1 Corinthians 8:13

(13) Wherefore.—He states his own solemn determination, arising from the considerations which have just been urged. If a matter of food cause a brother to fall in his Christian course, I will certainly never again eat any kind of flesh, lest I should be the cause of so making him to fall.

It is noticeable that St. Paul in discussing this question makes no reference whatever to the decision of the Council at Jerusalem (see Act_15:29), that the Christians should abstain from “meats offered to idols, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Probably, the Apostle felt the importance of maintaining his own apostolic authority in a Church where it was questioned by some, and he felt that to base his instruction upon the decision of the Church at Jerusalem might have seemed to imply that he had obtained authority from them, and not directly from the Lord. It was also more in accordance with St. Paul’s usual style of instruction to base the smallest details of conduct upon that highest of all principles—our union as Christians with Christ. An appeal to the letter sent from Jerusalem would have been no step in the ascending argument, which reaches its great climax in the 11th and 12th verses, and which, in 1Co_8:13, the Apostle enunciates as the guide of his own life.

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

Wherefore - As the conclusion of the whole matter.

If meat ... - Paul here proposes his own views and feelings, or tells them how he would act in order to show them how they should act in these circumstances.

Make my brother to offend - Lead him into sin; or shall be the cause of leading him into error and guilt. It does not mean, if the eating of meat should “enrage or irritate” another; but if it is the occasion of his being led into transgression. How this might be done is stated in 1Co 8:10.

I will eat no flesh ... - My eating meat is a matter of comparative unimportance. I can dispense with it It is of much less importance to me than happiness, a good conscience, and salvation are to my brother. And the law of love therefore to him requires me to deny myself rather than to be the occasion of leading him into sin. This is a noble resolution; and marks a great, disinterested, and magnanimous spirit. It is a spirit that seeks the good of all; that can deny itself; that is supremely anxious for the glory of God and the salvation of man, and that can make personal comfort and gratification subservient to the good of others. It was the principle on which Paul always acted; and is the very spirit of the self-denying Son of God.

While the world standeth - Greek, For ever. The phrase ‘I will never eat meat’ would express the idea. “Lest I make, etc.” Rather than lead him into sin, by my indulging in eating the meat offered in sacrifice to idols.

Remarks On 1 Corinthians 8

This chapter is very important, as it settles some principles in regard to the conduct of Christians; and shows how they should act in reference to things that are indifferent; or which in themselves can be considered as neither right nor wrong; and in reference to those things which may be considered in themselves as “right and lawful,” but whose indulgence might injure others. And from the chapter we learn:

1. That Christians, though they are truly converted, yet may have many erroneous views and feelings in reference to many things, 1Co 8:6. This was true of those converted from ancient paganism, and it is true of those who are now converted from paganism, and of all young converts. Former opinions, and prejudices, and even superstitions, abide long in the mind, and cast a long and withering influence ever the regions of Christian piety. The morning dawn is at first very obscure. The change from night to daybreak is at first scarcely perceptible. And so it may be in conversion. The views which a pagan entertained from his childhood could not at once be removed. The influence of corrupt opinions and feelings, which a sinner has long indulged, may “travel over” in his conversion, and may long endanger his piety and destroy his peace. Corrupt and infidel thoughts, associations of pollution, cannot be destroyed at once; and we are not to expect from a child in the Christian life, the full vigor, and the elevated principle, and the strength to resist temptation, which we expect of the man matured in the service of the Lord Jesus. This should lead us to charity in regard to the imperfections and failings of young converts; to a willingness to aid and counsel them; to carefulness not to lead them into sin; and it should lead us not to expect the same amount of piety, zeal, and purity in converts from degraded pagans, which we expect in Christian lands, and where converts have been trained up under all the advantages of Sunday Schools and Bible classes.

2. Our opinions should be formed, and our treatment of others regulated, not by abstract knowledge, but by love, 1Co 8:1. A man is usually much more likely to act right who is influenced by charity and love, than one who is guided by simple knowledge, or by self-confidence. One is humble, kind, tender toward the frailties of others, sensible himself of infirmity, and is disposed to do right; the other may be vain, harsh, censorious, unkind, and severe. Knowledge is useful; but for the practical purposes of life, in an erring and fallen world, love is more useful; and while the one often leads astray, the other seldom errs. Whatever knowledge we may have, we should make it a point from which we are never to depart, that our opinions of others, and our treatment of them, should be formed under the influence of love.

3. We should not be self-confident of our wisdom, 1Co 8:2. Religion produces humility. Mere knowledge may fill the heart with pride and vanity. True knowledge is not inconsistent with humility; but it must be joined with a heart that is right. The people that have been most eminent in knowledge have also been distinguished for humility; but the heart was right; and they saw the folly of depending on mere knowledge.

4. There is but one God, 1Co 8:4-6. This great truth lies at the foundation of all true religion; and yet is so simple that it may be known by all Christians, however humble, and is to be presumed to be known by all. But though simple, it is a great and glorious truth. To keep this before the minds of people was one great purpose of all God’s revelations; and to communicate it to people is now the grand object of all missionary enterprises. The world is full of idols and idolaters; but the knowledge of this simple truth would change the moral aspect of the entire globe. To spread this truth should be the great aim and purpose of all true Christians; and when this truth is spread, the idols of the pagan will fall to the dust.

5. Christians acknowledge one and only one Lord, 1Co 8:6. He rules over them. His laws bind them. He controls them. He has a right to them. He can dispose of them as he pleases. They are not their own; but are bound to live entirely to him, and for the promotion of his cause.

6. It becomes Christians to exercise continual care, lest their conduct, even in things which are in themselves lawful, should be the occasion of leading others into sin, 1Co 8:9. Christians very often pursue a course of conduct which may not be in itself unlawful, but which may lead others who have not their intelligence, or strength of principle, into error. One man may be safe where another man is in danger. One man may be able to resist temptations which would entirely overcome another. A course of life may, perhaps, be safe for a man of years and of mature judgment, which would he ruinous to a young man. And the grand principle here should be, not to do that, even though it may be lawful itself, which would he the occasion of leading others into sin.

