1 Corinthians 8 commentary

There is no proof of ignorance more common than conceit of knowledge. Much may be known, when nothing is known to good purpose. And those who think they know any thing, and grow vain thereon, are the least likely to make good use of their knowledge. Satan hurts some as much by tempting them to be proud of mental powers, as others, by alluring to sensuality. Knowledge which puffs up the possessor, and renders him confident, is as dangerous as self-righteous pride, though what he knows may be right. Without holy affections all human knowledge is worthless. The heathens had gods of higher and lower degree; gods many, and lords many; so called, but not such in truth. Christians know better. One God made all, and has power over all. The one God, even the Father, signifies the Godhead as the sole object of all religious worship; and the Lord Jesus Christ denotes the person of Emmanuel, God manifest in the flesh, One with the Father, and with us; the appointed Mediator, and Lord of all; through whom we come to the Father, and through whom the Father sends all blessings to us, by the influence and working of the Holy Spirit. While we refuse all worship to the many who are called gods and lords, and to saints and angels, let us try whether we really come to God by faith in Christ.

Eating one kind of food, and abstaining from another, have nothing in them to recommend a person to God. But the apostle cautions against putting a stumbling-block in the way of the weak; lest they be made bold to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but as a sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry. He who has the Spirit of Christ in him, will love those whom Christ loved so as to die for them. Injuries done to Christians, are done to Christ; but most of all, the entangling them in guilt: wounding their consciences, is wounding him. We should be very tender of doing any thing that may occasion stumbling to others, though it may be innocent in itself. And if we must not endanger other men's souls, how much should we take care not to destroy our own! Let Christians beware of approaching the brink of evil, or the appearance of it, though many do this in public matters, for which perhaps they plead plausibly. Men cannot thus sin against their brethren, without offending Christ, and endangering their own souls.

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. “Et intraittables;” — “And insufferable.” 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, “La crainte de Dieu est le seul et vray fondement d’icelle;” — “The fear of God is its only true 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 “J’ai bien voulu dire ceci;” — “I have felt prepared to say this.” 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. “Moyens et instrumens tres-vtiles, tant a la cognoissance de Dieu, qu’a la conduite de la vie commune;” — “Most useful means and instruments, both for the knowledge of God, and for the conduct of 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.”

2. And if any man thinketh That man thinketh that he knoweth something, who is delighted with the opinion that he entertains of his own knowledge, and despises others, as if he were far above them. For Paul does not here condemn knowledge, but that ambition and haughtiness which ungodly men contract in consequence of it. Otherwise he does not exhort us to be sceptical, so as to be always hesitating and hanging in doubt, and he does not approve of a false and counterfeit modesty, as if it were a good thing to think that we are ignorant of what we do know. That man, therefore, who thinketh that he knoweth something, or, in other words, who is insolent from an empty notion of his own knowledge, so that he prefers himself before others, and is self-conceited, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know For the beginning of all true knowledge is acquaintance with God, which produces in us humility and submission; nay more, it prostrates us entirely instead of elating us. But where pride is, there is ignorance of God “La regne ignorance et faute de cognoissance de Dieu;” — “There ignorance reigns, and deficiency in acquaintance with God.” — a beautiful passage! Would to God that all knew it aright, so as properly to understand the rule of right knowledge!

3. But if any man loves God Here we have the conclusion, in which he shows what is especially commendable in Christians, and even renders knowledge, and all other endowments worthy of commendation, if we love God; for if it is so, we will also love our neighbors in him. By this means all our actions will be properly regulated, and consequently approved by God. He shows, therefore, from consequences, that no learning is commendable that is not dipped in the love of God; because that alone secures, that whatever endowments we have are approved by him, as it is said in the second Epistle —

If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. (2 Corinthians 5:17.)

By this he intimates, that without the Spirit of regeneration, all things else, whatever they may have of show, are of no value. To be known by God means to be held in any estimation, or to be reckoned among his sons. Thus he erases all proud persons from the book of life, (Philippians 4:3,) and from the roll of the pious.

4. Concerning, therefore, the eating of those things He now returns to the statement with which he had set out, and speaks more plainly in reference to the pretext made use of by the Corinthians. For as the whole of the evil took its rise from this root — that they were pleased with themselves, and despised others, he condemns, in general, that contemptuous knowledge which is not seasoned with love. Now, however, he explains particularly, what is the kind of knowledge on which they valued themselves — that an idol is an empty figment of the human brain, and must therefore be reckoned as nothing; and accordingly, that the consecration, that is gone through in name of the idol, is a foolish imagination, and of no importance, and that a Christian man, therefore, is not polluted, who, without reverence for the idol, eats of things offered to idols. This is the sum of the excuse, and it is not set aside by Paul as false, (for it contains excellent doctrine,) but because they abused it, in opposition to love

As to the words, Erasmus reads thus — “An idol has no existence.” I prefer the rendering of the old translation — An idol is nothing. For the argument is this — that an idol is nothing, inasmuch as there is but one God; for it follows admirably — “If there is no other God besides our God, then an idol is an empty dream, and mere vanity.” When he says — and there is none other God but one, I understand the conjunction and as meaning because. For the reason why an idol is nothing is, that it must be estimated according to the thing that it represents. Now it is appointed for the purpose of representing God: nay more, for the purpose of representing false gods, inasmuch as there is but one God, who is invisible and incomprehensible. The reason, too, must be carefully observed — An idol is nothing because there is no God but one; for he is the invisible God, and cannot be represented by a visible sign, so as to be worshipped through means of it. Whether, therefore, idols are erected to represent the true God, or false gods, it is in all cases a perverse contrivance. Hence Habakkuk calls idols teachers of lies, (Habakkuk 2:18,) because they deal falsely in pretending to give a figure or image of God, and deceive men under a false title. Hence οὐδεν (nothing) refers not to essence, but to quality — for an idol is made of some substance — either silver, or wood, or stone; but as God does not choose to be represented in this way, it is vanity and nothing as to meaning and use.

5. For though there be that are called “They have,” says he, “the name, but the reality is wanting.” He uses the word called here, to mean — renowned in the estimation of men He has also made use of a general division, when he says in heaven or on earth The gods that are made mention of as being in heaven, are the heavenly hosts, as the Scripture terms the sun, moon, and the other stars. How very far they are, however, from being entitled to divine honors, Moses shows from this, that they were created for our use. The sun is our servant; the moon is our handmaid. How absurd, therefore, it is to render to them divine honors! By the gods that are on earth, are properly meant, in my opinion, men and women for whom religious worship has been appointed. “Ausquels on a attribue diuinite, et en leur honneur dresse quelque senrice diuin;” — “To whom they have ascribed divinity, and have appointed some divine service in honor of them.” For, as Pliny observes, those who had deserved well of mankind had their memory consecrated by religion, so as to be worshipped as deities — Jupiter, Mars, Saturn, Mercury, and Apollo, who were mortal men, but were, after death, exalted to the rank of deities; and, more recently, Hercules, Romulus, and at length the Caesars — as if it were in the power of mankind to make deities at their pleasure, while they cannot give to themselves either life or immortality. There are also other gods that are terrestrial, taken either from cattle or from brute creatures, as, for example, among the Egyptians, the ox, the serpent, the cat, the onion, the garlic; and, among the Romans, the boundary-stone, The allusion is to Terminus, the god of boundaries, of whom mention is made by Livy (1. 10, and 5. 54.) — Ed. and the stone Vesta. They are gods, then, only in name; but Paul says that he does not stop to notice deifications of this sort. “Telles consecrations faites a l’appetit des hommes;” — “Such consecrations made according to the humor of men.”

6. But to us there is but one God, the Father Though Paul says these things by anticipation, he repeats the excuse made by the Corinthians, in such a way as at the same time to convey instruction. For, from what is more especially peculiar to God, he proves that there is but one God: “Whatever has its origin from what is foreign to itself, is not eternal, and, consequently, is not God. All things have their origin from one Being: he alone, therefore, is God.” Again — “He is assuredly God who gives existence to all, and from whom all things flow, as from the supreme source; but there is only One, from whom all things flow, and hence there is but one God.” When he adds — and we in him, (εἰς αὐτόν,) he means, that we subsist in God, as it was by him that we were once created. For this clause might, indeed, seem to have another signification — that as we have our beginning from him, so we ought to devote our life to him as its end; and it is used in this sense in Romans 11:39. Here, however, it is taken for ἐν αὐτῷ, which is commonly made use of by the Apostles. His meaning, therefore, is, that as we were once created by God, so it is by his power that we are preserved in our present condition. That this is its meaning, is evident from what he affirms respecting Christ immediately afterwards — that we are by him For he designed to ascribe the same operation to the Father and to the Son, adding, however, the distinction which was suitable to the Persons. He says, then, that we subsist in the Father, and that it is by the Son, because the Father is indeed the foundation of all existence; but, as it is by the Son that we are united to him, so he communicates to us through him the reality of existence.

One Lord These things are affirmed respecting Christ relatively, that is, in relationship to the Father. For all things that are God’s are assuredly applicable to Christ, when no mention is made of persons; but as the person of the Father is here brought into comparison with the person of the Son, it is with good reason that the Apostle distinguishes what is peculiar to them.

Now the Son of God, after having been manifested in the flesh, received from the Father dominion and power over all things, that he might reign alone in heaven and on earth, and that the Father might exercise his authority through his hands. For this reason our Lord is spoken of as one. “Pour ceste raison quand il est parle de nostre Seigneur, il est dit que nous n’en auons qu’vn, assauoir Christ;” — “For this reason, when mention is made of our Lord, it is declared that we have only one, namely, Christ.” But in respect of dominion being ascribed to him alone, this is not to be taken as meaning that worldly distinctions “Les degrez, estats, et gouuernemens du monde;” — “Ranks, conditions, and governments of the world.” are abolished. For Paul speaks here of spiritual dominion, while the governments of the world are political; as when he said a little before — there are many that are called lords — (1 Corinthians 8:5) — he meant that, not of kings, or of others who excel in rank and dignity, but of idols or demons, to whom foolish men ascribe superiority and rule. While, therefore, our religion acknowledges but one Lord, this is no hindrance in the way of civil governments having many lords, to whom honor and respect are due in that one Lord

7. But there is not in all that knowledge. He refutes, in a single word, all that he had previously brought forward in their name, showing that it is not enough that they know that what, they do is right, if they have not at the same time a regard to their brethren. When he said above — We know that we all have knowledge, (1 Corinthians 8:1,) he referred to those whom he reproved for abusing their liberty. Now, on the other hand, he calls them to consider, that there are many weak and ignorant persons associated with them, to whom they ought to accommodate themselves. “You have, it is true, a correct judgment in the sight of God, and if you were alone in the world, it would be as lawful for you to eat of things offered to idols, as of any other kinds of food. But consider your brethren, to whom you are debtors. You have knowledge; they are ignorant,. Your actions ought to be regulated not merely according to your knowledge, but also according to their ignorance.” This reply is particularly deserving of notice; for there is nothing to which we are more prone “Il n’y a rien plus commun et ordinaire que ce vice;” — “There is nothing that is more common and ordinary than this fault.” than this, that every one follows his own advantage, to the neglect of that of others. Hence we feel prepared to rest in our own judgment, and do not consider, that the propriety of those works that we do in the sight of men depends not merely on our own conscience, but also on that of our brethren.

Some with conscience of the idol This is their ignorance, that they were still under the influence of some superstitious notion, as if there were some virtue in the idol, or some virtue in a wicked and idolatrous consecration. Paul, however, does not speak of idolaters, who were entire strangers to pure religion, but of ignorant persons who had not been sufficiently instructed, to understand that an idol is nothing, and therefore that the consecration, which was gone through in name of the idol, is of no importance. Their idea, therefore, was this: “As an idol is something, the consecration which is gone through in its name is not altogether vain, and hence those meats are not pure, that have been once dedicated to idols.” Hence they thought, that, if they ate of them, they contracted some degree of pollution, and were, in a manner, partakers with the idol. This is the kind of offense that Paul reproves in the Corinthians — when we induce weak brethren, by our example, to venture upon anything against their conscience.

And their conscience God would have us try or attempt nothing but what we know for certain is agreeable to him. Whatever, therefore, is done with a doubting conscience, is, in consequence of doubts of that kind, faulty in the sight of God. And this is what he says, (Romans 14:23,) Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Hence the truth of the common saying, that “those build for hell, who build against their conscience.” For as the excellence of actions depends on the fear of God and integrity of conscience, so, on the other hand, there is no action, that is so good in appearance, as not to be polluted by a corrupt affection of the mind. For the man, who ventures upon anything in opposition to conscience, does thereby discover some contempt of God; for it is a token that we fear God, when we have respect to his will in all things. Hence you are not without contempt of God, if you so much as move a finger while uncertain, whether it may not be displeasing to him. As to meats, there is another thing to be considered, for they are not sanctified to us otherwise than by the word (1 Timothy 4:5.) If that word is wanting, there remains nothing but pollution — not that the creatures of God are polluted, but because man’s use of them is impure. In fine, as men’s hearts are purified by faith, so without faith there is nothing that is pure in the sight of God.

