1 Corinthians 8

CHAPTER 8

1 Corinthians 8:2. δέ] is wanting in A B à, min[1287] several vss[1288] and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. Rck. and Tisch., as Griesb., too, had recommended. Added for the sake of connection, as was also γάρ (after the first οὔτε) in 1 Corinthians 8:8, which is omitted likewise in A B à 17, al[1289]

ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ] It is true that A B D E F G à, min[1290] Clem. Nyss. Theodoret, Damasc. have ἐγνωκέναι (recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch.); but what goes before it and what follows make it clear that ἘΓΝ. is a gloss. The reading ΕἾΝΑΙ, too, in 39, 91, 109, tells in favour of ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ.

ΟὐΔΈΠΩΟὐΔῈΝἜΓΝΩΚΕ] Lachm. and Rück. have ΟὔΠΩἜΓΝΩ, which was recommended by Griesb. in accordance with testimony of very considerable weight, in substance the same as that in favour of ἘΓΝΩΚΈΝΑΙ instead of ΕἸΔΈΝΑΙ. But the peculiarity of the emphatic Recept[1291] does not show the hand of a gloss-writer. What has taken place has rather been the reduction of the original reading to the simple ΟὔΠΩἜΓΝΩ, at first, perhaps, by omitting the superfluous ΟὐΔΈΝ, all the more readily that it was preceded by ΟὐΔΈΠΩ, whereupon ἜΓΝΩΚΕ became transformed into ἜΓΝΩ, either from the next word beginning with K, or by the influence of the inf. ΓΝῶΝΑΙ which follows, while ΟὐΔΈΠΩ was displaced, as in many other cases (John 7:39; Luke 23:53; Acts 8:16), by the more familiar ΟὔΠΩ.—1 Corinthians 8:4. ἝΤΕΡΟς] is wanting in A B D E F G à* min[1292], with several vss[1293] and Fathers. Condemned by Mill and Griesb., deleted by Lachm. and Rck. But why should any one have added ἝΤΕΡΟς? That it should be omitted, on the other hand, was all the more likely, because the word seemed superfluous, and might even appear offensive (“there is no other God but one” might by possibility mean: “there is but one other God”).—1 Corinthians 8:7. τῇσυνειδήσει] Lachm. and Rück. read ΤῇΣΥΝΗΘΕΊᾼ, with A B à, some min[1294] Copt.

Bashm. Aeth. Syr. p[1295] (on the margin) Damasc. Approved also by Griesb. and Rinck. ΤῇΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙ, however, as the more difficult reading, should be retained. See also Reiche, Comment. crit. I. p. 200 ff.

It was noted on the margin how the συνείδησιςτοῦεἰδώλου arose, namely, by ΤῇΣΥΝΗΘΕΊᾼ, and then this phrase easily crept into the place of the original Τ. ΣΥΝΕΙΔ.

It is preferable, however, to put ἝΩςἌΡΤΙ before ΤΟῦΕἸΔΏΛΟΥ (Lachm. Rück. Tisch.), with B D E F G à 31, 37, 116, and several vss[1296] and Fathers; in the Recept[1297] we have transposition in the interest of the construction.—1 Corinthians 8:8. ΠΑΡΊΣΤΗΣΙ] A B à, min[1298] Copt. Bashm. Clem. Origen (twice), Athan. Cyr. Damasc. have παραστήσει. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. Rightly; the presents which follow gave rise to the same tense here. ΣΥΝΊΣΤΗΣΙ, which has but weak support, is a gloss.

There is considerable evidence (especially A B à) in favour of omitting the ΓΆΡ, and putting the negative clause first in what follows (Lachm. Tisch.). The transcriber would have a mechanical inclination to place the positive half of the statement first.—1 Corinthians 8:9. There is decisive evidence for reading ἈΣΘΕΝΈΣΙΝ instead of the Recept[1299] ἀσθενοῦσιν.—1 Corinthians 8:11. καὶἀπολεῖται] In place of καί, A has οὖν after the verb (so Rück.), while B à* 17, Copt. Bashm. Goth.

Clem. have γάρ, which is adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The last of the three readings is the true one; γάρ not being understood, was explained in some cases by καί, in others by οὖν. Instead of ἀπολεῖται, read with Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. ἀπόλλυται, on the authority of A B D* à, several min[1300] Copt. Goth. Clem.

Bas. Antioch. Chrys. Theodoret, and Damasc. The future arises from a mechanical alteration of the text after οἰκοδομηθ.

ἀδελφός] Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. have ὁἀδελφός after γνώσει, which has conclusive evidence in its favour. The Recept[1301] originated in a mistaken attempt to help out the construction.

ἐπί] Lachm. Rück. and Tisch. read ἐν, which is supported by decisive testimony.