7. We see here the importance and the power of example, 1Co 8:10-11. Nothing is of more value than a correct Christian example. And this applies particularly to those who are in the more elevated ranks of life, who occupy stations of importance, who are at the head of families, colleges, and schools. The ignorant will be likely to follow the example of the learned; the poor of the rich; those in humble life will imitate the manners of the great. Even in things, therefore, which may not he in themselves unlawful in these circumstances, they should set an example of self-denial, of plainness, of abstinence, for the sake of those beneath them. They should so live that it would be safe and right for all to imitate their example. Christ, though he was rich, yet so lived that all may safely imitate him; though he was honored of God, and exalted to the highest office as the Redeemer of the world, yet he lived so that all in every rank may follow him; though he had all power, and was worshipped by angels, yet so lived that he might teach the most humble and lowly how to live; and so lived that it is safe and proper for all to live as he did. So should every monarch, and prince, and rich man; every noble, and every learned man; every man of honor and office; every master of a family, and every man of age and wisdom, live that all others may learn of them how to live, and that they may safely walk in their footsteps.

8. We have here a noble instance of the principles on which Paul was willing to act, 1Co 8:13. He was willing to deny himself of any gratification, if his conduct was likely to be the occasion of leading others into sin. Even from that which was in itself lawful he would abstain forever, if by indulgence he would be the occasion of another’s falling into transgression. But how rare is this virtue! How seldom is it practiced! How few Christians and Christian ministers are there who deny themselves any gratification in things in themselves right, lest they should induce others to sin! And yet this is the grand principle of Christianity; and this should influence and guide all the professed friends and followers of Christ. This “principle” might be applied to many things in which many Christians now freely indulge; and if applied, would produce great and important changes in society:

(1) Entertainments and feasts which, perhaps, you may be able to “afford” (that is, “afford” in the supposition that what you have is “yours,” and not the Lord’s), may lead many of those who cannot afford it to imitate you, and to involve themselves in debt, in extravagance, in ruin.

(2) You might possibly be safe at a festival, at a public dinner, or in a large party; but your example would encourage others where they would not be safe; and yet, how could you reply should they say that you were there, and that they were encouraged by you?

(3) On the supposition that the use of wine and other fermented liquors may be in themselves lawful, and that you might be safe in using them, yet others may be led by your example to an improper use of them, or contract a taste for stimulating drinks that may end in their ruin. Would it be right for “you” to continue the use of wine in such circumstances? Would Paul have done it? Would he not have adopted the noble principle in this chapter, that he would not touch it while the world stands, if it led him to sin?

(4) You might be safe in a party of amusement, in the circle of the joyful, and in scenes of merriment and mirth. I say you might be, though the supposition is scarcely possible that Christian piety is ever safe in such scenes, and though it is certain that Paul or the Saviour would not have been found there. But how will it be for the young, and for those of less strength of Christian virtue? Will they be safe there? Will they be able to guard against these allurements as you could? Will they not be led into the love of gaiety, vanity, and folly? And what would Paul have done in such cases? What would Jesus Christ have done? What should Christians now do? This single principle, if fairly applied, would go far to change the aspect of the Christian world. If all Christians had Paul’s delicate sensibilities, and Paul’s strength of Christian virtue, and Paul’s willingness to deny himself to benefit others, the aspect of the Christian world would soon change. How many practices now freely indulged in would be abandoned! And how soon would every Christian be seen to set such an example that all others could safely follow it!

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

8:13 Personal rights must be subordinated to the larger commitment not to cause another believer to stumble.

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

1Co 8:13. Κρέα, flesh) In order to avoid with the greater certainty flesh sacrificed to an idol, I would abstain from all kinds of flesh.—σκανδαλίσω, I should make to offend) The person is changed: he just now said, if meat offend.

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

1Co_8:13. Comp Rom_14:21. The classic ΔΙΌΠΕΡ, for that very reason (because the offence in question is such a heinous one), meets us with certainty in the N. T only here and 1Co_10:14.

βρῶμα] any kind of food, indefinitely. Instead now of saying in the apodosis: then I will never more eat of it, etc., he names the special kind of food (κρέα) presenting itself in application to the subject discussed, by abstaining from which, at any rate, the use of sacrificial flesh and the σκάνδαλον thereby given would be excluded.

Οὐ ΜῊ ΦΆΓΩ] Accommodat suae personae, ut facilius persuadeat, Piscator. The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of assurance, then I will certainly not eat, etc. Τοῦτο ὡς διδάσκαλος ἄριστος τὸ διʼ ἑαυτοῦ παιδεύειν ἃ λέγει, Chrysostom.

ΕἸς Τ. ΑἸῶΝΑ] to all eternity, nevermore; hyperbolical mode of expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp as regards the idea, Rom_14:21.

ἽΝΑ ΜῊ Κ.Τ.Λ[1370]] For this is what I should bring about, if he holds the flesh which I eat to be sacrificial flesh (1Co_8:9). Observe the emphatic repetition of the words, and the different order in which σκανδαλ. and τ. ἀδελφ. μ. are placed.

That the maxim here enunciated cannot be an universal rule in adiaphoris, has been pointed out already by Erasmus. Comp Gal_2:5 with 1Co_9:19 ff. and Act_16:3. It does not hold, when the truth of the gospel comes to be at stake. Comp Gal_2:14.

[1370] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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 8:13 sums up the debate in the language of personal conviction: “Wherefore verily” for this last reason above all “if (a matter of) food ( βρῶμα , indef.) is stumbling my brother, I will eat no flesh-meats for evermore, that I may not stumble my brother”. κρέα (pl [1269] of κρέας ) signifies the kinds of βρῶμα in question, including probably beside the idolothyta other animal foods which might scandalise men of narrow views, such as the vegetarians of Rom 14:13-21 (see notes ad loc [1270] ). Four times in 1Co 8:11-13 P. repeats the word ἀδελφός , seeking to elicit the love which was needed to control Cor [1271] knowledge ( cf. 1Co 8:2 f.). For “ σκανδαλίζω , to put a σκάνδαλον (cl [1272] σκανδάληθρον , trap-stick = πρόσκομμα , 9) in another’s way,” cf. Rom 14:21 and parls. The strong negation οὐ μή (“no fear lest”: see Wr [1273] , p. 634 ff.) is further heightened by εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα , “to eternity”. The rendering “while the world standeth” is based on the use of αἰῶν ( perpetuity ) in such passages as 1Co 1:20 , where the context narrows its meaning; in this phrase the noun has its full sense, but used rhetorically.