1 Corinthians 8:8-13

8. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

8. Atqui esca nos non commendat Deo: neque si comedamus, abundamus, neque si non comedamus, deficimur aliquo.

9. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

9. Sed videte, ne quo modo facultas haec vestra offendiculo sit infirmis.

10. For 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 to eat those things which are offered to idols;

10. Si quis enim videat to, utcunque scientiam habeas, in epulo simulacrorum accumbentem; nonne conscientia eius, quum tamen infirmus sit, aedificabitur ad edendum quae sunt idolis immolata?

11. And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

11. Et peribit frater, qui infirmus est, in tua scientia, propter quem Christus mortuus est?

12. But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

12. Sic autem peccantes in fratres, et vuluerantes conscientiam illorum infirmam, in Christum peccatis.

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.

13. Quapropter si esca offendit fratrem meum, nequaquam vescar carnibus in aeternum, ne fratri meo sim offendiculo.

8. Meat recommendeth us not to God This was, or may have been, another pretext made use of by the Corinthians — that the worship of God does not consist in meats, as Paul himself teaches in his Epistle to the Romans, (Romans 14:17,) that the kingdom of God is not meat or drink Paul answers: “We must at the same time take care that our liberty does not do injury to our neighbors.” In this he tacitly acknowledges, that in the sight of God it matters not what kinds of food we partake of, because he allows us the free use of them, so far as conscience is concerned; but that this liberty, as to the external use of it, is made subject to love. The argument of the Corinthians, therefore, was defective, inasmuch as they inferred the whole from a part, for in the use of them a regard to the claims of love is included. It is, therefore, certain, that meat recommendeth us not to God; and Paul acknowledges this, but he states this exception, that love is recommended to us by God, which it were criminal to overlook.

Neither if we eat, are we the better. He does not speak of improvement as to the stomach; for the man who has dined has a better filled stomach than the man who goes fasting; but he means, that we have neither more nor less of righteousness from eating or from abstaining. Besides, he does not speak of every kind of abstinence, or of every kind of eating. For excess and luxury are in themselves displeasing to God, while sobriety and moderation are well-pleasing to him. But let it be understood by us, that the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, does not consist in these outward observances, and therefore, that things indifferent are in themselves of no importance in the sight of God. While he brings this forward in the person of others by anthypophora, “Par une maniere d’anticipation;” — “By way of anticipation.” Anthrypophora is a figure of speech which derives its name from the Greek term ἀνθυποφορά, a reply to an objection It is used in this sense by Dionysius Halicarnassensis. — Ed he at the same time admits that it is true, for it is taken from his own doctrine, which we touched upon a little ago.

9. Take heed that your liberty He leaves their liberty untouched, but moderates the use of it thus far — that it may not give occasion of stumbling to the weak. And he expressly desires that regard be had to the weak, that is, to those who are not, yet thoroughly confirmed in the doctrine of piety, for as they are wont to be regarded with contempt, it is the will and command of the Lord, that regard should be had to them. In the meantime, he hints that strong giants, who may be desirous tyrannically to subject our liberty to their humor, may safely be let alone, “Nous ne nous en devons point soucier, mais les laisser la;” — “We should not concern ourselves as to them, but leave them there.” because we need not fear giving offense to those who are not drawn into sin through infirmity, but eagerly catch at something to find fault with. What he means by an occasion, of stumbling we shall see herelong.

10. If any one see thee. From this it appears more clearly, how much liberty the Corinthians allowed themselves; for when the wicked made a kind of sacred banquet for their idols, they did not hesitate “Les Corinthiens n’auoyent point de honte;” — “The Corinthians were not ashamed.” to go to it, to eat of the sacrifice along with them. Paul now shows what evil resulted from this. In the first clause, instead of the words who hast knowledge, I have rendered the expression thus — though thou shouldest have; and in the second clause, in the expression who is weak, I have introduced the word notwithstanding. This I found it necessary to do for the clearing up of Paul’s meaning. For he makes a concession, as if he had said: “Be it so, that thou hast knowledge; he who seeth thee, though he is not endowed with knowledge, is notwithstanding confirmed by thine example to venture upon the same thing, while he would never have taken such a step if he had not had one to take the lead. Now when he has one to imitate, he thinks that he has a sufficient excuse in the circumstance that he is imitating another, while in the meantime he is acting from an evil conscience.” For weakness here means ignorance, or scruple of conscience. I am aware, at the same time, in what way others explain it; for they understand the occasion of stumbling to be this — when ignorant persons, induced by example, imagine that in this way they perform some kind of religious service to God, but this idea is quite foreign to Paul’s meaning. For he reproves them, as I have said, See commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:7. because they emboldened the ignorant to hurry on, contrary to conscience, to attempt what they did not think it lawful for them to do. To be built up means here — to be confirmed The original word οἰκοδομηθήσεται, shall be built up, is used here, in the opinion of some learned critics, to mean encouraged or emboldened, and a parallel passage is pointed to in Malachi 3:15, where the Hebrew word כבכי is rendered in the Septuagint ἀνοικοδομοῦνται or emboldened It deserves notice, however, that the Apostle had in the commencement of the chapter spoken of love as edifying, while knowledge puffeth up, and it is not improbable that he made use of the same word here ironically, as we would say — “Will not this be edifying the wrong way?” — Ed Now that is a ruinous kind of building, that is not founded on sound doctrine.

11. And thy brother perish Mark how serious an evil it is, that mankind commonly think so little of — that of venturing upon anything with a doubtful or opposing conscience. For the object to which our whole life ought to be directed, is the will of the Lord. This, therefore, is the one thing that vitiates all our actions, when we disregard it. “Quand nous entreprenons quelque chose center ceste saincte volonte;” — “When we attempt anything in opposition to that holy will.” This we do, not merely by an outward action, but even by a thought of the mind, when we allow ourselves in anything in opposition to conscience, even though the thing be not evil in itself. Let us bear in mind, therefore, that whenever we take a step in opposition to conscience, we are on the high road to ruin.

I read, however, the sentence interrogatively, thus: Shall he perish through thy knowledge? as though he had said: “Is it reasonable that thy knowledge should give occasion of ruin to thy brother? Is it for this reason that thou knowest what is right, that thou mayest cause another’s ruin!” He makes use of the term brother, in order to expose their pride as unfeeling, in this way: “It is true that the person whom you despise is weak, but still he is your brother, for God has adopted him. You act a cruel part, therefore, in having no concern for your brother.” There is, however, still greater force in what follows — that even those that are ignorant or weak have been redeemed with the blood of Christ; for nothing were more unseemly than this, that while Christ did not hesitate to die, in order that the weak might not perish, we, on the other hand, reckon as nothing the salvation of those who have been redeemed with so great a price. A memorable saying, by which we are taught how precious the salvation of our brethren ought to be in our esteem, and not merely that of all, but of each individual in particular, inasmuch as the blood of Christ was poured out for each individual!

12. When ye sin so against the brethren, etc. For if the soul of every one that is weak is the price of Christ’s blood, that man who, for the sake of a very small portion of meat, hurries back again to death the brother who has been redeemed by Christ, shows how contemptible the blood of Christ is in his view. Hence contempt of this kind is an open insult to Christ. In what way a weak conscience may be wounded has been already explained — when it is built up in what is evil (1 Corinthians 8:10) so as daringly and rashly to rush on farther than the individual thinks to be lawful for him.

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; “S’il demelure en la conuersation et communication auec les autres?” — “If he remains in converse and fellowship with others.” 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, Our author speaks of the same class of persons when commenting on John 7:50. See Calvin’s Commentary on John, vol. 1, p. 317. — Ed. 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

CHAPTER 9

1 Corinthians 9:1-12

1. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1. Non sum liber? non sum Apostolus? “Ne suis-ie point Apostre? ne suis-ie point en liberte;” — “Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free?” “The order of the words in Calvin’s Latin version is the order in which they are read in the Vat., Alex., and some other MSS. and ancient versions, and in which they are quoted by Origen, Tertullian and Augustine...The Latin retains the primitive order; we read, therefore, in Wiclif’s version — “Whether I am not free? am I not Apostle?” — Penn. Ed. nonne Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum vidi? nonne opus meum vos estis in Domino?

2. If I be not an an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

2. Si aliis non sum Apostolus, vobis tamen sum: sigillum enim Apostolatus mei vos estis in Domino?

3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,

3. Haec mea defensio est apudeos, qui in me inquirunt.

4. Have we not power to eat and to drink?

4. Numquid non habemus potestatem edendi et bibendi?

5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

5. Numquid potestatem non habemus circumducendae uxoris sororis,quemadmodum et reliqui Apostoli,et fratres Domini, et Cephas?

6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

6. An ego solus et Barnabas non habemus potestatem hoc agendi? “De ne trauailler point;” — “To refrain from working.”

7. Who goeth a warfare any time own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

7. Quis militavit suo sumptu unquam? quis plantat vitem, et ex fructu ejus non comedit? quis pascit gregem, et lacte gregis non vescitur?

8. Say I these things as a man? Or saith not the law the same also?

8. Num secundum hominem haec dico?

9. For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?

9. Numquid lex quoque eadem non dicit? in lege enim Mosis (Deuteronomy 25:4) scripture est: non obligabis os bovi trituranti: numquid boves curae sunt Deo,

10. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thrasheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

10. Vel propter nos omnino dicit? Et sane propter nos scripturm est: quoniam debet sub spe, qui arat, arare, et qui triturat, sub spe participandi. (Alias: quia debeat sub spe qui arat, arare, et qui triturat sub spe, spei suae particeps esse debeat.)

11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

11. Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, magnum, si carnalia vestra metamus?

12. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

12. Si alii hanc in vos sumunt potestatem, an non magis nos? atqui non usi sumus facultate hac: sed omnia sufferimus, ut ne quam offensionem demus Evangelio Christi.

CHAPTER 8

1Co 8:1-13. On Partaking of Meats Offered to Idols.

1. Though to those knowing that an idol has no existence, the question of eating meats offered to idols (referred to in the letter of the Corinthians, compare 1Co 7:1) might seem unimportant, it is not so with some, and the infirmities of such should be respected. The portions of the victims not offered on the altars belonged partly to the priests, partly to the offerers; and were eaten at feasts in the temples and in private houses and were often sold in the markets; so that Christians were constantly exposed to the temptation of receiving them, which was forbidden (Nu 25:2; Psa 106:28). The apostles forbade it in their decree issued from Jerusalem (Ac 15:1-29; 21:25); but Paul does not allude here to that decree, as he rests his precepts rather on his own independent apostolic authority.

we know that we all have knowledge--The Corinthians doubtless had referred to their "knowledge" (namely, of the indifference of meats, as in themselves having no sanctity or pollution). Paul replies, "We are aware that we all have [speaking generally, and so far as Christian theory goes; for in 1Co 8:7 he speaks of some who practically have not] this knowledge."

Knowledge puffeth up--when without "love." Here a parenthesis begins; and the main subject is resumed in the same words, 1Co 8:4. "As concerning [touching] therefore the eating," &c. "Puffing up" is to please self. "Edifying" is to please one's neighbor; Knowledge only says, All things are lawful for me; Love adds, But all things do not edify [Bengel], (1Co 10:23; Ro 14:15).

edifieth--tends to build up the spiritual temple (1Co 3:9; 6:19).

2. And--omitted in the oldest manuscripts The absence of the connecting particle gives an emphatical sententiousness to the style, suitable to the subject. The first step to knowledge is to know our own ignorance. Without love there is only the appearance of knowledge.

knoweth--The oldest manuscripts read a Greek word implying personal experimental acquaintance, not merely knowledge of a fact, which the Greek of "we know" or are aware (1Co 8:1) means.

as he ought to know--experimentally and in the way of "love."

3. love God--the source of love to our neighbor (1Jo 4:11, 12, 20; 5:2).

the same--literally, "this man"; he who loves, not he who "thinks that he knows," not having "charity" or love (1Co 8:1, 2).

is known of him--is known with the knowledge of approval and is acknowledged by God as His (Psa 1:6; Ga 4:9; 2Ti 2:19). Contrast, "I never knew you" (Mt 7:23). To love God is to know God; and he who thus knows God has been first known by God (compare 1Co 13:12; 1Pe 1:2).

4. As concerning, &c.--resuming the subject begun in 1Co 8:1, "As touching," &c.

idol is nothing--has no true being at all, the god it represents is not a living reality. This does not contradict 1Co 10:20, which states that they who worship idols, worship devils; for here it is the Gods believed by the worshippers to be represented by the idols which are denied to have any existence, not the devils which really under the idols delude the worshippers.

none other God--The oldest manuscripts omit the word "other"; which gives a clearer sense.

