Chapter 8
The apostle, in this chapter, answers another case proposed
to him by some of the Corinthians, about eating those things that had been
sacrificed to idols. I. He hints at the occasion of this case, and gives a
caution against too high an esteem of their knowledge (v. 1-3). II. He asserts
the vanity of idols, the unity of the Godhead, and the sole mediation of Christ
between God and man (v. 4-6). III. He tells them that upon supposition that it
were lawful in itself to eat of things offered to idols (for that they
themselves are nothing), yet regard must be had to the weakness of Christian
brethren, and nothing done that would lay a stumbling block before them, and
occasion their sin and destruction (v. 7 to the end).
Verses 1-3
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. 10:25. Nay, feasts, as Athenaeus informs us, were
always accounted, among the heathen, sacred and religious things, so that they
were wont to sacrifice before all their feasts; and it was accounted a very
profane thing among them, 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. 10), and here to argue, upon supposition of their
being right in this thought, against their abuse of their liberty to the
prejudice of others; but he plainly condemns such liberty in ch. 10. The
apostle introduces his discourse with some remarks about knowledge that seem to
carry in them a censure of such pretences to knowledge as I have mentioned: We
know, says the apostle, that we all have knowledge (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!
Verses 4-6
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. 4:4.
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’ exocheµn, 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 2:36. 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, Jn. 17:3.
Verses 7-13
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. 10:20, etc. 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.
60:11. 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 injury 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!
Excerpt from:
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
Matthew Henry (1662 - 1714)
Visit www.e-sword.net
and www.ccel.org
