παντες γνωσιν εχομεν] . The exact reference of these words must remain uncertain. Some understand Paul himself and the more enlightened Corinthians. Others, all Christians. All the expositions are but guesses. I prefer, on the whole, the view that Paul is here repeating, either verbally or in substance, a passage from the letter of the Corinthians to him. In that case the sense is slightly ironical : "We know, to use your own words, that we all have knowledge." The parenthesis thus comes in with an appropriate cautionary force.

Puffeth up. See on ch. 1Co 4:6. The contrast is striking between puffing up and building up - a bubble and a building.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.