5. "For even supposing there are (exist) gods so called (2Th 2:4), whether in heaven (as the sun, moon, and stars) or in earth (as deified kings, beasts, &c.), as there be (a recognized fact, De 10:17; Psa 135:5; 136:2) gods many and lords many." Angels and men in authority are termed gods in Scripture, as exercising a divinely delegated power under God (compare Ex 22:9, with Ex 22:28; Psa 82:1, 6; Joh 10:34, 35).

6. to us--believers.

of whom--from whom as Creator all things derive their existence.

we in him--rather, "we for Him," or "unto Him." God the Father is the end for whom and for whose glory believers live. In Col 1:16 all things are said to be created (not only "by" Christ, but also) "for Him" (Christ). So entirely are the Father and Son one (compare Ro 11:36; He 2:10).

one Lord--contrasted with the "many lords" of heathendom (1Co 8:5).

by whom--(Joh 1:3; He 1:2).

we by him--as all things are "of" the Father by creation, so they (we believers especially) are restored to Him by the new creation (Col 1:20; Re 21:5). Also, as all things are by Christ by creation, so they (we especially) are restored by Him by the new creation.

7. Howbeit--Though to us who "have knowledge" (1Co 8:1, 4-6) all meats are indifferent, yet "this knowledge is not in all" in the same degree as we have it. Paul had admitted to the Corinthians that "we all have knowledge" (1Co 8:1), that is, so far as Christian theory goes; but practically some have it not in the same degree.

with conscience--an ancient reading; but other very old manuscripts read "association" or "habit." In either reading the meaning is: Some Gentile Christians, whether from old association of ideas or misdirected conscience, when they ate such meats, ate them with some feeling as if the idol were something real (1Co 8:4), and had changed the meats by the fact of the consecration into something either holy or else polluted.

unto this hour--after they have embraced Christianity; an implied censure, that they are not further advanced by this time in Christian "knowledge."

their conscience ... is defiled--by their eating it "as a thing offered to idols." If they ate it unconscious at the time that it had been offered to idols, there would be no defilement of conscience. But conscious of what it was, and not having such knowledge as other Corinthians boasted of, namely, that an idol is nothing and can therefore neither pollute nor sanctify meats, they by eating them sin against conscience (compare Ro 14:15-23). It was on the ground of Christian expediency, not to cause a stumbling-block to "weak" brethren, that the Jerusalem decree against partaking of such meats (though indifferent in themselves) was passed (Ac 15:1-29). Hence he here vindicates it against the Corinthian asserters of an inexpedient liberty.

8. Other old manuscripts read, "Neither if we do not eat, are we the better: neither if we eat are we the worse": the language of the eaters who justified their eating thus [Lachmann]. In English Version Paul admits that "meat neither presents [so the Greek for 'commendeth'] us as commended nor as disapproved before God": it does not affect our standing before God (Ro 14:6).

9. this liberty of yours--the watchword for lax Corinthians. The very indifference of meats, which I concede, is the reason why ye should "take heed" not to tempt weak brethren to act against their conscience (which constitutes sin, Ro 14:22, 23).

10. if any man--being weak.

which hast knowledge--The very knowledge which thou pridest thyself on (1Co 8:1), will lead the weak after thy example to do that against his conscience, which thou doest without any scruple of conscience; namely, to eat meats offered to idols.

conscience of him which is weak--rather, "His conscience, seeing he is weak" [Alford and others].

emboldened--literally, "built up." You ought to have built up your brother in good: but by your example your building him up is the emboldening him to violate his conscience.

11. shall ... perish--The oldest manuscripts read "perisheth." A single act seemingly unimportant may produce everlasting consequences. The weak brother loses his faith, and if he do not recover it, his salvation [Bengel] (Ro 14:23).

for whom Christ died--and for whose sake we too ought to be willing to die (1Jo 3:16). And yet professing Christians at Corinth virtually tempted their brethren to their damnation, so far were they from sacrificing aught for their salvation. Note here, that it is no argument against the dogma that Christ died for all, even for those who perish, to say that thus He would have died in vain for many. Scripture is our rule, not our suppositions as to consequences. More is involved in redemption than the salvation of man: the character of God as at once just and loving is vindicated even in the case of the lost for they might have been saved, and so even in their case Christ has not died in vain. So the mercies of God's providence are not in vain, though many abuse them. Even the condemned shall manifest God's love in the great day, in that they too had the offer of God's mercy. It shall be the most awful ingredient in their cup that they might have been saved but would not: Christ died to redeem even them.

12. wound their weak conscience--literally, "smite their conscience, being (as yet) in a weak state." It aggravates the cruelty of the act that it is committed on the weak, just as if one were to strike an invalid.

against Christ--on account of the sympathy between Christ and His members (Mt 25:40; Ac 9:4, 5).

13. 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.

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 Traditionists, 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, etc. 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 offense 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, etc.; but many carry their knowledge in this liberty too far, and do what is neither seemly nor convenient, and thus give offense 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.

He knoweth nothing yet, etc. - The person who acts in this rash, unfeeling way, from the general knowledge which he has of the vanity of idolatry and the liberty which the Gospel affords from Jewish rites, with all his knowledge does not know this, that though the first and greatest commandment says, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc., yet the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. He, then, that can torment his neighbour's weak or tender conscience with his food or his conduct, does not love him as himself, and therefore knows nothing as he ought to know.

But if any man love God - In that way which the commandment requires, which will necessarily beget love to his neighbor, the same is known of him - is approved of God, and acknowledged as his genuine follower.

Things that are offered in sacrifice - See on the first verse, (1Cor 8:1 (note)).

An idol is nothing in the world - Dr. Lightfoot translates this, We know that there is no idol in the world; which he explains thus: Ειδωλον, idol, is ὁμοιωμα, εικων, σημειον, χαρακτηριον, σκιοειδες, a likeness, an image, a sign, a character, a shadow: now ουδεν ειδωλον signifies there is no idol, no representation of God, in the world. Images there are of stone, wood and metal; but none of these is any representation of the infinite Spirit. But I prefer the meaning given in the note on 1Cor 8:1; (1Cor 8:1 (note)) as the expression, an idol is nothing in the world, was common in the Old Testament, and among the Jews; and was understood by them in this way: they are not אלהים Elohim, the true God; but they are אלילים, nothings, and הבלים habalim, Vanity.

There be that are called gods - There are many images that are supposed to be representations of divinities: but these divinities are nothing, the figments of mere fancy; and these images have no corresponding realities.

Whether in heaven or in earth - As the sun, moon, planets, stars, the ocean, rivers, trees, etc. And thus there are, nominally, gods many, and lords many.

But to us there is but one God, the Father - Who produced all things, himself uncreated and unoriginated. And we in him, και ἡμεις εις αυτον, and we For him; all intelligent beings having been created for the purpose of manifesting his glory, by receiving and reflecting his wisdom, goodness, and truth.

And one Lord Jesus - Only one visible Governor of the world and the Church, by whom are all things: who was the Creator, as he is the Upholder of the universe. And we by him, being brought to the knowledge of the true God, by the revelation of Jesus Christ; for it is the only begotten Son alone that can reveal the Father. The gods of whom the apostle speaks were their divinities, or objects of religious worship; the lords were the rulers of the world, such emperors, who were considered next to gods, and some of them were deified. In opposition to those gods he places God the Father, the fountain of plenitude and being; and in opposition to the lords he places Jesus Christ, who made and who governs all things. We, as creatures, live in reference, εις αυτον, to him, God the Father, who is the fountain of our being: and, as Christians, we live δι' αυτου, by or through him, Jesus Christ; by whom we are bought, enlightened, pardoned, and saved.

There is not in every man that knowledge - This is spoken in reference to what is said, 1Cor 8:4 : We know that an idol is nothing in the world; for some with a conscience of the idol, viz. that it is something, eat it - the flesh that was offered to the idol, as a thing thus offered, considering the feast as a sacred banquet, by which they have fellowship with the idol. And their conscience being weak - not properly instructed in Divine things, is defiled - he performs what he does as an act of religious worship, and thus his conscience contracts guilt through this idolatry.

As in the commencement of Christianity, among the Jews that were converted, there were many found who incorporated the rites of the law with the principles of the Gospel; so, doubtless, among the Gentiles, there were several who did not at once throw aside all their idolatry or idolatrous notions, but preserved some of its more spiritual and imposing parts, and might think it necessary to mingle idolatrous feasts with the rites of Christianity; as the sacrament of the Lord's supper was certainly considered as a feast upon a sacrifice, as I have proved in my Discourse on the Nature and Design of the Eucharist. As the minds of many of these young Gentile converts could not, as yet, have been deeply endued with spiritual knowledge, they might incorporate these feasts, and confound their nature and properties.

Meat commendeth us not to God - No such feasts as these can be a recommendation of our souls or persons to the Supreme Being. As to the thing, considered in itself, the eating gives us no spiritual advantage; and the eating not is no spiritual loss.

But take heed - Lest by frequenting such feasts and eating things offered to idols, under the conviction that an idol is nothing, and that you may eat those things innocently, this liberty of yours should become a means of grievously offending a weak brother who has not your knowledge, or inducing one who respects you for your superior knowledge to partake of these things with the conscience, the persuasion and belief, that an idol is something, and to conclude, that as you partake of such things, so he may also, and with safety. He is not possessed of your superior information on this point, and he eats to the idol what you take as a common meal.

If any man see thee which hast knowledge - Of the true God, and who art reputed for thy skill in Divine things.

Sit at meat in the idol's temple - Is it not strange that any professing the knowledge of the true God should even enter one of those temples? And is it not more surprising that any Christian should be found to feast there? But by all this we may see that the boasted knowledge of the Corinthians had very little depth in things purely spiritual.

There are many curious thin-spun theories in the rabbinical writings concerning entering idol temples, and eating there, and even worshipping there, providing the mind be towards the true God. Dr. Lightfoot produces several quotations to prove this. Perhaps the man of knowledge mentioned by the apostle was one of those who, possessing a convenient conscience, could accommodate himself to all circumstances; be a heathen without and a Christian within, and vice versa, as circumstances might require.

Be emboldened to eat - Οικοδομηθησεται, Be built up - be confirmed and established in that opinion which before he doubtingly held, that on seeing You eat he may be led to think there is no harm in feasting in an idol temple, nor in eating things offered to idols.

Shall the weak brother perish - Being first taught by thy conduct that there was no harm in thus eating, he grieves the Spirit of God; becomes again darkened and hardened; and, sliding back into idolatry, dies in it, and so finally perishes.

For whom Christ died? - So we learn that a man may perish for whom Christ died: this admits of no quibble. If a man for whom Christ died, apostatizing from Christianity, (for he is called a brother though weak), return again to and die in idolatry, cannot go to heaven; then a man for whom Christ died may perish everlastingly. And if it were possible for a believer, whether strong or weak, to retrace his steps back to idolatry and die in it, surely it is possible for a man, who had escaped the pollutions that are in the world, to return to it, live and die in its spirit, and perish everlastingly also. Let him that readeth understand.

But when ye sin so against the brethren - Against Christians, who are called by the Gospel to abhor and detest all such abominations.

Ye sin against Christ - By sending to perdition, through your bad example, a soul for whom he shed his blood; and so far defeating the gracious intentions of his sacrificial death. This is a farther intimation, that a person for whom Christ died may perish; and this is the drift of the apostle's argument.

Wherefore, etc. - 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 Rom 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 endeavor 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.

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.

If any man think he knoweth any thing - Aright, unless so far he is taught by God. He knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know - Seeing there is no true knowledge without divine love.

He is known - That is, approved, by him. Psalm 1:6.

We know that an idol is nothing - A mere nominal god, having no divinity, virtue, or power.

For though there be that are called gods - By the heathens both celestial, (as they style them,) terrestrial, and infernal deities.

Yet to us - Christians. There is but one God - This is exclusive, not of the One Lord, as if he were an inferior deity; but only of the idols to which the One God is opposed. From whom are all things - By creation, providence, and grace. And we for him - The end of all we are, have, and do. And one Lord - Equally the object of divine worship. By whom are all things - Created, sustained, and governed. And we by him - Have access to the Father, and all spiritual blessings.

Some eat, with consciousness of the idol - That is, fancying it is something, and that it makes the meat unlawful to be eaten. And their conscience, being weak - Not rightly informed. Is defiled - contracts guilt by doing it.

But meat commendeth us not to God - Neither by eating, nor by refraining from it. Eating and not eating are in themselves things merely indifferent.

