1 Corinthians 8

NOw as touching things offered to idols 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 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 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,, we know that we all have knowledge that very many of them had good degrees of knowledge, and every one understood that an Idol was nothing:. Knowledge puffeth up 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: but charity edfieth 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..

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..

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..

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice to idols Meat which is part of that Sacrifice which has been offered to an Idol, whether it be to be eaten in the Idol-Temple, or in a private house., we know that an idol is nothing in the world 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 has its name from a word 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 that there is none other God but one 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..

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 has committed a great part of his Power unto them. Thus there are many Gods and many Lords..

But to us there is but one God 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, of whom are all things 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 for him, created for his honour and glory (as the phrase may also be translated.), and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things 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, says 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 by him And we (says the Apostle) are by the Son created, redeemed, &c..

Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge 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 does not know so much: and though the Gospel has been a long time preached amongst them, yet to this day they may have some superstitious opinion of the Idol,: 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 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..

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..

But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak The word 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 show to their neighbour..

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 shows 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 (says he) if any see thee, who, they think, hast knowledge, or who boaste 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..

And through thy knowledge Through thy knowledge in this place is by occasion of thy knowledge. God has 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 o use their knowledge therefore to the destruction of others. shall the weak brother perish By perishing is here meant, be led into sin, by acting contrary to the judgment of his own conscience; for (as the Apostle says elsewhere) He that doubteth is damned if he eateth, for whatsoever is not of faith, that is, done out of a firm persuasion in the party doing, that it is lawful, is sin. for whom Christ died 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..

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

Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend Suppose therefore it were lawful for me to eat flesh offered to Idols, yet if I cannot do it but I shall make my brother sin, I will forbear. Others understand it more generally, not of the meat before mentioned, but of all flesh, I will rather live upon bread and herbs: by which expression the Apostle does 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. I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend 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 does 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 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..