[1269] plural.

[1270] ad locum , on this passage.

[1271] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1272] classical.

[1273] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

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

1Co_8:13

Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

The word σκανδαλίζω means either to offend, or to cause to offend. That is, either to provoke, or to cause to sin. The English word is also used in both these senses. Mat_17:27, That we may not offend them, i.e. provoke them. Mat_5:29, If thy eye offend thee, i.e. cause thee to sin; and Mat_18:6, Whoso shall offend (i.e. cause to sin) one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. This last quoted passage shows how serious a matter our Lord considers it to lead even the weakest Christian into sin. It is still worse to lead him into error, for error is the mother of many sins. It shows also how great an evil sin is, and justifies the strong language of the apostle that he would never eat flesh rather man cause his brother to offend. It is morally obligatory, therefore, to abstain from indulging in things indifferent, when the use of them is the occasion of sin to others. This is a principle the application of which must be left to every mans 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.

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

The conclusion, which Paul conceiveth in his own person, that he might not seem to exact that of others, which he will not be first subject unto himself. I had rather (saith he) abstain forever from all kind of flesh, than give occasion of sin to any of my brethren, much less would I refuse in any certain place or time for my brother’s sake not to eat flesh offered to idols.

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

meat--Old English for "food" in general.

make . . . to offend--Greek, "is a stumbling-block to."

no flesh--In order to ensure my avoiding flesh offered to idols, I would abstain from all kinds of flesh, in order not to be a stumbling-block to my brother.

Next: 1 Corinthians Chapter 9

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 13. Wherefore, c.] Rather than give any occasion to a Christian to sin against and so to harden his conscience that he should return to idolatry and perish, I would not only abstain from all meats offered to idols, but I would eat no flesh, should I exist through the whole course of time, but live on the herbs of the field, rather than cause my brother to stumble, and thus fall into idolatry and final ruin.

The following words of Origen contain a very solemn lesson and warning: "If we did more diligently attend to these things, we should avoid sinning against our brethren and wounding their weak conscience, that we might not sin against Christ our brethren that are among us, for whom Christ died, often perishing, not only by our knowledge, but by many other ways, and things, in which things we, sinning against Christ, shall suffer punishment; the souls of them that perish by us being required of and avenged upon us." See Whitby on this place.

1. THE greater our reputation for knowledge and sanctity, the greater mischief we shall do by our influence and example if we turn aside from the holy commandment delivered unto us. Every man should walk so as either to light or lead his brother to heaven.

2. It is the duty of every Christian to watch against apostasy in his own case, and to prevent it as much as possible in that of others. That a person for whom Christ died may finally perish is strongly argued, says Dr. Whitby, from this place, and Ro 14:15; for here the apostle dissuades the Corinthians from scandalizing their weak brethren, by an argument taken from the irreparable mischiefs they may do them, the eternal ruin they may bring upon them by this scandal; whereas if it be, as some assert, that all things, even the sins of the elect, shall work together for their good, and that they shall never perish; if the apostle knew and taught this doctrine to them, why does he endeavour to affright them from this scandal, by telling them that it might have that effect which he had before told them was impossible? If you interpret his words thus: So shall he perish, for whom in charity ye ought to judge Christ died; it is certain, from this doctrine, that they must be assured that this judgment of charity must be false, or that their brother could not perish. In the first place, they could not be obliged to act by it, and in the second, they could not rationally be moved by it to abstain from giving scandal on that impossible supposition.

If you interpret the apostle thus: So shalt thou do that which, in its nature, tends to make thy brother perish; and might have that effect, had not God determined to preserve all from perishing, for whom Christ died; since this determination renders it sure to me, who know it, that they cannot actually perish, it must assure me that there can be no cause of abstinency from this scandal, lest they should perish by it.

Moreover, by thus offending, saith the apostle, ye sin against Christ; viz. by sinning against him whom he has purchased by his blood; and destroying them for whose salvation he has suffered. If this intent of Christ's death be denied, how can we show in what Christ has demonstrated his great love to them that perish? Is it possible that they can sin against redeeming love? and how, by thus offending them who neither do nor can belong to him as members of his mystical body, are we injurious to Christ? See Whitby on this place.

3. It is natural for man to wish and affect to be wise; and when this desire is cultivated in reference to lawful objects, it will be an indescribable good; but when, like Eve, we see, in a prohibition, something to be desired to make one wise, we are then, like her, on the verge of our fall. Though extensive knowledge is not given to all, yet it is given for all; and is the public property of the Church. He who does not use it for general edification robs the public of its right. For the misuse and misapplication of this talent we shall give account to God, as well as of other gifts and graces.

4. Persons of an over tender and scrupulous conscience may be very troublesome in a Christian society; but as this excessive scrupulosity comes from want of more light, more experience, or more judgment, we should bear with them. Though such should often run into ridiculous extremes, yet we must take care that we do not attempt to cure them either with ridicule or wrath. Extremes generally beget extremes; and such persons require the most judicious treatment, else they will soon be stumbled and turned out of the way. We should be very careful lest in using what is called Christian liberty we occasion their fall; and for our own sake we must take heed that we do not denominate sinful indulgences, Christian liberties.

5. Though we are bound to take heed that we put not a stumbling block in the way of a weak brother, yet if such a brother be stumbled at any part of our conduct which is not blamable in itself, but of which he may have taken a wrong view, we are not answerable for the consequences. We are called to walk by the testimony of God; not according to the measure of any man's conscience, how sincere soever he may be.

6. Many persons cover a spirit of envy and uncharitableness with the name of godly zeal and tender concern for the salvation of others; they find fault with all; their spirit is a spirit of universal censoriousness; none can please them; and every one suffers by them. These destroy more souls by tithing mint and cummin, than others do by neglecting the weightier matters of the law. Such persons have what is termed, and very properly too, sour godliness. Both are extremes, and he who would avoid perdition must avoid them.