For if any one see thee who hast knowledge - Whom he believes to have more knowledge than himself, and who really hast this knowledge, that an idol is nothing - sitting down to an entertainment in an idol temple. The heathens frequently made entertainments in their temples, on what hath been sacrificed to their idols. Will not the conscience of him that is weak - Scrupulous. Be encouraged - By thy example. To eat - Though with a doubting conscience.

And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? - And for whom thou wilt not lose a meal's meat, so far from dying for him! We see, Christ died even for them that perish.

Ye sin against Christ - Whose members they are.

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?

1 NOw as touching things offered to idols , we know that we all have knowledge . Knowledge puffeth up : but charity edfieth .

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 ca[illegible: 2 letters]el to the Idol: Then the Priest offered apart, burning it upon the Idols Altar, other part they restored to the offerers, or took it to themselves, the Priests made a Feast in the Idols Temple of their parts, and invited friends to it. The offerers either so feasted with the part restored to them, in the Idols 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 [illegible: 1 word] 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 Idols 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,

that 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 this, 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 ruine and destruction.

Marginal references: Acts 15.20▪ 29. 1 Cor. 10.19.; Rom. 14.14▪ 22.

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

Let it be in this or any other matter, if any man be proud of his knowledge, and be conceited that he knoweth enough, and needeth none to instruct him, he may indeed have a notion of things, but it will do him no good, a man ought to use his knowledge for the glory of God, and the edification of others. Let a man have never so large a notion of things, if he be not humble, if he useth not his knowledge to the honour of God, and the advantage of others, he knoweth nothing as he ought to know it. Knowledge is a Talent not to be laid up in a napkin.

Marginal references: Gal. 6.3. 1 Tim. 6.4.

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

It is of much more advantage to a Soul to be known of God, that is, owned, acknowledged and approved, than to comprehend much of the things of God in its notion. A man may know much of God, and yet be one to whom God will one day say, Depart from me, I know you not, you workers of iniquity: but if any man love God, that man is beloved of God, and shall be owned and acknowledged by him. In this sense know is taken in a multitude of Scriptures, Ioh. 17.3. our Translators render this word allow, Rom. 7.15.

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 none other God but one .

Meat which is part of that Sacrifice which hath been offered to an Idol, whether it be to be eaten in the Idol-Temple, or in a private house.

We know that an Image or an Idol, the representation of some other thing, though in respect of the matter it be something, either wood, stone, or earth, and in respect of form it be something, yet it is nothing formally, or representatively, it is set up to represent to us a Delty, there is nothing of a Divine Nature, or the representation of a Divine Nature in it. It is nothing of what the poor blind Heathen take it to be, and therefore in the Hebrew it hath its name from a word [non-Latin text not transcribed] that signifieth nothing, Iob 13.14. Zech. 11.17. Or it is nothing that can either sanctifie, or pollute any meat that is set before it.

And we know that there is none other God but one: the Apostle may be conceived to have spoken these words as from himself, granting what those said, who took themselves to be men of knowledge. Or else in the language of those who thus spake, repeating their words.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 41.24. [illegible: 1 word]. 10.19.

5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there be gods many, and lords many .

There are many whom Heathens call Gods, and whom God himself calleth Gods: the Angels that are in Heaven are called Gods Host, Gen. 32.2. The heavenly Host, Luke 2.13. The Sons of God, Iob 1.6. & 2.1. Magistrates are also called Gods, Psal. 82.6. because God hath committed a great part of his Power unto them. Thus there are many Gods and many Lords.

6 But 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 are all things , and we by him .

Whatever the idolatrous Heathens think or believe, to us (who are Christians) there is but one who is truly and essentially God, (though indeed there be more than one Person in the Deity.

The Father, who is the Fountain of the Deity, communicating his Divine Nature to the other two Persons, and of whom are all things. It is a term which signifieth the primary Cause and Author of all things: we subsist in him, according to that of the Apostle, In him we live and move and have our being, and we [illegible: 1 word] for him, created for his honour and glory (as the phrase may also be translated.)

And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things. He is the second Person in the holy Trinity. It is the observation of a learned Author, That though the Name of God be often given to Christ, yet no where by Paul where he maketh mention of God the Father, from whence he concludes, That the term of Lord given to Christ, signifieth his preheminence above all things (the Father excepted) according to what the Apostle speaks Chap. 15.27. By this Christ, saith the Apostle, all things are, Joh. 1.3. All things were made by him, and without him was nothing made that was made: yet the difference of the phrase is observable to denote to us the order of working in the holy Trinity. All things are of the Father by the Son.

And we (saith the Apostle) are by the Son created, redeemed, &c.

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 2 10. [illegible: 1 word]. 4.6.; [illegible: 1 word] 17.28. [illegible: 1 word]. 11.36.; [illegible: 1 word], for him.; [illegible: 1 word]. 13.[illegible: 1 letter]8. [illegible: 1 word]. 12.3. [illegible: 1 word]. 4.5. [illegible: 1 word]. [illegible: 1 letter].11.; [illegible: 1 word]. 1.16. [illegible: 1 word] [illegible: 1 letter].2.

7 Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge : For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol o, and their conscience being weak, is defiled .

Though some of you know that there is but one living and true God, and that an Idol is nothing in the world, and meat is neither sanctified nor polluted, by being set before it; yet every one doth not know so much: and though the Gospel hath been a long time preached amongst them, yet to this day they may have some superstitious opinion of the Idol,

and then their conscience will be defiled or polluted. It is much the same case at this day as to the business of Image-worship, or Veneration of Images, and Invocation of Saints amongst the Papists. The wisest and most knowing of them will declaim against giving Divine Adoration to the Image, or to the Saint, and tell us, that they worship the true and living God upon the fight of the Image only, and make use of the Name of the Saint only to desire him or her to pray to God for them. Now not to meddle with that Question, Whether in our worshipping the true God, it be lawful to set a Creature before us as our motive or incitement to Worship, or use any Mediator but Christ, yet the things are unlawful upon the same account that the Apostle here determines it unlawful for stronger Christians to eat meat offered to Idols, though they knew and professed, that an Idol was nothing; for all people that come so to worship have not that knowledge, there are, without doubt, multitudes of simple people amongst the Papists, that plainly in this kind of Veneration and Adoration venerate and adore the Creature, and so their consciences are defiled by Idolatry, because they have not such knowledge as others have, supposing that what those others did, were lawful as to their practice, which indeed it [illegible: 1 span].

Marginal references: [illegible: 1 word]. 10.28.; [illegible: 1 word]. 14.1[illegible: 1 letter], [illegible: 2 letters].

8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat, are we the better; neither if we eat not, are we the worse .

The Apostle here speaketh in the person either of those Teachers amongst them, or those more private persons amongst them, who made no difficulty of eating meat offered to Idols; they objected, That meat, or the eating of meat, was not the thing which commended any man to God, they were not the better if they did eat, or worse the if they did not eat. The Apostle himself had asserted this, Rom. 14.17. That the kingdom of God was not meat or drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Marginal references: Or, have we the more.; Or, have we the less.

9 But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak .

The word [non-Latin text not transcribed] is here well translated Liberty, though it also signifieth Right, and seems in either sense rather to signifie a supposed, than a real liberty or right; for we shall see in the next verse, that the Apostle is here speaking of their eating in the Idols Temple, which, Chap. 10.21. he determineth to be an having a Communion with Devils, and therefore could not be lawful; the Apostle therefore seemeth here only to suppose (as they pretended) that in their eating simply in the Idols Temple they did not sin, because by eating, men are not made the worse: yet as we shall see afterwards, he declareth their action was not free from guilt, as it was a violation of that brotherly love which they were obliged to shew to their neighbour.

Marginal references: Gal. 5.13.; Or, power.; Rom. 14.13, 20.

10 For if any man see thee, which hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idols temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered unto idols? .

Here the Apostle sheweth how they sinned in eating meat in the Idols Temple, which had been before offered to the Idol, admitting the thing in it self lawful (which indeed it was not) viz. accidentally, by laying a stumbling block before their brethren, who either were really weak in their knowledge, or at least they were looked upon as such. For (saith he) if any see thee, who, they think, hast knowledge, or who boaste[illegible: 1 letter]t of thy knowledge, sit at meat in the Idols Temple, will not he by it be incouraged to do the same, though possibly he judgeth it is not lawful? The word translated emboldened, is the same which is elsewhere often in the New Testament translated edified: it Metaphorically signifies to make a progress or proficiency either in good or evil, (though this be the only Text in the New Testament where it is taken in an ill sense.) This the Apostle determines sinful, which lets us know the obligation that lieth upon every good Christian, not to use his liberty to the prejudice of others Souls, by doing any actions which we may do or let alone, which done by us, may probably become a snare to them.

Marginal references: Gr. edified.

11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died .

Through thy knowledge in this place is by occasion of thy knowledge. God hath not given people knowledge, that they thereby should be a means to harm and to destroy, but to do good, and save others; it is a most absurd thing for any [illegible: 1 letter]o use their knowledge therefore to the destruction of others.

By perishing is here meant, be led into sin, by acting contrary to the judgment of his own conscience; for (as the Apostle saith elsewhere) He that doubteth is damned if he eateth, for whatsoever is not of faith, that is, done out of a firm perswasion in the party doing, that it is lawful, is sin.

Though he be weak, yet if he be a true Believer, Christ died for him, and there can be nothing more contrary to the duty of a charitable Christian, than to be a means to damn him whom Christ came down from Heaven, and died for, that he might save him.

Marginal references: Rom. 14.15.

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren , and would their weak conscience , ye sin against Christ .

Sin is properly against God, for it is a breach of the Divine Law; but the violations of that part of the Divine Law, which concerneth our duty to our Neighbour, are called sins against our Brethren, that is, sins against God, in matters which concern our duty towards our Brethren.

The giving the weak judgments of others, by your examples, an occasion of sin, by venturing upon actions which they think sinful, is that which is here called a beating, or a wounding their weak consciences, because it is indeed an hurting and defiling of them.

This the Apostle determineth to be a sinning against Christ, both against the Law of Christ, concerning loving one another, and against the love of Christ, who in dying for the weakest Believers, hath shewed the highest degree of love imaginable to them, whom they are very far from following, who will not abate▪ themselves a small matter of liberty, where the use of it this or that way may very probably be an occasion of sin, and ruine to their brethrens Souls.

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 .

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 brothers sinning against God.

Those expressions, Matt. 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 signifie only, that we ought to do any thing, and to deny our selves in any thing, rather than our selves 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 no, 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 it self by us judged lawful, what by Gods 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 Superiour 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 inferiors 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 ruine my self 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 Pre[illegible: 1 letter]ept for providing for our selves 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 it self 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.

Marginal references: Rom. 14.21. 2 Cor. 11.29.

On Things Offered to Idols. (a. d. 57.)

1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

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 (v. 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 ch. x. 25. Nay, feasts, as Athenæus 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, athyta 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, v. 4. The apostle seems to answer more directly to the case (ch. x.), 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. x. 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 (v. 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, v. 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!

On Eating Things Offered to Idols. (a. d. 57.)

4 As 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 other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) 6 But 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 are all things, and we by him.

In this passage he shows the vanity of idols: As to the eating of things that have been sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world; or, there is no idol in the world; or, an idol can do nothing in the world: for the form of expression in the original is elliptical. The meaning in the general is, that heathen idols have no divinity in them; and therefore the Old Testament they are commonly called lies and vanities, or lying vanities. They are merely imaginary gods, and many of them no better than imaginary beings; they have no power to pollute the creatures of God, and thereby render them unfit to be eaten by a child or servant of God. Every creature of God is good, if it be received with thanksgiving, 1 Tim. iv. 4. It is not in the power of the vanities of the heathens to change its nature.—And there is no other God but one. Heathen idols are not gods, nor to be owned and respected as gods, for there is no other God but one. Note, the unity of the Godhead is a fundamental principle in Christianity, and in all right religion. The gods of the heathens must be nothing in the world, must have no divinity in them, nothing of real godhead belonging to them; for there is no other God but one. Others may be called gods: There are that are called gods, in heaven and earth, gods many, and lords many; but they are falsely thus called. The heathens had many such, some in heaven and some on earth, celestial deities, that were of highest rank and repute among them, and terrestrial ones, men made into gods, that were to mediate for men with the former, and were deputed by them to preside over earthly affairs. These are in scripture commonly called Baalim. They had gods of higher and lower degree; nay, many in each order: gods many, and lords many; but all titular deities and mediators: so called, but not such in truth. All their divinity and mediation were imagery. For, 1. To us there is but one God, says the apostle, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in or for him. We Christians are better informed; we well know there is but one God, the fountain of being, the author of all things, maker, preserver, and governor of the whole world, of whom and for whom are all things. Not one God to govern one part of mankind, or one rank and order of men, and another to govern another. One God made all, and therefore has power over all. All things are of him, and we, and all things else, are for him. Called the Father here, not in contradistinction to the other persons of the sacred Trinity, and to exclude them from the Godhead, but in contradistinction to all creatures that were made by God, and whose formation is attributed to each of these three in other places of scripture, and not appropriated to the Father alone. God the Father, as Fons et fundamentum Trinitatis—as the first person in the Godhead, and the original of the other two, stands here for the Deity, which yet comprehends all three, the name God being sometimes in scripture ascribed to the Father, kat exochen, or by way of eminency, because he is fons et principiam Deitatis (as Calvin observes), the fountain of the Deity in the other two, they having it by communication from him: so that there is but one God the Father, and yet the Son is God too, but is not another God, the Father, with his Son and Spirit, being the one God, but not without them, or so as to exclude them from the Godhead. 2. There is to us but one Lord, one Mediator between God and men, even Jesus Christ. Not many mediators, as the heathen imagined, but one only, by whom all things were created and do consist, and to whom all our hope and happiness are owing—the man Christ Jesus; but a man in personal union with the divine Word, or God the Son. This very man hath God made both Lord and Christ, Acts ii. 36. Jesus Christ, in his human nature and mediatorial state, has a delegated power, a name given him, though above every name, that at his name every knee should bow, and every tongue confess that he is Lord. And thus he is the only Lord, the only Mediator, that Christians acknowledge, the only person who comes between God and sinners, administers the world's affairs under God, and mediates for men with God. All the lords of this sort among heathens are merely imaginary ones. Note, It is the great privilege of us Christians that we know the true God, and true Mediator between God and man: the true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, John xvii. 3.