[1287] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1288] ss. vss. = versions.

[1289] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1290] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1291] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1292] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1293] ss. vss. = versions.

[1294] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1295] yr. p. Philoxenian Syriac.

[1296] ss. vss. = versions.

[1297] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1298] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1299] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1300] in. codices minusculi, manuscripts in cursive writing. Where these are individually quoted, they are marked by the usual Arabic numerals, as 33, 89.

[1301] ecepta Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

.

To eat flesh offered to idols is a thing morally indifferent for all who understand rightly what an idol is (1 Corinthians 8:1-6). Still, for the sake of those who are more weak, we should refrain from so eating, if it is a stumbling-block to them (1 Corinthians 8:7-13).

1 Corinthians 8:1-3

1 Corinthians 8:1-3. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to γνῶσινἔχομεν.

The article turns the abstract γνῶσις into a noun appellative.

The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (1 Corinthians 4:6, 1 Corinthians 5:2); but the love (to the brethren; comp Romans 14:14-15) edifieth (1 Corinthians 10:23), furthers the progress of the church (viewed as οἰκοδομὴΘεοῦ, see 1 Corinthians 3:9) towards Christian perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary ἡγεμονικόν to the effectively sympathetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp chap. 13, especially 1 Corinthians 8:4.—1 Corinthians 8:2-3 explain the preceding statement, both from the wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love to God.

Since the γνῶσις in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (1 Corinthians 3:18), Paul characterizes here what he before designated by ἡγνῶσις as a δοκεῖνεἰδέναιτι; and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of believers, he now characterizes the former as ἀγαπᾶντὸνΘεόν. One can hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles.

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

οὐδέπωκ.τ.λ[1311]] he knows nothing at all as yet in such a way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character. In order to the γνῶναικαθὼςδεῖ we must of necessity have love, which regulates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically salutary. Comp 1 Corinthians 13:2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luke 23:53; John 19:41; Acts 8:16), comp Schömann, a[1314] Is. p. 469; Stallbaum, a[1315] Plat. Crat. p. 398 E).—1 Corinthians 8:3. ΟὟΤΟς] with emphasis: he, to the exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge.

ἔγνωσταιὑπʼ αὐτοῦ] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: “God recognises Himself in him;” but it means simply: this man is known by Him. The statement is a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete by saying: “it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the true sense, but also that he is known of God,” the apostle states simply the latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The ἔγνωσταιὑπʼ αὐτοῦ shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accordance with its holiness; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. The idea, therefore, is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis,[1316] so that God in thus knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was purposed in His own counsel, Psalms 1:6; Galatians 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:19. Comp Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 258 ff.

See also on 1 Corinthians 13:12. Other interpreters supply the thought ut suum discipulum (Erasmus) or inter filios (Calvin), and the like. Comp Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 283. But that is to insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est (Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, al[1319], following Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 762).

But this is as much against linguistic usage (see on Romans 7:15) as Augustine’s edoctus est (so, too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nösselt, Rosenmüller, Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a Hophal. Olshausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, which demands the simple conception of knowing; he finds in γινώσκειν (as in ידע, see on Matthew 1:25) the bridal (?) relation of the soul to God.

[1311] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

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

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

[1316] Comp. Constit. ap. v. 16. 3 : μὴγιγνώσκοντεςΘεὸνδιὰτοῦκηρύγματοςπιστεύσαντεςἔγνωτεαὐτόν, μᾶλλονδὲἐγνώσθητεὑπʼ αὐτοῦδιὰἸησοῦτοῦσωτῆροςκ. λυτρωτοῦτῶνἐλπιζόντωνἐπʼ αὐτόν.

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

1 Corinthians 8:4

1 Corinthians 8:4. Οὖν] igitur, takes up again the interrupted statement (1 Corinthians 8:1); comp 1 Corinthians 11:20, and see on Mark 3:31, and Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177.

τῆςβρώσ. τ. εἰδ.] more precise definition of the indefinite ΤῶΝΕἸΔΩΛΟΘ., 1 Corinthians 8:1. There is no reason any more than formerly for writing ΟἼΔΑΜΕΝ here as ΟἾΔΑΜΈΝ with Hofmann.