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

13. Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend With the view of reproving more severely their disdainful liberty, he declares, that we ought not merely to refrain from a single banquet rather than injure a brother, but ought to give up the eating of meats during our whole life. Nor does he merely prescribe what ought to be done, but declares that he would himself act in this way. The expression, it is true, is hyperbolical, as it is scarcely possible that one should refrain from eating flesh during his whole life, if he remain in common life; but his meaning is, that he would rather make no use of his liberty in any instance, than be an occasion of offense to the weak. For participation is in no case lawful, unless it be regulated by the rule of love. Would that this were duly pondered by those who make everything subservient to their own advantage, so that they cannot endure to give up so much as a hair’s-breadth of their own right for the sake of their brethren; and that they would attend not merely to what Paul teaches, but also to what he marks out by his own example! How greatly superior he is to us! When he, then, makes no hesitation in subjecting himself thus far to his brethren, which of us would not submit to the same condition?

But, however difficult it is to act up to this doctrine, so far as the meaning is concerned, is easy, were it not that some have corrupted it by foolish glosses, and others by wicked calumnies. Both classes err as to the meaning of the word offend For they understand the word offend to mean, incurring the hatred or displeasure of men, or what is nearly the same thing, doing what displeases them, or is not altogether agreeable to them But it appears very manifestly from the context, that it means simply to hinder a brother by bad example (as an obstacle thrown in his way) from the right course, or to give him occasion of falling. Paul, therefore, is not here treating of the retaining of the favor of men, but of the assisting of the weak, so as to prevent their falling, and prudently directing them, that they may not turn aside from the right path. But (as I have said) the former class are foolish, while the latter are also wicked and impudent.

Those are foolish, who allow Christians scarcely any use of things indifferent, lest they should offend superstitious persons. “Paul,” say they, “prohibits here everything that may give occasion of offense Now to eat flesh on Friday will not fail to give offense, and hence we must abstain from it, not merely when there are some weak persons present, but in every case without exception, for it is possible that they may come to know of it.” Not to speak of their misinterpretation of the word rendered occasion of offense, they fall into a grievous blunder in not considering that Paul here inveighs against those who impudently abuse their knowledge in the presence of the weak, whom they take no pains to instruct.

Hence there will be no occasion for reproof, if instruction has been previously given. Farther, Paul does not command us to calculate, whether there may be an occasion of offense in what we do, except when the danger is present to our view.

I come now to the other class. These are pretended followers of Nicodemus, who under this pretext conform themselves to the wicked by participating in their idolatry, and not contented with justifying what they do amiss, are desirous also to bind others to the same necessity. Nothing could be said with greater plainness to condemn their perverse dissimulation than what Paul here teaches — that all who by their example allure the weak to idolatry, commit a grievous outrage against God as well as men. Yet they eagerly shield themselves from this by endeavoring to show that superstitions ought to be cherished in the hearts of the ignorant, and that we ought to lead the way before them to idolatry, lest a free condemnation of idolatry should offend them. Hence I will not do them the honor of dwelling upon a refutation of their impudence. I simply admonish my readers to compare Paul’s times with ours, and judge from this whether it is allowable to be present at mass, and other abominations, giving so much occasion of offense to the weak

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.

13. I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend] “This abridgment of their liberty is a duty more especially incumbent on all who are possessed of influence.” Robertson. And Estius remarks how St Paul in his ardour for the conversion of souls, was ready not only to abstain from meats offered to idols, but from meat altogether, rather than be a stumbling-block in another’s way. Cf. St Mat_18:6; St Mar_9:42; St Luk_17:1-2.

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.

Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend,.... This is the conclusion of the whole, which the apostle makes with respect to himself, and proposes for the imitation of others; that since an imprudent use of Christian liberty, in this article of eating things offered to idols, might be attended with such bad consequences, as to lay a stumblingblock in the way of weak Christians, and be a means of emboldening them to do things contrary to their consciences, and so break the peace of their minds, wound their spirits, grieve and afflict their souls, and not only so, but so to do would be to sin against Christ himself; rather than do any of these things, or be accessary to them, he determines, in the strength of divine grace, that

he will eat no flesh while the world standeth; or "for ever": not only he resolves he will not eat flesh offered to idols, but no other flesh, if this was an offence to a weak brother; and he not only concludes to abstain a few days, or months, or years, but as long as he should live in the world: he chose rather to live on herbs, or any other food but this,

lest, says he,

I make my brother to offend: this is truly Christian charity, a proof of brotherly love, and it shows a concern for the peace and welfare of others, when a person foregoes his own right, and drops the use of his liberty, rather than grieve, wound, and offend a brother in Christ.

Next: 1 Corinthians Chapter 9

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

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Ver. 13. While the world standeth] We must stand unchangeably resolved, neither to give offence carelessly, nor to take offence causelessly.

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.

If meat scandalize. That is, if my eating cause my brother to sin. (Challoner) --- Can we put any meat, or life itself, in competition with a soul, and the blood of Christ, which has been shed for that soul, when we know the value of each!

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).

If meat make my brother to offend; suppose therefore it were lawful for me to eat flesh offered to idols, yet if I cannot do it but I shall make my brother sin, I will forbear. Others understand it more generally, not of the meat before mentioned, but of all flesh: I will rather live upon bread and herbs; by which expression the apostle doth not suppose, that there can ever be such a case when there shall be any such need, but only declares how much a good Christian should do, to prevent his brother’s sinning against God.

I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend: those expressions, Mar 5:29, of plucking out the right eye, and cutting off the right hand, are much of the same nature; both those phrases and this phrase signify only, that we ought to do any thing, and to deny ourselves in any thing, rather than ourselves to sin, or be wilful occasions to others of sin.