On Eating Things Offered to Idols. (a. d. 57.)

7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For 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 to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 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 apostle, having granted, and indeed confirmed, the opinion of some among the Corinthians, that idols were nothing, proceeds now to show them that their inference from this assumption was not just, namely, that therefore they might go into the idol-temple, and eat of the sacrifices, and feast there with their heathen neighbours. He does not indeed here so much insist upon the unlawfulness of the thing in itself as the mischief such freedom might do to weaker Christians, persons that had not the same measure of knowledge with these pretenders. And here,

I. He informs them that every Christian man, at that time, was not so fully convinced and persuaded that an idol was nothing. Howbeit, there is not in every man this knowledge; for some, with conscience of the idol, unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; with conscience of the idol; that is, some confused veneration for it. Though they were converts to Christianity, and professed the true religion, they were not perfectly cured of the old leaven, but retained an unaccountable respect for the idols they had worshipped before. Note, Weak Christians may be ignorant, or have but a confused knowledge of the greatest and plainest truths. Such were those of the one God and one Mediator. And yet some of those who were turned form heathenism to Christianity among the Corinthians seem to have retained a veneration for their idols, utterly irreconcilable with those great principles; so that when an opportunity offered to eat things offered to idols they did not abstain, to testify their abhorrence of idolatry, nor eat with a professed contempt of the idol, by declaring they looked upon it to be nothing; and so their conscience, being weak, was defiled; that is, they contracted guilt; they ate out of respect to the idol, with an imagination that it had something divine in it, and so committed idolatry: whereas the design of the gospel was to turn men from dumb idols to the living God. They were weak in their understanding, not thoroughly apprized of the vanity of idols; and, while they ate what was sacrificed to them out of veneration for them, contracted the guilt of idolatry, and so greatly polluted themselves. This seems to be the sense of the place; though some understand it of weak Christians defiling themselves by eating what was offered to an idol with an apprehension that thereby it became unclean, and made those so in a moral sense who should eat it, every one not having a knowledge that the idol was nothing, and therefore that it could not render what was offered to it in this sense unclean. Note, We should be careful to do nothing that may occasion weak Christians to defile their consciences.

II. He tells them that mere eating and drinking had nothing in them virtuous nor criminal, nothing that could make them better nor worse, pleasing nor displeasing to God: Meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we eat not are we the worse, v. 8. It looks as if some of the Corinthians made a merit of their eating what had been offered to idols, and that in their very temples too (v. 10), because it plainly showed that they thought the idols nothing. But eating and drinking are in themselves actions indifferent. It matters little what we eat. What goes into the man of this sort neither purifies nor defiles. Flesh offered to idols may in itself be as proper for food as any other; and the bare eating, or forbearing to eat, has no virtue in it. Note, It is a gross mistake to think that distinction of food will make any distinction between men in God's account. Eating this food, and forbearing that, having nothing in them to recommend a person to God.

III. He cautions them against abusing their liberty, the liberty they thought they had in this matter. For that they mistook this matter, and had no allowance to sit at meat in the idol's temple, seems plain from ch. x. 20, &c. But the apostle argues here that, even upon the supposition that they had such power, they must be cautious how they use it; it might be a stumbling-block to the weak (v. 9), it might occasion their falling into idolatrous actions, perhaps their falling off from Christianity and revolting again to heathenism. "If a man see thee, who hast knowledge (hast superior understanding to his, and hereupon concedest that thou hast a liberty to sit at meat, or feast, in an idol's temple, because an idol, thou sayest, is nothing), shall not one who is less thoroughly informed in this matter, and thinks an idol something, be emboldened to eat what was offered to the idol, not as common food, but sacrifice, and thereby be guilty of idolatry?" Such an occasion of falling they should be careful of laying before their weak brethren, whatever liberty or power they themselves had. The apostle backs this caution with two considerations:—1. The danger that might accrue to weak brethren, even those weak brethren for whom Christ died. We must deny ourselves even what is lawful rather than occasion their stumbling, and endanger their souls (v. 11): Through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? Note, Those whom Christ hath redeemed with his most precious blood should be very precious and dear to us. If he had such compassion as to die for them, that they might not perish, we should have so much compassion for them as to deny ourselves, for their sakes, in various instances, and not use our liberty to their hurt, to occasion their stumbling, or hazard their ruin. That man has very little of the spirit of the Redeemer who had rather his brother should perish than himself be abridged, in any respect, of his liberty. He who hath the Spirit of Christ in him will love those whom Christ loved, so as to die for them, and will study to promote their spiritual and eternal warfare, and shun every thing that would unnecessarily grieve them, and much more every thing that would be likely to occasion their stumbling, or falling into sin. 2. The hurt done to them Christ takes as done to himself: When you sin so against the weak brethren and wound their consciences, you sin against Christ, v. 12. Note, Injuries done to Christians are injuries to Christ, especially to babes in Christ, to weak Christians; and most of all, involving them in guilt: wounding their consciences is wounding him. He has a particular care of the lambs of the flock: He gathers them in his arm and carries them in his bosom, Isa. lx. 11. Strong Christians should be very careful to avoid what will offend weak ones, or lay a stumbling-block in their way. Shall we be void of compassion for those to whom Christ has shown so much? Shall we sin against Christ who suffered for us? Shall we set ourselves to defeat his gracious designs, and help to ruin those whom he died to save?

IV. He enforces all with his own example (v. 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. He does not say that he will never eat more. This were to destroy himself, and to commit a heinous sin, to prevent the sin and fall of a brother. Such evil must not be done that good may come of it. But, though it was necessary to eat, it was not necessary to eat flesh. And therefore, rather than occasion sin in a brother, he would abstain from it as long as he lived. He had such a value for the soul of his brother that he would willingly deny himself in a matter of liberty, and forbear any particular food, which he might have lawfully eaten and might like to eat, rather than lay a stumbling-block in a weak brother's way, and occasion him to sin, by following his example, without being clear in his mind whether it were lawful or no. Note, We should be very tender of doing any thing that may be an occasion of stumbling to others, though it may be innocent in itself. Liberty is valuable, but the weakness of a brother should induce, and sometimes bind, us to waive it. We must not rigorously claim nor use our own rights, to the hurt and ruin of a brother's soul, and so to the in jury of our Redeemer, who died for him. When it is certainly foreseen that my doing what I may forbear will occasion a fellow-christian to do what he ought to forbear, I shall offend, scandalize, or lay a stumbling-block in his way, which to do is a sin, however lawful the thing itself be which is done. And, if we must be so careful not to occasion other men's sins, how careful should we be to avoid sin ourselves! If we must not endanger other men's souls, how much should we be concerned not to destroy our own!

CHAP. VIII. Verſe 1. Now as touching things]

ANother caſe that they had propounded to him in their Letter, Chap. 7.1.

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

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

Knowledge puffeth up] Swelling us above meaſure, unleſſe 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 [illegible: 1 letter]ustin maketh mention that neglected the means of knowledge, becauſe knowledge puffeth up, and ſo would be ignorant, that they might be humble, and want knowledge that they might want pride? This was to be like Democritus who pluckt out his eyes, to avoid the danger of uncleannes.

Verſe 2. If any man think] This one thing I know, that I know nothing, ſaid Socrates. Neither know I this yet, that I know nothing, ſaith another. Though I know my ſelf ignorant of many things (ſaith a third) Yet I dare boldly profeſſe with Origen, Ignorantiam meam non ignoro, I am not ignorant that I am ignorant. The greateſt part of our knowledge is but the leaſt part of our ignorance. And yet how apt are we to think we know all that's knowable: as in Alcibiades his Army all would be leaders, none learners. Epicurus ſaid, that he was the firſt man that ever diſcovered truth, and yet in many things he was more blinde then a Beetle. Aratus the Aſtrologer vaunted, Aug. de civ. Dei, l. 16. that he had counted the ſtars, and written of them all. Hoc ego primus vidi, ſaid Zabarell. And Laurentius Valla boaſted, that there was no. Logick worthy to be read but his, which therefore he called,Joh. Manl [illegible: 1 letter]ae. com. Logicans Laurentinam.

Verſe 3. But if any man love God] And his neighbour for Gods ſake; his friends in God, his foes for God.

The ſame is known of him] That is, Knows him ſavingly, Gal. 4 9. is taught of God, 1 Theſſ. 4 9. who only gives true wiſdom, Jam. 1.5.

Verſe 4. Is nothing in the world] A meer fiction it is, that the Idol repreſenteth, a brat of mans brain.

None other God but one] This the wiſer Heathen alſo acknowledged, and for oppoſing the multitude of gods Socrates ſuffered. Cicero in his books of the Nature of the gods, takes pains to ſhew the vanity of Heathen Deities. And after all wiſheth that he were as well able to finde out the true God, as to diſcover the falſe.

Verſe 5. That are called gods] Heſiod reckons up thirty thouſand of them that were in his time. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. What an army may we think there were of them in after-ages?

As there be gods many] The Serpents Grammar firſt taught, Deum pluralitèr declinare, Ye ſhall be as gods, Gen. 3. ſaith Damianus.

And Lords many] Demy-gods, Heroes whoſe images were worſhipped. Ninus was the firſt that made an Image for his Father Belus, and all that came to ſee it were pardoned for all their offences: whence in time that Image came to be worſhipped. But they did a very ill office that firſt brought in Images, ſaith Varro (as Calvin citeth his words) for they increaſed errour, and took away fear. And Plutarch ſaith, It is ſacriledge to worſhip by images.

Verſe 6. But to us there is but one God] Be the gods of the Heathen good-fellows (ſaith one) the true God is a jealous God, and will not ſhare his glory with another.

Of whom are all things, and we for him] So that God is the firſt cauſe, and the laſt end of all: which two are the properties of the chief good.

Verſe 7. Ʋnto this hour] Though they have been better taught and clearly convinced, yet they ſtifly retain, at leaſt ſome tincture of their old odde ſuperſtitious conceits.Me ex ca opinione, &c. De nat. deor l. 3. No mans ſpeech, whether he be learned or unlearned (ſaith Cicero) ſhall ever perſwade me from that opinion which I have taken up from mine anceſtours concerning the worſhip of the immortall gods.

Their conſcience being weak] That is, not rightly informed of the true nature of things indifferent.

Is defiled] By doing what they doubt of.

Verſe 8. But meat commendeth us not] This is another objection: Meat is indifferent. The Apoſtle anſwers,

Verſe 9. True, it is indifferent, ſo it prove not a ſtumbling block to the unreſolved. For in ſuch a caſe thou muſt ſuſpend thy liberty, and forbear to exerciſe it.

Verſe 10. Be emboldened] This is, Proficere in pejus, aedificare in gehennam, as Tertullian hath it. Wh[illegible: 2 letters]es men look upon party-coloured objects, they bring forth ſpotted fruits, as Labans ſheep did.

Verſe 11. Thy weak brother periſh] Revolt to Paganiſme, or at leaſt pollute his conſcience with mortall ſinne, which ſhall be ſet upon thy ſcore. And haſt thou not ſins enough of thine own to anſwer for?

Verſe 12. [non-Latin text not transcribed]. And wound their weak conſciences] Gr. Beat upon it to make it ſound heavily as a ſhaulm. Sin is as a ſtroke upon the heart, 2 Sam. 24.10.