ὍΤΙΟὐΔῈΝΕἸΔΩΛ. ἘΝΚΌΣΜῼ] that there is not an idol in the world. Paul’s meaning here is not: what the heathen adore as gods is something absolutely without existence (see, on the contrary, 1 Corinthians 8:5; 1 Corinthians 10:20); but: no heathen god exists as the being which the heathen supposes him to be; and so there is no adequate reality, corresponding to the heathen conception of a god Jupiter, Apollo, etc. Most of the old interpreters, with the Vulgate, Luther, and Beza (also more recently, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Heydenreich), took οὐδέν to mean nihil: “that an idol is a nonentity.” Comp Jeremiah 10:3; Isaiah 41:24, al[1322], Addit. to Esther 4:8; Sanhedr. f. 63. 2 : “Noverant utique Israelitae, idolum nihil esse.” Comp also Joseph. Antt. viii. 13. 6. But this must be held incorrect, seeing that ἐντ. κόσμῳ does not harmonize with it, and because of the parallel expression ΟὐΔΕῚςΘΕΌς.

ΚΑῚὍΤΙΟὐΔΕῚςΚ.Τ.Λ[1324]] and that there is no other God but one. The εἰμή refers simply to οὐδεὶςΘεός, not to ἕτερος. see on Galatians 1:19.

[1322] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1324] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

1 Corinthians 8:5-6. Confirmatory elucidation of the preceding statement ὅτιοὐδὲνεἴδωλον … εἰμὴεἶς.

1 Corinthians 8:6

1 Corinthians 8:6. Apodosis: yet have we Christians but one God, the Father, etc. Therefore: οἴδαμενὅτιοὐδὲνεἴδωλονκ.τ.λ[1335] The ἘΣΤΊΝ to be supplied after ἩΜῖΝ is the simple verb substantive.

ἈΛΛʼ] as in 1 Corinthians 4:15.

ΘΕῸςὉΠΑΤΉΡ] might be taken together here as forming one conception, like ΚύριοςὁΘεός (Fritzsche, a[1336] Matt. p. 168); it agrees better, however, with the ΕἿςΚΎΡΙΟςἸ. Χ. which follows, to understand ὉΠΑΤΉΡ as in apposition to ΘΕΌς and defining it more precisely. By ὉΠΑΤΉΡ, and the relative definitions of it which follow, the ΕἿςΘΕΌς has its specific character assigned to it, and that in such a way as to make the reader feel, from the relation of the One God to the world, and from his own relation to Him, how the Christian, despite that plurality of gods, comes to rest in the thought of the unity of God, and how idols are with him put out of account altogether. Comp Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 348.

ὁπατήρ] in the Christian sense, according to the idea of the υἱοθεσία of Christians. Romans 8:15; Galatians 3:26.

ἘΞΟὟΤᾺΠΆΝΤΑ] as to primary origin. see on Romans 11:36.

ΚΑῚἩΜΕῖςΕἸςΑὐΤΌΝ] i.e. and we Christians are destined to serve His purposes: He is our End. Here again, after the καί, we have the deviation from the relative construction, common with the apostle from his preference for direct address. Comp on 1 Corinthians 7:13. Bernhardy, p. 304. It is arbitrary to take ΕἸς in such a narrow sense as is given to it by Piscator, Grotius, Rosenmüller, al[1339]: for God’s honour; but positively incorrect to take it for ἘΝ, with Beza, Calvin, and others; or for ἘΞ, with Schulz, Heydenreich, and Pott. Billroth interprets it in Hegelian fashion: “that man should be towards God, should return into Him as his First Cause, not remain for himself.” This has only a seeming likeness to Augustine’s “Fecisti me ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat in te,” Conf. i. 1. Olshausen, following older expositors (Calovius, Estius, al[1340]), finds the Trinity here also (comp on Romans 11:36), which is obviously wrong, were it only for this reason, that we have neither one subject alone named in this passage (as at least in Rom. loc. cit.), nor three, but two.[1342] He holds, with Billroth (comp also Neander), that the ΕἸς refers to the agency of the Holy Spirit in bringing all back to its primary origin.[1344]

διʼ οὗτὰπάντα] does not apply to the new moral creation (Grotius, Stolz, Pott), and consequently cannot include all that is involved in redemption and atonement (Baur, neut. Theol. p. 193), which is clearly against the sense of the preceding τὰπάντα; but it means that Jesus Christ, in His pre-mundane existence, as the Son of God (not as the Ideal Man or the like), as πρωτότοκοςπάσηςκτίσεως (in John’s phrase, as Λόγος), was He through whom[1345] God brought about the creation of the world. see on Colossians 1:15 ff. Comp John 1:3. Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 315 ff.; Räbiger, Christol. Paul. p. 29 ff.; Hahn, Theol. d. N.

T. § 85; Lechler, p. 51 f.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 318. Philo calls the λόγος the ὄργανον, διʼ οὗκατεσκευάσθη (ὁκόσμος). See de Cherub. I. p. 162. In Romans 11:36, διʼ οὗ is said of God, and the reference is therefore of a different kind than here.