From this discourse of the apostle it is very plain, that it is the duty of Christians, in any matters where they are by the law of God at liberty whether they will do a thing or not, to take that part which they see will give least occasion of sin unto their brethren, and to avoid that part which, if they will take, they see they shall by taking it give occasion to others to sin, though they be themselves never so well satisfied as to the lawfulness of their action (provided the action be only lawful, not necessary, and what by the law of God they are bound to do, or to avoid). But here two grave questions arise:

1. Whether the command of superiors doth not here alter the case? Admit a thing be in itself by us judged lawful, what by God’s law we may do, or let alone; and our superiors command us to do, or to avoid that thing: we on the other side see, that if we do it, or avoid it, we shall very probably be occasion to make our brethren sin, who doubt of the lawfulness of the thing. The question is: What is to be done in this case? That the law of God commanding love to our brethren equally concerneth high and low, is out of doubt; so that no superior ought more to command any to do what it is evident he cannot do without making his brother to offend, than the inferior ought to do it: but the question is: What is the inferior’s duty, if commanded?

2. A second question is: Suppose that, in such a case, I am commanded to do what I judge I may lawfully do, were it not for making my brother, by my example, to offend, and by the command of men I am obliged to do it, or to ruin myself and family; what is my duty in this case? In both these cases there seems to be a collision of precepts. In the first case the precept of loving our neighbours seems to dash against the many precepts for obeying superiors; in the other case, it seems to dash against the precept for providing for ourselves and families; so as the question is: Which precepts lay here the greatest obligation, where both cannot be obeyed? But we leave these questions to casuists. The determination of what is the will of God in either of them, will require a great many more words than what is fit to encumber annotations with, especially considering that neither of them properly falls into the explication of this text, where it is certain that the Corinthians were at a perfect liberty, and had no superiors that commanded them so to eat, (had the thing been in itself lawful), neither were they under any necessity, either to eat that meat, or to starve themselves or families; they had other flesh besides that to eat. In this case the duty of Christians is plainly determined by the apostle.

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

13. Offend—Note on Mat_18:7.

I will eat no flesh—Mark how delicately the apostle passes now from the second person plural, ye, to the first person singular, I. He enjoins upon them a somewhat burdensome take heed; but when it comes to the intensity of perfect self-denial he takes it upon himself. It is a sublime, nay, a daring height of self-consecration, rising to the level of an apostle, and that apostle, Paul. And, as in other high things, there is some danger in it. Note Rom_14:16; Rom_14:21. We may by obeying another man’s false conscience confirm his self-conceit, encourage his tyranny, or establish a false morality, and make it a part of the present Christianity. Against this last danger Paul specially here provides. While he complies with the weak brother’s error he openly proclaims that it is an error, and that he complies, not for truth, but from tenderness. He yields to the unsound conscience; but nothing would induce him to admit that the conscience was sound. While temporizing with the weakness, he takes all care for the abolishment of the error.

At this point St. Paul suspends, not terminates, his discussion of the idol sacrifices, and resumes it at 1Co_10:14 to 1Co_11:1. He suspends it in order, through an extended and interesting digression, (1Co_9:1 to 1Co_10:18,) at once to illustrate this principle of resigning one’s rights for others’ good, and to defend himself from the charge of depreciating his own apostleship in making such surrender. Though a digression, and a long one, it is so full of the noblest sentiments and loftiest piety that none should wish it shorter.

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

Ver. 13. Make my brother to offend. "Make to offend" is, in the original, the verb "scandalize." The word for "meat" means any kind of food. Flesh. The particular subject of discussion here. "I will," says St, Paul, "abstain from flesh altogether rather than by eating it lead a weaker brother into sin." While the world standeth. The same expression is elsewhere rendered "forever." Literally it means to the aeon. St. Paul is often led into these impetuous expressions of the depth of his feelings. The reader will find the whole question argued in s similar spirit in Rom_14:19-22. Lest; namely, in the case supposed. In reality there was no need for taking so severe a pledge of abstinence.

The great argument for abstinence.

I ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF ABSTINENCE OFTEN RUN UPON SUCH LINES AS THE FOLLOWING:

1. That from which we are enjoined to abstain is asserted to he dangerous to ourselves, since we may be led to indulge to excess. Or:

2. Is injurious to ourselves, physically, morally, or spiritually. Or:

3. Is pure waste, bringing with it no real benefit. Or:

4. Is intrinsically wrong.

II SUCH ARGUMENTS FREQUENTLY LACK COGENCY.

1. The fourth will have no application to the large class of things indifferent in themselves, and it is generally in respect of such that the war is waged.

2. The second and third will generally be open to question. The difficulty of proof is great. Facts, apparently conflicting, will be adduced, and where knowledge is limited and imperfect, the contest is likely to continue, the advantage now seemingly being on one side and then on the other.

3. The first seldom carries conviction, since every man deems it an impossibility for him to fall. Every one else may be weak, but we are certainly strong. The argument against often acts as a temptation, for when human nature is warned of peril it often delights to show how brave and steadfast it can be.

III THE APOSTOLIC ARGUMENT.

1. The apostle enlarges the view so that others are included as well as ourselves. Abstinence is not for ourselves alone, sometimes not for ourselves at all, but for our fellows. "Look not every man on his own things, but also on the things of others." Whether we realize it or not, we always decide for more than one. We are units, but united units. We cannot legislate merely for that little area which we ourselves occupy.

2. The apostle recognizes the influence of example. Mentally, we instantly assent to this; practically, we generally deny it. Our words are a spider"s web; our acts are a cable, Men do what we show them, not what we tell them. And we cannot persuade men that we are strong and that they are weak; they will believe the opposite with very little persuasion. Men are like sheep: though the shepherd calls and the dog barks, if one sheep leads the way the others will follow, though it be over a precipice.

3. The apostle asserts the obligation of self sacrifice for the welfare of others. That which is "indifferent" becomes anything rather than indifferent if our indulgence in it is likely to cause injury to our fellows. We are not only to think of others, but to deny ourselves for others. Our sacrifice will often seem very small indeed compared with their possible loss. Here is an argument which will stand where many others fall. It has special force for Christians.

(1) They have a great example of self sacrifice in their Master. They are to imitate him. "He saved others; himself he cannot save." He gave himself for us." The apostle seems to suggest a comparison of Christ"s sacrifice with the sacrifice which he desired the Corinthians to make. Christ died to save men: you are called upon to sacrifice what that men may not fall away from salvation: how little compared with how much! And to those not making the required sacrifice: Christ died to save the weak brother; you, to gratify your appetite, are causing him to perish.