Ye ſinne againſt Christ] Who holds himſelf highly concerned in the miſuſages of his ſervants. It is an idle miſpriſion, to ſever the ſenſe of an injury done to any of the members, from the head. Joah had ſlain Abner and Amaſa. David appropriates it: Thou knoweſt (ſaith he to Solomon) what Joab did to me. Tho arraignment of mean malefactours [illegible: 1 letter]uns in the ſtile of wrong to the Kings Crown and dignity. So here.

Verſe 13. While the world ſtandeth] We muſt ſtand unchangeably reſolved, neither to give offence careleſly, nor to take offence cauſleſly.

Now as touching. In regard to; in answer to your inquiry whether it is right or not to partake of those things.

Things offered unto idols. Sacrifices unto idols. Meat that had been offered in sacrifice, and then either exposed to sale in the market, or served up at the feasts held in honour of idols at their temples, or at the houses of their devotees. The priests, who were entitled to a part of the meat that was offered in sacrifice, would expose it to sale in the market; and it was a custom with the Gentiles to make feasts in honour of the idol gods on the meat that was offered in sacrifice. See 1Cor 8:10 of this chapter, and 1Cor 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 1Cor 8:10. To this Paul replies in the course of the chapter, and particularly in 1Cor 8:7.

That we all have knowledge. That is, on this subject; we are acquainted with the true nature of idols, and of idol worship; we all esteem an idol to be nothing, and cannot be in danger of being led into idolatry, or into any improper views in regard to this subject, by participating of the food and feasts connected with idol worship. This is the statement and argument of the Corinthians. To this Paul makes two answers.

(1.) In a parenthesis in 1Cor 8:1-3, to wit, that it was not safe to rely on mere knowledge in such a case, since the effect of mere knowledge was often to puff men up and to make them proud, but that they ought to act rather from "charity," or love; and,

(2.) that though the mass of them might have this knowledge, yet that all did not possess it, and they might be injured, 1Cor 8:7. Having stated this argument of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge, in 1Cor 8:1, Paul then in a parenthesis states the usual effect of knowledge, and shows that it is not a safe guide, 1Cor 8:1-3. In 1Cor 8:4, he resumes the statement (commenced in 1Cor 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 1Cor 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 1Cor 8:7, that all had not this knowledge, and that those who had knowledge ought to act so as not to injure those who had not.

Knowledge puffeth up. This is the beginning of the parenthesis. It is the reply of Paul to the statement of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge. The sense is, "Admitting that you all have knowledge; that you know what is the nature of an idol, and of idol worship; yet mere knowledge in this case is not a safe guide; its effect may be to puff up, to fill with pride and self-sufficiency, and to lead you astray. Charity, or love, as well as knowledge, should be allowed to come in as a guide in such cases, and will be a safer guide than mere knowledge." There had been some remarkable proofs of the impropriety of relying on mere knowledge as a guide in religious matters among the Corinthians, and it was well for Paul to remind them of it. These pretenders to uncommon wisdom had given rise to their factions, disputes, and parties, (see chap. i.--iii. ;) and Paul now reminds them that it was not safe to rely on such a guide. And it is no more safe now than it was then. Mere knowledge, or science, when the heart is not right, fills with pride; swells a man with vain self-confidence and reliance in his own powers, and very often leads him entirely astray. Knowledge combined with right feelings, with pure principles, with a heart filled with love to God and men, may be trusted; but not mere intellectual attainments--mere abstract science--the mere cultivation of the intellect. Unless the heart is cultivated with that, the effect of knowledge is to make a man a pedant; to fill him with vain ideas of his own importance; and thus to lead him into error and to sin.

But charity edifieth. Love, (ηαγαπη;) so the word means; and so it would be well to translate it. Our word charity we now apply almost exclusively to alms, giving, or to the favourable opinion which we entertain of others when they seem to be in error or fault. The word in the Scripture means simply love. 1Cor 13:1 and following. The sense here is, "Knowledge is not a safe guide, and should not be trusted. Love to each other and to God, true Christian affection, will be a safer guide than mere knowledge. Your conclusion on this question should not be formed from mere abstract knowledge; but you should ask what LOVE to others--to the peace, purity, happiness, and salvation of your brethren--would demand. If love to them would prompt to this course, and permit you to partake of this food, it should be done; if not, if it would injure them, whatever mere knowledge would dictate, it should not be done." The doctrine is, that love to God and to each other is a better guide in determining what to do than mere knowledge. And it is so. It will prompt us to seek the welfare of others, and to avoid what would injure them. It will make us tender, affectionate, and kind; and will better tell us what to do, and how to do it in the best way, than all the abstract knowledge that is conceivable. The man who is influenced by love, ever pure and ever glowing, is not in much danger of going astray, or of doing injury to the cause of God. The man who relies on his knowledge is heady, high-minded, obstinate, contentious, vexatious, perverse, opinionated; and most of the difficulties in the church arise from such men. Love makes no difficulty, but heals and allays all: mere knowledge heals or allays none, but is often the occasion of most bitter strife and contention. Paul was wise in recommending that the question should be settled by love; and it would be wise if all Christians would follow his instructions.

(a) "unto idols" Acts 15:10,19 (b) "knowledge" Rom 14:14,22 (c) "puffeth" Isa 47:10 (*) "charity" "love" (d) "edifieth" 1Cor 13

And if any man think, etc. The connexion and the scope of this passage require us to understand this as designed to condemn that vain conceit of knowledge, or self-confidence, which would lead us to despise others, or to disregard their interests. "If any one is any one is conceited of his knowledge, is so vain, and proud, and self-confident, that he is led to despise others, and to disregard their true interests, he has not yet learned the very first elements of true knowledge as he ought to learn them. True knowledge will make us humble, modest, and kind to others. It will not puff us up, and it will not lead us to overlook the real happiness of others." See Rom 11:25.

Any thing. Any matter pertaining to science, morals, philosophy, or religion. This is a general maxim pertaining to all pretenders to knowledge.

He knoweth nothing yet, etc. He has not known what is most necessary to be known on tile subject; nor has he known the true use and design of knowledge, which is to edify and promote the happiness of others. If a man has not so learned anything as to make it contribute to the happiness of others, it is a proof that he has never learned the true design of the first elements of knowledge. Paul's design is to induce them to seek the welfare of their brethren. Knowledge, rightly applied, will promote the happiness of all. And it is true now as it was then, that if a man is a miser in knowledge, as in wealth; if he lives to accumulate, never to impart; if he is filled with a vain conceit of his wisdom, and seeks not to benefit others by enlightening their ignorance, and guiding them in the way of truth, he has never learned the true use of science, any more than the man has of wealth who always hoards, never gives. It is valueless unless it is diffused, as the light of heaven would be valueless unless diffused all over the world, and the waters would be valueless if always preserved in lakes and reservoirs, and never diffused over hills and vales to refresh the earth.

(e) "man think" Rom 11:25, Gal 6:3, 1Timm 6:3,4

But if any man love God. If any man is truly attached to God; if he seeks to serve him, and to promote his glory. The sense seems to be this: "There is no true and real knowledge which is not connected with love to God. This will prompt a man also to love his brethren, and will lead him to promote their happiness. A man's course, therefore, is not to be regulated by mere knowledge, but the grand principle is love to God and love to man. Love edifies; love promotes happiness; love will prompt to what is right; and love will secure the approbation of God." Thus explained, this difficult verse accords with the whole scope of the parenthesis, which is to show that a man should not be guided in his intercourse with others by mere knowledge, however great that may be; but that a safer and better principle was love, charity, (αγαπη) whether exercised towards God or man. Under the guidance of this, man would be in little danger of error. Under the direction of mere knowledge, he would never be sure of a safe guide. See 1Cor 13.

The same is known of him. The words "is known," (εγνωσται,) I suppose to be taken here in the sense of "is approved by God; is loved by him; meets with his favour," etc. In this sense the word known is often used in the Scriptures. Mt 7:23. The sense is, "If any man acts under the influence of sacred charity, or love to God, and consequent love to man, he will meet with the approbation of God. He will seek his glory, and the good of his brethren; he will be likely to do right; and God will approve of his intentions and desires, and will regard him as his child. Little distinguished, therefore, as he may be for human knowledge, for that science which puffs up with vain self-confidence, yet he will have a more truly elevated rank, and will meet with the approbation and praise of God. This is of more value than mere knowledge, and this love is a far safer guide than any mere intellectual attainments. So the world would have found it to be if they had acted on it; and so Christians would always find it.

(a) "known of him" Nah 1:7, 2Ti 2:19

As concerning therefore, etc. The parenthesis closes with 1Cor 8:3. The apostle now proceeds to the real question in debate, and repeats in this verse the question, and the admission that all had knowledge. The admission that all had knowledge proceeds through 1Cor 8:4,5,6; and in 1Cor 8:7, he gives the answer to it. In 1Cor 8:4-6, everything is admitted by Paul which they asked in regard to the real extent of their knowledge on this subject; and in 1Cor 8:7 he shows that, even on the ground of this admission, the conclusion would not follow that it was right to partake of the food offered in sacrifice in the temple of an idol.

The eating of those things, etc. Whether it is right to eat them. Here the question is varied somewhat from what it was in 1Cor 8:1, but substantially the same inquiry is stated. The question was, whether it was right for Christians to eat the meat of animals that had been slain in sacrifice to idols.

We know. 1Cor 8:1. We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed, 1Cor 8:7. But his object was to show that even admitting that, it would not follow that it would be right to partake of that meat. It is well to bear in mind, that the object of their statement in regard to knowledge was to show that there could be no impropriety in partaking of the food. This argument the apostle answers in 1Cor 8:7.

That an idol is nothing. Is not the true God; is not a proper object of worship. We are not so stupid as to suppose that the block of wood, or the carved image, or the chiseled marble is a real intelligence, and is conscious and capable of receiving worship, or benefiting its rotaries. We fully admit, and know, that the whole thing is delusive; and there can be no danger that, by partaking of the food offered in sacrifice to them, we should ever be brought to a belief of the stupendous falsehood that they are true objects of worship, or to deny the true God. There is no doubt that the more intelligent heathen had this knowledge; and doubtless nearly all Christians possessed it, though a few who had been educated in the grosser views of heathenism might still have regarded the idol with a superstitious reverence. For whatever might have been the knowledge of statesmen and philosophers on the subject, it was still doubtless true that the great mass of the heathen world did regard the dumb idols as the proper objects of worship, and supposed that they were inhabited by invisible spirits--the gods. For purposes of state, and policy, and imposition, the lawgivers and priests of the pagan world were careful to cherish this delusion. See 1Cor 8:7.

Is nothing. Is delusive; is imaginary. There may have been a reference here to the name of all idol among the Hebrews. They called idols (Elilim,) or, in the singular, , (Elil,) vain, null, nothing-worth, nothingness, vanity, weakness, etc.; indicating their vanity and powerlessness, Lev 26:1, 1Chr 16:26; Isa 2:8,18-20, 10:10, 19:1,3, 31:7, Ps 96:5, Eze 30:13; Hab 2:18; Zech 11:17, etc.

In the world. It is nothing at all; it has no power over the world; no real existence anywhere. There are no such gods as the heathens pretend to worship. There is but one God; and that fact is known to us all. The phrase "in the world" seems to be added by way of emphasis, to show the utter nothingness of idols; to explain in the most emphatic manner the belief that they had no real existence.

And that there is none other God but one. This was a great cardinal truth of religion. Mk 12:29. Comp. De 6:4,5. To keep this great truth in mind was the grand object of the Jewish economy; and this was so plain and important, that the Corinthians supposed that it must be admitted by all. Even though they should partake of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols, yet they supposed it was not possible that any of them could forget the great cardinal truth that there was but one God.

(b) "idol" Is 41:24

That are called gods. Gods so called. The heathens everywhere worshipped multitudes, and gave to them the name of gods.

Whether in heaven. Residing in heaven, as a part of the gods were supposed to do. Perhaps there may be allusion here to the sun, moon, and stars; but I rather suppose that reference is made to the celestial deities, or to those who were supposed to reside in heaven, though they were supposed occasionally to visit the earth, as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, etc.

Or in earth. Upon the earth; or that reigned particularly over the earth, or sea, as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient heathens worshipped some gods that were supposed to dwell in heaven; others that were supposed to reside on earth; and others that presided over the inferior regions, as Pluto, etc.

As there be gods many, (ωσπερ,) etc. As there are, in fact, many which are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the heathens worship many whom they esteem to be gods, or whom they regard as such. This cannot be an admission of Paul that they were truly gods, and ought to be worshipped; but it is a declaration that they esteemed them to be such, or that a large number of imaginary beings were thus adored. The emphasis should be placed on the word many; and the design of the parenthesis is to show that the number of these that were worshipped was not a few, but was immense; and that they were in fact worshipped as gods, and allowed to have the influence over their minds and lives which they would have if they were real; that is, that the effect of this popular belief was to produce just as much fear, alarm, superstition, and corruption, as though these imaginary gods had a real existence. So that though the more intelligent of the heathen put no confidence in them, yet the effect on the great mass was the same as if they had had a real existence, and exerted over them a real control.

And lords many, (κυριοιπολλοι) Those who had a rule over them; to whom they submitted themselves; and whose laws they obeyed. This name lord was often given to their idol gods. Thus among the nations of Canaan their idols were called , (Baal, or lord,) the tutelary god of the Phenicians and Syrians, Jud 8:33, 9:4,46. It is used here with reference to the idols, and means that the laws which they were supposed to give in regard to their worship had control over the minds of their worshippers.

(d) "are called gods" Jn 10:34,35

But to us. Christians. We acknowledge but one God. Whatever the heathen worship, we know that there is but one God; and he alone has a right to rule over us.

One God, the Father. Whom we acknowledge as the Father of all; Author of all things; and who sustains to all his works the relation of a father. The word "Father" here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the Divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction--the Father as distinguished from Ms offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. This is manifest,

(1.) because the apostle does not use the correlative term "Son," when he comes to speak of the "one Lord Jesus Christ;" and,

(2.) because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the Divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father to his creatures. He produced them. He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name Father is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the Divine Being, Ps 103:13, Jer 31:9, Mal 1:6, 2:10, Mt 6:9, Lk 11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative Son is used, Lk 10:22, 22:42, Jn 1:18, 3:35, 5:19-23,26,30,36, Heb 1:5; 2Pet 1:17, etc.

Of whom. εξου. From whom, as a fountain and source; by whose counsel, plan, and purpose. He is the great source of all; and all depend on him. It was by his purpose and power that all things were formed, and to all he sustains the relation of a Father. The agent in producing all things, however, was the Son, Col 1:16. Jn 1:3.

Are all things. These words evidently refer to the whole work of creation, as deriving their origin from God, Gen 1:1. Everything has thus been formed in accordance with his plan; and all things now depend on him as their Father.

And we. We Christians. We are what we are by him. We owe our existence to him; and by him we have been regenerated and saved. It is owing to his counsel, purpose, agency, that we have an existence; and owing to him that we have the hope of eternal life. The leading idea here is, probably, that to God Christians owe their hopes and happiness.

In him. ειςαυτον; or rather, unto him: that is, we are formed for hun, and should live to his glory. We have been made what we are, as Christians, that we may promote his honour and glory.

And one Lord, etc. One Lord, in contradistinction from the "many lords" whom the heathens worshipped. The word Lord here is used in the sense of proprietor, ruler, governor, or king; and the idea is, that Christians acknowledge subjection to him alone, and not to many sovereigns, as the heathens did. Jesus Christ is the Ruler and Lord of his people. They acknowledge their allegiance to him as their supreme Lawgiver and King. They do not acknowledge subjection to many rulers, whether imaginary gods or men; but receive their laws from him alone. The word "Lord" here does not imply of necessity any inferiority to God; since it is a term which is frequently applied to God himself. The idea in the passage is, that from God, the Father of all, we derive our existence, and all that we have; and that we acknowledge immediate and direct subjection to the Lord Jesus as our Lawgiver and Sovereign. From him Christians receive their laws, and to him they submit their lives. And this idea is so far from supposing inferiority in the Lord Jesus to God, that it rather supposes equality; since a right to give laws to men, to rule their consciences, to direct their religious opinions, and their lives, can appropriately appertain only to one who has equality with God.

By whom, etc. διου. By whose agency; or through whom, as the agent. The word "by" (δι) stands in contradistinction from "of" (εξ) in the former part of the verse; and obviously means, that though "all things" derived their existence from God, as the Fountain and Author, yet it was "by" the agency of the Lord Jesus. This doctrine, that the Son of God was the great agent in the creation of the world, is elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures. Jn 1:3.

Are all things. The universe; for so the phrase ταπαντα, properly means. No words could better express the idea of the universe than these; and the declaration is therefore explicit that the Lord Jesus created all things. Some explain this of the "new creation;" as if Paul had said that all things pertaining to our salvation were from him. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious.

(1.) It is not the natural signification.

(2.) The phrase "all things" naturally denotes the universe.

(3.) The scope of the passage requires us so to understand it. Paul is not speaking of the new creature; but he is speaking of the question whether there is more than one God, one Creator, one Ruler, over the wide universe. The heathen said there was; Christians affirmed that there was not. The scope, therefore, of the passage requires us to understand this of the vast material universe; and the obvious declaration here is, that the Lord Jesus was the Creator of all.

And we. We Christians, (1Pet 1:21;) or, we as men; we have derived our existence "by" (δι) or through him. The expression will apply either to our original creation, or to our hopes of heaven, as being by him; and is equally true respecting both. Probably the idea is, that all that we have, as men and as Christians, our lives and our hopes, are through him, and by his agency.

By him. (διαυτου) By his agency. Paul had said, in respect to God the Father of all, that we were unto (εις) him; he here says that in regard to the Lord Jesus, we are by (δι) him, or by his agency. The sense is, "God is the author, the former of the plan; the source of being and of hope; and we are to live to him: but Jesus is the agent by whom all these things are made, and through whom they are conferred on us." Arians and Socinians have made use of this passage to prove that the Son was inferior to God; and the argument is, that the name God is not given to Jesus, but another name implying inferiority; and that the design of Paul was to make a distinction between God and the Lord Jesus. It is not the design of these Notes to examine opinions in theology; but in reply to this argument we may observe briefly,

(1.) that those who hold to the divinity of the Lord Jesus do not deny that there is a distinction between him and the Father: they fully admit and maintain it, both in regard to his eternal existence, (i.e., that there is an eternal distinction of persons in the Godhead,) and in regard to his office as Mediator.

(2.) The term "Lord," given here, does not of necessity suppose that he is inferior to God.

(3.) The design of the passage supposes that there was equality in some respects. God the Father and the Lord Jesus sustain relations to men that in some sense correspond to the "many gods" and the "many lords" that the heathen adored; but they were equal in nature.

(4.) The work of creation is expressly in this passage ascribed to the Lord Jesus. But the work of creation cannot be performed by a creature. There can be no delegated God, and no delegated omnipotence, or delegated infinite wisdom and omnipresence. The work of creation implies divinity; or it is impossible to prove that there is a God: and if the Lord Jesus made "ALL THINGS," he must be God.

(a) "to us" Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6 (1) "we in him" "for" (b) "by whom" Jn 1:3, Heb 1:2

Howbeit. But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the argument of the Corinthians--that they all knew that an idol was nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that on their account they should abstain. See 1Cor 8:11-13.

There is not, etc. There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have still remains of heathen opinions and superstitious feelings.

That knowledge. That there is but one God; and that an idol is nothing.

For some, with conscience of the idol. From conscientious regard to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and that his favour should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not to be supposed that converted men would regard idols as the only God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favour or avert their wrath. We are to bear in mind that the heathen were exceedingly ignorant; and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon leave them, even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices, or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their religious character.

Eat it aa a thing, etc. As offered to an idol who was entitled to adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favour should be sought, or his wrath averted, by sacrifice.

And their conscience being weak. Being unenlightened on this subject; and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and delicate on this subject: they might be disposed to do right, and yet not have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and that they ought not to regard it.

Is defiled. Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his conscience becomes more enlightened, 1Cor 8:11,13. From superstitious reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the effect would be to lead him to a conformity to idol worship that would defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to the first argument in favour of partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.

But meat commendeth us not to God. This is to be regarded as the view presented by the Corinthian Christians, or by the advocates for partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. The sense is, "Religion is of a deeper and more spiritual nature than a mere regard to circumstances like these, God looks at the heart. He regards the motives, the thoughts, the moral actions of men, The mere circumstance of eating meat, or abstaining from it, cannot make a man better or worse in the sight of a holy God. The acceptable worship of God is not placed in such things. It is more spiritual; more deep; more important. And therefore, the inference is, "it cannot be a matter of much importance whether a man eats the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, or abstains." To this argument the apostle replies, (1Cor 8:9-13,) that, although this might be true in itself, yet it might be the occasion of leading others into sin, and it would then become a matter of great importance in the sight of God, and should be in the sight of all true Christians. The word "commendeth" (παριστησι) means, properly, to introduce to the favour of any one, as a king or ruler; and here means to recommend to the favour of God. God does not regard this as a matter of importance. He does not make his favour depend on unimportant circumstances like this.

Neither if we eat. If we partake of the meat offered to idols.

Are we the better. Margin, Have we the more. Gr., Do we abound, (περισσευομεν;) that is, in moral worth or excellence of character. Rom 14:17.

Are we the worse. Margin, Have we the less. Greek, Do we lack or want, (υστερουμεθα;) that is, in moral worth or excellence.

(a) "meat commendeth" Rom 14:17 (1) "we eat" "have we the more" (2) "we eat not" "have we the less"

But take heed. This is the reply of Paul to the argument of the Corinthians in 1Cor 8:8. "Though all that you say should be admitted to be true, as it must be; though a man is neither morally better nor worse for partaking of meat or abstaining from it; yet the grand principle to be observed is, so to act as not to injure your brethren. Though you may be no better or worse for eating or not eating, yet, if your conduct shall injure others, and lead them into sin, that is a sufficient guide to determine you what to do in the case. You should abstain entirely. It is of far more importance that your brother should not be led into sin, than it is that you should partake of meat which you acknowledge (1Cor 8:8) is in itself of no importance."

Lest by any means. μηπως. You should be careful that by no conduct of yours your brother be led into sin. This is a general principle that is to regulate Christian conduct in all matters that are in themselves indifferent.

This liberty of your's. This which you claim as a right; this power which you have, and the exercise of which is in itself lawful. The liberty or power (εξουσια) here referred to was that of partaking of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols, 1Cor 8:8. A man may have a right abstractedly to do a thing, but it may not be prudent or wise to exercise it.

Become a stumbling-block. An occasion of sin. Mt 5:29, also, Rom 14:13. See that it be not the occasion of leading others to sin, and to abandon their Christian profession, 1Cor 8:10.

To them that are weak. To those professing Christians who are not fully informed or instructed in regard to the true nature of idolatry, and who still may have a superstitious regard for the gods whom their fathers worshipped.

(3) "this liberty" "power" (b) "liberty" Rom 14:13,20, Gall 5:13

For if any man. Any Christian brother who is ignorant, or any one who might otherwise become a Christian.

Which hast knowledge. Who are fully informed in regard to the real nature of idol worship. You will be looked up to as an example. You will be presumed to be partaking of this feast in honour of the idol. You will thus encourage him, and he will partake of it with a conscientious regard to the idol.

Sit at meat. Sitting down to an entertainment in the temple of the idol. Feasts were often celebrated, as they are now among the heathen, in honour of idols. Those entertainments were either in the temple of the idol, or at the house of him who gave it.

Shall not the conscience of him which is weak. Of the man who is not fully informed, or who still regards the idol with superstitious feelings. See 1Cor 8:7.

Be emboldened. Margin, Edified. οικοδομηθησεται. Confirmed; established. So the word edify is commonly used in the New Testament, Acts 9:31, Rom 14:19, Eph 4:12, 1Thes 5:11. The sense here is, "Before this he had a superstitious regard for idols. He had the remains of his former feelings and opinions. But he was not established in the belief that an idol was anything; and his superstitious feelings were fast giving way to the better Christian doctrine that they were nothing. But now, by your example, he will be fully confirmed in the belief that an idol is to be regarded with respect and homage. He will see you in the very temple, partaking of a feast in honour of the idol; and he will infer not only that it is right, but that it is a matter of conscience with you, and will follow your example."

(4) "be emboldened" "edified"

And through thy knowledge. Because you knew that an idol was nothing, and that there could be really no danger of falling into idolatry from partaking of these entertainments. You will thus be the means of deceiving and destroying him. The argument of the apostle here is, that if this was to be the result, the duty of those who had this knowledge was plain.

Shall the weak brother. The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That it means a real Christian there can be no doubt. For,

(1.) it is the usual term by which Christians are designated--the endearing name of brother; and,

(2.) the scope of the passage requires it so to be understood. Rom 14:20.

Perish. Be destroyed; ruined; lost. Jn 10:28. So the word απολειται properly and usually signifies. The sense is, that the tendency of this course would be, to lead the weak brother into sin, to apostasy, and to ruin. But this does not prove that any who were truly converted should apostatize and be lost; for,

(1.) there may be a tendency to a thing, and yet that thing may never happen. It may be arrested, and the event not occur.

(2.) The warning designed to prevent it may be effectual, and be the means of saving. A man in a canoe floating down the Niagara river may have a tendency to go over the falls; but he may be hailed from the shore, and the hailing may be effectual, and he may be saved. The call to him was designed to save him, and actually had that effect. So it may be in the warnings to Christians.