(2) They have a more impressive view of the issues involved in the fall of a fellow creature.

(3) Their non abstinence may be a sin against a fellow Christian (ver. 11). The fall may be, not of an unbeliever, but of a brother, associated in Christian fellowship and service. And thus be

(4) a sin against the brethren (ver. 12); against the Church, bringing scandal and disgrace through a brother"s fall. And also

(5) a sin against Christ (ver. 12). For Christ and Christians are one he the Head and they the members.

(6) They have in their ears certain suggestive utterances of their Master"s; such as, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me"; (Mat_25:40) and, "Whoso shall offend "cause to stumble," as in text one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea". H. (Mat_18:6)

The law of Christian self restraint.

No more perplexing questions are presented to the Christian than those which deal with the limitations of his Christian liberty. Were the Christian man alone in the world, or were he assured that his actions would in no way influence those around him, there are many personal enjoyments in which he could freely indulge, and he would have little call to self restraint. He would at least be a "law unto himself," and need make no laws for himself upon consideration of others. But none of us can live under such conditions. We are not only a "spectacle unto men and angels," but every act of ours bears influence on some one, affecting others either for good or for evil. And this fact we must take into solemn account. The relationships of life are main sources of our pleasure, but they bring us all our responsibilities, and, though our conduct in all essential things is to be determined only by what is right, in all matters that are left to our decision we are bound to consider how others will regard our conduct; and we should even take into account how they may misunderstand and misrepresent, and so make mischief out of our actions. It is true that "the fear of man bringeth a snare," but it is also true that the love of man, and sincere desire for the blessing of others, wilt always help us to form good judgments concerning what is prudent and advisable. Sincere hearts are full of anxiety lest, by any personal indulgences or needless displays of superior moral strength, they should "sin against the weaker brethren." It should be observed that upon things doubtful God lays down no direct rules. The Christian man is expected to make his own wise laws of self restraint. If he be sincere and earnest he will make for himself two supreme laws.

I THE LAW OF CHARITY TOWARDS OUR BROTHER. That is, in every disputable or doubtful case he will give the advantage to his brother, and act taking into account even his weaknesses. It should be clearly understood:

1. That when, in a spirit of charity, a Christian man puts himself under strong restraints, he does not alter his views of the weakness of his brother"s difficulty or of the possibility of his own acting or enjoying without personal injury. The very point of his Christian virtue is that, while recognizing the rightness of the thing for himself, he refrains for the sake of others. There would be no virtue in his self restraint if he changed his opinion as to the rightness of the act. He holds his own opinion, but in Christian love he yields to the opinion of another.

2. We may also see that, when the Christian puts himself under restraint for the sake of a weak brother, it is that he may gain influence upon him that shall lift him up out of his weakness. It can be no part of Christian duty to condescend to a brother"s weakness, and leave him weak. If St. Paul refrained from eating the meat that had been offered to idols, it was in the hope of presently getting the weak brethren to see that, since an idol is "nothing at all," he cannot defile any meat. Our charity does not concern the particular case, but the entire well being of our weaker brother.

3. It may further be shown that the restraints under which the Christian man puts himself, by the persuasions of his brotherly love, may be severe and trying at first, but become easier after a while, and will often turn into blessing for himself at the last. This may be efficiently illustrated in the case of a man giving up all alcoholic drink for the sake of helping a brother who is in peril from the enticements of the drink demon. If he be of a social disposition, it may cost him a great deal to give up long settled habits, but he may prove, in both health and means, that the self restraint of Christian charity can become a blessing to him who manifests it, as well as to him for whose sake the sacrifices have been made. God ever graciously secures to us the rewards of right doing, and makes "charity twice blessed.

II THE LAW OF LOYALTY TO CHRIST. Our one supreme purpose must be to serve him, and he has told us that what is done unto "the least of the brethren" is "done unto him." We think that, in the greatness of our loyalty, we would do anything for Christ, and put ourselves under any kind of restraints, were he really here with us in the flesh. But he puts our loyalty under a severe test when he says, "Do to your weak brother, do for your weak brother"s sake, just what you would have done for me." We think we could go without meat, or put away drink, at once and forever, if Jesus wished. It is Christ"s wish that is expressed to us when we are led to see that our "liberty" is injuring a brother; and our Lord counts it loyalty to him when we restrain ourselves for a brother"s sake. St. Paul makes this plain. To offend against a weak brother, to refuse proper limitations of our own liberty when such limitations would help a brother, is to sin against Christ, even against Christ who at the uttermost self sacrifice even died that he might save and sanctify the weak brother. Conclude by showing that the appeal may be made to us, in relation to this matter, which is made by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews in a more general way, "Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin." In how few of us the self restraints of Christian charity can be said yet to have reached the sublime heights of self sacrifice! 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.

If meat - Of any kind. Who will follow this example? What preacher or private Christian will abstain from any thing lawful in itself, when it offends a weak brother?

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

A twofold sense and interpretation is given of these words. Some understand the apostle speaking thus: "If my eating meat offered to idols be a stumbling-block to any persons, and confirm them in their sinful practice, or be an occasion of sin unto them, I will certainly deny myself the use of that liberty which may prove of such dangerous consequence to my fellow-Christians."

Others carry the thing higher, and understand it of all flesh in general, that rather than the apostle would offend his weak brother, he would not eat any flesh to his dying day; an hyperbolical expression, by which the apostle declares how far one Christian should condescend to another, to prevent each other’s sinning against God. As if the apostle had said, "Verily I do not make so light of another’s sin, nor set so light by the soul of my weak brother, nor by the blood of my blessed Saviour, as for flesh, that is, for an unnecessary thing, to make use of my liberty, when it may prove a temptation unto sin."

From the whole of the apostle’s discourse in this chapter, we learn, That it is the duty of Christians, in matters wherein they are at liberty by the law of God, to do a thing, or not to do it, to take that part which they see will give least occasion of sin unto their brethren, and to avoid that part which, if taken, will certainly give occasion unto others to sin.

Although we be ourselves never so well satisfied as to the lawfulness of the action, yet we ought to deny ourselves in some things, rather than be an occasion unto others to fall into sin: he forfeits the name of a Christian, who will not abridge himself of his Christian liberty to preserve his brother from sin and temptation.

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

13. “Therefore, if meat stumbleth my brother, I never eat any more meat, in order that I may not stumble my brother.” This develops an entirely different phase of the matter. While there is no sin whatever in eating the meat offered to idols, yet if you think it sinful, you must abstain, because in that case your conscience will condemn you, and you will be guilty before God, as we must keep a “conscience void of offense toward God and man.” Again, if your conscience is clear, and others see you eating in the idol temple and think you are in a sense worshipping the idols by eating the meat offered to them, their faith will be weakened by your example, so they will probably lose their souls. In that case you must not eat it. Paul says positively that in “sinning against the brethren and wounding their weak consciences, you sin against Christ.” The great preacher who said, “If Paul were now living on the earth, he would use tobacco,” made a great mistake. Here he says he would positively give up the privilege of eating meat forever, if it caused anyone to stumble. Why would they stumble? Because they thought he did wrong. I dare not do anything condemned by the saints of God. Good Lord, help us to keep clear of the blood of souls. If your conscience condemns you for working on Saturday, go ahead and keep it holy to the Lord. But do not forget that you must keep Sunday also, responsive to the conscience of Christendom. When you, claiming to be a Christian, do that which the consciences of millions of God’s sincere people believe to be a violation of God’s commandment, look out! You will have a terrible ordeal in the Judgment Day. These deliverances are invaluable to the Christian world. We will find plenty to do with those things which are clear and indubitable. God help us to take the safe side in all doubtful cases, i. e., the self-denial side, as a rule regarding the doubt as imperative as a positive negation. This Scripture forever knocks out all church frolics, festivals and fandangoes of every kind, as thousands of God’s most humble, sincere and Christ-like people veritably believe them to be out of harmony with the Word and spirit of the Master.

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

Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble . [To the Corinthians Paul says "take heed" ( 1Co_8:9 ); but for himself he proposes a sublime consecration and perpetual self-sacrifice. The apostle would not make the weak brother a tyrant, as he is often disposed to become. He clearly defines him as being wrong, but pleads that his errors may be humored for mercy's sake.]

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.

13. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend. To stumble and fall. Love, in this case, would demand that the meat be given up. The principle applies to many things. Some Christians can, perhaps, go to the theater, or dance, or attend the fairs of our day, where the races are the great feature, or even drink wine or beer, without falling. Others cannot. Yet the example of the strong will lead the weak to engage in them, and hence that example will lead them to spiritual death. The Christian principle, the rule of love, is, “If eating meat, or going to the theater, or going to a ball, or attending the fair, or drinking wine or beer, causeth my brother to offend, I will not do these things while the world standeth.”

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.

13. διόπερ. This word is only known to occur here and in ch. 1Co 10:14, in N.T. Elsewhere it is doubtful.

σκανδαλίζει. See note on ch. 1Co 1:23.

οὐ μὴ φάγω. ‘I will in no wise eat.’

εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The A.V. gives the sense of the whole passage admirably by the addition of the words ‘while the world standeth.’ But it is a paraphrase rather than a translation.

ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω. In order that I may not make my brother to offend. ‘This abridgment of their liberty is a duty more especially incumbent on all who are possessed of influence.’ Robertson. And Estius remarks how St Paul in his ardour for the conversion of souls, was ready not only to abstain from meats offered to idols, but from meat altogether, rather than be an offence in another’s way. Cf. Mat 18:6; Mar 9:42; Luk 17:1-2.

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.

13.] Fervid expression of his own resolution consequent on these considerations, by way of an example to them.

βρῶμα, food, i.e. any article of food, as ver. 8; purposely indefinite here; ‘if such a matter as food.…,’ but presently particularized.

οὐ μὴ φάγω, strong future, I surely will not eat; ‘there is no chance that I eat.’

κρέα] ‘Quo certius vitarem carnem idolo immolatam, toto genere carnium abstinerem.’ Bengel.

σκανδαλίσω] be the means of offending; “commutatur persona: modo dixit si cibus offendit.” Bengel. “Non autem hoc dicit quod hoc aliquo casu opus sit, sed ut ostendat multo graviora quam de quibus hic agitur sustinenda pro proximorum salute.” Grot.

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

13. διόπερ. ‘For this very reason,’ i.e. to avoid sinning against Christ; the πέρ strengthens the διό: here and 10:14 only, in N.T. See 2 Mac. 5:20, 6:27.

εἰ βρῶμα κ.τ.λ. ‘If food causes my brother to stumble, I will certainly never eat flesh again for evermore, that I may not make my brother to stumble.’ The declaration is conditional. If the Apostle knows of definite cases in which his eating food will lead to others being encouraged to violate the dictates of conscience, then certainly he will never eat meat so long as there is real danger of this (10:28, 29). But if he knows of no such danger, he will use his Christian freedom and eat without scruple (10:25-27). He does not, of course, mean that the whole practice of Christians is to be regulated with a view to the possible scrupulousness of the narrow-minded. That would be to sacrifice our divinely given liberty (2Co 3:17) to the ignorant pre-judices of bigots. The circumstances of this or that Christian may be such that it is his duty to abstain from intoxicants, although he is never tempted to drink to excess; but Christians in general are bound by no such rule, and it would be tyranny to try to impose such a rule.

The change from βρῶμα to κρέα is natural enough. If such a thing as food (which is always a matter of indifference) causes … I will never again eat flesh (which is in question here),’ etc. Note how he harps on ἀδελφός.

In dealing with both the question of fornication and that of eating idol-meats, the Apostle brings the solution ultimately from our relation to Christ. Fornication is taking from Christ what is His property and giving it to a harlot. Reckless eating of idol-meats is an injury inflicted on Christ. In neither case does he appeal to the decree of the Apostles at the conference in Jerusalem (Act 15:20, Act 15:29). The principles to which he appeals were far more cogent, especially for Greeks.* Compare carefully Rom 14:14, Rom 14:17, Rom 14:21.