(3.) The apostle does not say that any true Christian would be lost. He puts a question; and affirms that if one thing was done, another might follow. But this is not affirming that any one would be lost. So I might say, that if the man continued to float on towards the falls of Niagara, he would be destroyed. If one thing was done, the other would be a consequence. But this would be very different from a statement that a man had actually gone over the falls, and been lost.

(4.) It is elsewhere abundantly proved, that no one who has been truly converted will apostatize and be destroyed. Jn 10:28. Comp. Rom 8:29, Rom 8:30.

For whom Christ died? This is urged as an argument why we should not do anything that would tend to destroy the souls of men. And no stronger argument could be used. The argument is, that we should not do anything that would tend to frustrate the work of Christ, that would render the shedding of his blood vain. The possibility of doing this is urged; and that bare possibility should deter us from a course of conduct that might have this tendency. It is an appeal drawn from the deep and tender love, the sufferings, and the dying groans of the Son of God. If he endured so much to save the soul, assuredly we should not pursue a course that would tend to destroy it. If he denied himself so much to redeem, we should not, assuredly, be so fond of self-gratification as to be unwilling to abandon anything that would tend to destroy.

But when ye sin so against the brethren. This is designed further to show the evil of causing others to sin; and hence the evil which might arise from partaking of the meat offered to idols. The word sin here is to be taken in the sense of injuring, offending, leading into sin. You violate the law which requires you to love your brethren, and to seek their welfare, and thus you sin against them. Sin is properly against God; but there may be a course of injury pursued against men, or doing them injustice or wrong, and this is sin against them. Christians are bound to do right towards all.

And wound their weak conscience. The word wound here (τυπτοντες, smiting, beating) is taken in the sense of injure. Their consciences are ill-informed. They have not the knowledge which you have. And by your conduct they are led farther into error, and believe that the idol is something, and is to be honoured. They are thus led into sin, and their conscience is more and more perverted, and oppressed more and more with a sense of guilt.

Ye sin against Christ. Because,

(1.) Christ has commanded you to love them, and seek their good, and not to lead them into sin; and,

(2.) because they are so intimately united to Christ, Jn 15:1, etc., that to offend them is to offend him; to injure the members is to injure the Head; to destroy their souls is to pain his heart and to injure his cause. Mt 10:40. Comp. Lk 10:16.

(a) "But when" Mt 25:40,45

Wherefore. As the conclusion of the whole matter.

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

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

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

While the world standeth. Greek, For ever. The phrase, "I will never eat meat," would express the idea.

Lest I make, etc. Rather than lead him into sin, by my indulging in eating the meat offered in sacrifice to idols.

(b) "lest" 1Cor 9:22 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- REMARKS on 1st Corinthians Chapter 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, 1Cor 8:6. This was true of those converted from ancient heathenism, and it is true of those who are now converted from heathenism, and of all young converts. Former opinions, and prejudices, and even superstitions, abide long in the mind, and cast a long and withering influence over the regions of Christian piety. The morning dawn is at first very obscure. The change from night to daybreak is at first scarcely perceptible. And so it may be in conversion. The views which a heathen entertained from his childhood could not at once be removed. The influence of corrupt opinions and feelings, which a sinner has long indulged, may travel over in his conversion, and may long endanger his piety and destroy his peace. Corrupt and infidel thoughts, associations of pollution, cannot be destroyed at once; and we are not to expect from a child in the Christian life, the full vigour, and the elevated principle, and the strength to resist temptation, which we expect of the man matured in the service of the Lord Jesus. This should lead us to charity in regard to the imperfections and failings of young converts; to a willingness to aid and counsel them; to carefulness not to lead them into sin; and it should lead us not to expect the same amount of piety, zeal, and purity in converts from degraded heathens, which we expect in Christian lands, and where converts have been trained up under all the advantages of Sabbath-schools and Bible-classes.

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

(3.) We should not be self-confident of our wisdom, 1Cor 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 men 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, 1Cor 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 men, was one great purpose of all God's revelations; and to communicate it to men 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 heathen will fall to the dust.

(5.) Christians acknowledge one and only one Lord, 1Cor 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, 1Cor 8:9. Christians very often pursue a course of conduct which may not be in itself unlawful but which may lead others who have not their intelligence, or strength of principle, into error. One man may be safe where another man is in danger. One man may be able to resist temptations which would entirely overcome another. A course of life may, perhaps, be safe for a man of years and of mature judgment, which would be ruinous to a young man. And the grand principle here should be, not to do that, even though it may be lawful itself, which would, be the occasion of leading others into sin.

(7.) We see here the importance and the power of example, 1Cor 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 be 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 honoured 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 honour 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, 1Cor 8:13. He was willing to deny himself of any gratification, if his conduct was likely to be the occasion of leading others into sin. Even from that which was in itself lawful he would abstain for ever, if by indulgence he would be the occasion of another's falling into transgression. But how rare is this virtue! How seldom is it practised! How few Christians and Christian ministers are there who deny themselves any gratification in things in themselves right, lest they should induce others to sin. And yet this is the grand principle of Christianity; and this should influence and guide all the professed friends and followers of Christ. This principle might be applied to many things in which many Christians now freely indulge; and, if applied, would produce great and important changes in society.

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

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

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

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

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.

That is, "if a man have ever so much knowledge, yet if it be not accompanied with charity and humility, if he improve not his knowledge to the glory of God, and the good of others, he knows nothing to any saving purpose, as he ought to know."

Learn, That Christians should by no means content themselves with an empty speculative knowledge, but labour to know as they ought to know.

Observe farther, The apostle says, He that thinketh that he knoweth any thing, that is, he that is conceited of his own knowledge, that thinks of it with insolency and pride, and speaks of it with affectation and vain-glory; he who is thus conceited of his own knowledge, knows not himself, yea, he knows nothing as he ought to know.

Learn hence, That it becomes us to have very humble thoughts of ourselves, and of our own knowledge, how much soever we really know: that man's wisdom is but conceit, who is only wise in his own conceit.

Observe, The apostle doth not say, if any man know God; but, if any man love God, the same is known; that is, allowed, accepted, and approved of him. A man may know much of God in this world, and yet God may be ashamed to know him in another world; but the soul that sincerely loves God, is certainly beloved of him, and shall be owned and acknowledged by him.

Now, true love to our neighbour is a good evidence of our sincere love to God; and if we love our neighbour truly, we dare not scandalize our neighbour sinfully, nor offend our Christian brethren. Only here we must take notice, that by offending the weak, is not meant displeasing them; but by offending them, is meant laying a stumbling-block before them, which may occasion their falling into sin.

One argument which the Gnostics used to prove the lawfulness of eating things offered unto idols was this, That an idol was nothing in the world.

But how nothing? It was not materially nothing, for it was wood or stone: but formally it was nothing, it was nothing of God's creation, nothing that the idolater took it to be, there was nothing of a deity in it, and nothing of a deity could be represented by it: an idol is the vainest thing in the world, it is a mere vanity, a perfect nothing, (called therefore the vanities of the Gentiles,) it is of no worth or value, it has no power or virtue.

Some observe, That the same Hebrew word signifies both an idol, and sorrow,and labour; partly because idols are made and formed with much labour and great exactness; the wood or stone, figuratively speaking, is put to pain; you must cut it and carve it to make an idol or statute of it; partly because idols are served and worshipped with much pain and labour.

False worship is more painful than true: the service of the true God is an holy and honourable service, and noble and ingenuous service, an easy and delightful service; but the service of idols is slavish, a toil rather than worship.

Idols are troublesome both in making and worshipping, and after all the bustle made about them, an idol is nothing in the world, because there is no God but one.

Here the apostle tells them, that although the heathen idolaters acknowledged a plurality of gods, some in heaven, as the sun, moon, and stars; some on earth, as men and beasts, they having their celestial and terrestrial gods and lords; but these were only called gods, that is, gods in name, not in nature, not in reality.

Yet, says he, we Christians do own and acknowledge but one living and true God, one in nature, not one in person, to whom all our prayers must be directed; and one Mediator, by whom all our prayers are to be offered: To us there is but one God, the Father.

This text the Arians, Socinians, and Unitarians, exceedingly boast of, as if it expressly confined the Deity to the Father, as distinct from Christ and the Holy Ghost.

Thus they argue:--"He who says there is one emperor, to wit, Cesar, says in effect there is no other emperor but Cesar: so when St. Paul saith, there is one God the Father, he doth (say they) in effect declare that there is no other God besides the Father."

To this the orthodox answer, 1. "That God the Father is often put in scripture for the whole deity, comprehending the three persons; he being Fons Deitatis, and Fundamentum Trinitatis, as the schoolmen speak. So that the application of the word God here unto the Father, doth not exclude the Son from being God, but only from being the Fountain of the Deity, as the Father is.

Christ says, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Rev 1:17

Will any conclude thence, that God the Father is not Alpha and Omega? Is not he the first and the last, as well as Christ?

Again, We call our Lord Jesus the only Saviour: do we therefore exclude God the Father from being a Saviour: Is he not styled the Saviour of all men? 1Tim 4:10

Again, God the Father is called the Creator of all things: yet it is asserted that all things were created by Christ, the Word, Joh 1:2.

In short, we assert as well as they, the unity of the Godhead, and that Christ is not another God, but only another person from the Father.

We answer, 2. Their own argument may be thus retorted upon themselves: As the apostle says here, there is but one God the Father, so he adds in the next words, there is but one Lord Jesus Christ.

Now if the saying that there is but one God, doth exclude Christ from being God,, then the saying that there is but one Lord, doth exclude God the Father from being Lord; and if it be blasphemy to exclude God the Father from being Lord; it is no less to exclude Christ the Son from being God."

Know then, that as Christians have in all ages of the church acknowledged one God only, even God the Father, so have they also owned that Jesus Christ was truly God, of the substance of the Father, God of God, very God of very God. The Lord keep us stedfast in this faith! seeing he that honoureth the Son honoureth the Father that hath sent him; but he that denieth the Son denieth the Father also.

These words are brought in as a reason by the apostle why strong Christians should not eat meat offered unto idols, with respect to those that are weak; as if he had said, "Though many of you know that an idol is nothing, and that meat is neither sanctified nor polluted which is set before it, and therefore you can eat or not eat without any scruple as to yourselves, yet you should consider what is safest to be done with respect to others; for every man has not this knowledge that an idol is nothing, but some persons having a conceit of the idol's being something, eat what is offered to it as a thing offered to an idol; that is, not as common meat, but as a sacred banquet in honour of the idol; and so his conscience, being weak, that is, erroneous, is defiled."

Learn hence, That an action which is lawful in respect of ourselves, may yet be a sin if done by us with respect to others; another, encouraged by our example, may do the same act, but not do it with the same intent, as in the case before us. The sight of one Christian's eating things offered unto idols, who knows that an idol is nothing in the world, may harden, embolden, and encourage others to do the same, who really intend some honour by it to the idol: the outward action is the same, but the opinion and intention widely different.

As if the apostle had said, "It is not the eating or not eating, barely considered, that makes a man either better or worse, more or less acceptable in the sight of God, but we must take great heed lest by our example others take occasion to worship the idol; you therefore ought not so to eat as to give occasion to the fall of your weak brother."

Still the apostle holds forth this truth unto us, That such a man certainly sins, who uses his liberty so that it becomes a snare and a stumbling-block to his weak brother, by emboldening and encouraging him unto sin.

The meaning of the apostle seems to be this: If any man with an erroneous conscience goes to these feasts, and there sees thee, (who he thinks has more knowledge than himself,) sit at meat in the idol's temple, will not his conscience be the more emboldened by thy example to eat things offered to idols in the honour of the idol, or, as thinking it no hurt, to worship the idol?

And thus by occasion of thy knowledge, a weak brother is in danger of perishing, for whom Christ died. An indiscreet use of that liberty which our supposed knowledge teaches us to make use of, doth that, if we be not careful, which may be accounted a destroying of our weak brother, by causing him to fall into sin. By all which the apostle lets us know the obligation which lies upon every good Christian not to use his liberty to the prejudice of others' souls, by doing any action which may be let alone, but if done, may really become a snare to others.

The apostle goes on to show, that such an use of our Christian liberty as doth embolden and encourage others to do that which is evil, is both an act of uncharitableness towards our brother, and also an act of sin against our Lord Jesus Christ, in betraying a soul to ruin as much as in us lieth, and hindering his salvation, for the saving of whom Christ died; wounding the members of his body, defeating the great end of his death, and destroying them whom he designed to save.

Learn, 1. That Christ, in dying for the weakest believers, hath shown the highest degree of love imaginable unto them.

Learn, 2. That such as will not abate or abridge themselves of their Christian liberty, when the use of it may probably be an occasion of sin, and the ruin of their brethren's souls, do at once wound their weak brethren, and sin against Christ.

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.