In his recent (1908) paper on the Apostolic Decree (Act 15:20-29), Dr. Sanday says; “The decree was only addressed in the first instance to a limited area: and I can well believe that it soon fell into comparative disuse even within that area. It is true that, as we read it in the Acts, the decree has the appearance of a very authoritative document. Something of this appearance may be due to a mistaken estimate on the part of St Luke himself. But, even so, we are apt to read into it more than it really means. For the moment the decree had a real significance: it meant a united Christendom, instead of a disunited. Many an official document has had a temporary success of this kind, which the course of events has soon caused to become a dead letter. That was really the fate of the decree. The tide of events ebbed away from it, and it was left on the beach stranded and lifeless—lifeless at least for the larger half of the Church, for that Gentile Church which soon began to advance by leaps and bounds.”

“As to any further difficulty from St Paul’s treatment of meats offered in sacrifice to idols, I confess that I think little of it. He could upon occasion become a Jew to the Jews. But the decree, we may be sure, made no impression upon his mind. It “contributed nothing” to his Gospel. It was no outcome of his religious principles. It was just a practical concordat, valid in certain specified regions and under certain definite conditions. But when he was altogether outside these, among his own converts, he dealt with them by his own methods, and without any thought of the authorities at Jerusalem.”

The inference, from St Paul’s silence, that Act_15. belongs to a period later than this Epistle, is quite untenable.

* In Aristoph. Aves 1265, mortals are forbidden to send ἱερόθυτον καπνόν to the gods through the air which belongs to the birds.

* In Spencer and other contemporary and earlier writers, ‘edify’ and ‘edificatioon’ are used in their original sense of constructing buildings. See Kitchin on Faery Queene, 1:1:34, and Wright, Bible Word-Book, p. 219. It is found as late as 1670, “the re-edifying Layton Church” (Izaac Walton, Life of G. Herbert, sub fin.).

D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 διο͂ ὁ λαλῶν-22 σημεῖον ἐστίν is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. §§ 211, 212.

P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός-17 περιπάτει: 12:23 τοῦ σώματος-13:5 οὐ λογί-: 14:23 τὸ λαλεῖν μή. A good type of text in St Paul’s Epistles.

אԠא (Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 ταύτην καί: 8:7 τινὲς δὲ—8:11 ἀπέθανεν.

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.

* Quocunque te flexeris, ibi illum videbis occurrentem tibi; nihil ab illo vacat, opus suum ipse implet (Seneca, De Benef. iv. 8; compare M. Aurelius, xii. 28; Xen. Mem. IV. iii. 13). There is a close parallel in 1Ti 2:5.

† With εἴπερ … ἀλλά here compare ἐὰν… ἀλλά in 4:5. The context implies ‘only one God.’ See Deissmann, New Light on the N.T. p. 81.

* But the unbelieving heathen must not be wholly excluded from the είσαὐτόν. While the Jew was being drawn by a special revelation through the Prophets towards God, the Gentile was groping his way in a general revelation through the order of Nature towards him, till the course of both was completed by the revelation in Christ (Gwatkin, Early Church History, p.15).

† The AV. is very inaccurate, translating είς ‘in’ instead of ‘unto,’ and διἀ ‘by’ instead of ‘through.’ B. W. Bacon regards, vv. 6 and 8 as quotations from the Corinthians’ letter.

B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

* Perhaps 11:30 indicates that ἀσθενής here means ‘unhealthy,’ ‘morbid,’ and so ‘incapable of healthy action’: cf. Luk 10:9; Act 5:15. Words signifying weakness of body easily become used of mental an moral weakness. A healthy conscience would not be uneasy about eating such food, and eating would then cause no defilement. In Ecclus, 21:28 the slanderer μολύνει τὴν ὲαντοῦ ψυχἡν: in blackening his neighbour’s character he violates and blackens his own conscience.

A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1Co 3:8-16, 1Co 6:7-14 (F).

37 37. (Ev. 69, Act 31, Rev_14. Fifteenth century.) The well-known Leicester codex. Contains a good text.

* “The stronger one can, for the sake of the weaker, refain from using this liberty; but the weaker cannot, on account of his conscience, follow the example of the stronger” (B. Weiss).

† Grenfell and Hunt (Oxyrhynchus Papyri, 1. p. 177) give an invitation to sup at the κλινη of the Lord Serapis in the Seraperium. There is another invitation to a meal in honour of Serapis in a private house. See Bachmann, p. 307; also Deissmann, Light, p. 355.

‡ It is possible that St Paul used the unusual word εινδώλιον, because he was unwilling to put words with such sacred associations as ίερόν or ναός to any such use (Edwards). But εἴδωλον (v. 4) suggests είδώλεον, and no other world would have expressed the meaning so clearly. It is also possible that οίκοδομηθήσεται (a strange word in this connexion) is a sarcastic quotation of a Corinthian expression. Perhaps they talked of ‘edifying’ the weak brethren by showing them to what lengths they could go. This was “educating their consciences”, but it was a ruinosa aedificatio (calv.). The best MSS. have εἰδωλίῳ, not εἰδωλείῳ: comare δάνιον, Mat 18:27. In Luk 10:34, πανδόχιον is well attested.

d d The Latin text of D

e e The Latin text of E

* See Gwatkin, Early Church History, i. 57, 63.

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

Make to offend [σκανδαλιζει] . See on Mt 5:29. Rev., maketh to stumble.

Meat - flesh [βρωμα - κρεα] . The former food in general, the latter the special food which causes stumbling. Dr. South draws the distinction between a tender and a weak conscience. "Tenderness, applied to the conscience, properly imports quickness and exactness of sense, which is the perfection of this faculty.... Though the eye is naturally the most tender and delicate part of the body, yet is it not therefore called weak, so long as the sight is quick and strong.... A weak conscience is opposed to a strong; which very strength, we shew, consisted in the tenderness or quickness of its discerning or perceptive power" (Sermon 29, " A True State and Account of the Plea of a Tender Conscience ").

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