καὶἡμεῖςδιʼ αὐτοῦ] is not to be referred to the physical creation (Rückert); for the idea thus elicited would not only be tame and obvious of itself, but also out of keeping with what has previously been stated of God, the second clause in which, κ. ἡμεῖςεἰςαὐτόν, adds a different, namely, an ethical relation. The reference here is to the new creation of believers (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15); this is effected by God through Christ, who, as in the physical creation, is the causa medians. Just as we Christians have but one God, the true Creator, whose designs: we serve; so, too, we have but one Lord, the true Mediator, to whom all things owe their being, and we our Christian existence, that which we are as Christians. This “one God and one Lord” shuts out the whole heathen gods as such, so far as the Christian consciousness is concerned.

[1335] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

[1336] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1339] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1340] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1342] Hence we find, in some of the later codd. and Fathers, additional clauses respecting the Spirit, namely, καὶἓνπνεῦμαἅγιον, ἐνᾧτὰπάντακ. ἡμεῖςἐναὐτῷ, and: καὶἕνπνεῦμαἅγ. διʼ οὗπάντα. But so early an expositor as Chrysostom remarks expressly that the Spirit is not mentioned here.

[1344] In order to bring out the “all” (Romans 11:36), Olshausen affirms: “Insomuch as the church is destined to receive all men into it, and insomuch as it exerts a reflex restorative influence even upon the κτίσις (Romans 8:19 ff.), those who believe are equivalent to things as a whole.” An instance—to be taken as a warning—of exegetical subjectivity in the interest of dogmatic preconception.

[1345] Not ἐξοὗ, which holds only of the Father, although εἰςὅν could be said of the Son also (comp. Colossians 1:16).

1 Corinthians 8:7

1 Corinthians 8:7. “We know that there is no idol, etc.; however, this γνῶσις that we speak of (ἡ) is not in all; but doubtless (the δέ as in 1 Corinthians 7:37, and very often—so 1 Corinthians 8:9—after a negative clause) there are many who,” etc.

τῇσυνειδήσειἕωςἄρτιτοῦεἰδώλου] in virtue of their conscience till now regarding the idol, i.e. through this, that their moral consciousness is still burdened with the conception of an actual existence of the heathen gods as such. The opposite of the συνείδησιςτοῦεἰδώλου is: οἴδαμεν, ὅτιοὐδὲνεἴδωλονἐνκόσμῳ, 1 Corinthians 8:4. Because those who are weak in the faith have not risen to this conviction, but still remain under the belief that the idols really exist, therefore they eat the meat offered to idols as meat offered to idols, i.e. their conception in eating it is, not that it is the same as other meat, and consequently to be partaken of without scruple and without receiving any idolatrous defilement, but that it is really meat consecrated to an idol which is assumed to exist, and hence that to eat of it is sinful.

συνείδησις[1347]] means simply conscience (neither judicium, as many maintain, nor obscure conception, as Schulz would have it; Billroth’s rendering is better, though still inexact: “conviction that there are εἴδωλα;” so also Reiche, Maier), and ΤΟῦΕἸΔΏΛΟΥ is the object of the moral consciousness, the article indicating the idol in a generic way. As to the gen. with συνείδ., comp Hebrews 10:2; 1 Peter 2:19; so also frequently in Greek writers. The context shows what the relation is as regards meaning (here it is that which is inherent in the consciousness as its contents).

ἝΩςἌΡΤΙ] marks off the time more sharply than “always as yet” (Hofmann), which would be ἜΤΙ; it means, “up to this very hour” (1 Corinthians 4:13, 1 Corinthians 15:6, and in all other passages). Taking the usual order of the words, it would most naturally attach itself to ἐσθίουσι; but since the place which on critical grounds must be assigned to it is before ΕἸΔΏΛΟΥ (see the critical remarks), it must be joined to ΤῇΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙ. We might have expected ΤῇἝΩςἌΡΤΙΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙΤΟῦΕἸΔΏΛΟΥ or ΤῇΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙΤΟῦΕἸΔΏΛΟΥΤῇἝΩςἌΡΤΙ; even in Greek authors, however, one finds adverbial attributives used in this loose adjectival way without any connecting article; and Paul himself in other places employs this mode of expression (see on 1 Corinthians 12:28; 2 Corinthians 11:23; Philippians 1:26; Galatians 1:13).

It is an artificial construction, and without sufficient ground, to supply a second ΣΥΝΕΙΔΉΣΕΙ (without the article) after ΤῇΣΥΝΕΙΔ., and connect ἝΩςἌΡΤΙΤΟῦΕἸΔΏΛΟΥ with this.

ἈΣΘΕΝῊςΟὖΣΑ] because it is weak; for were it strong, it would no longer have suffered itself to be morally bound by the conception of idols, and hence would not have been defiled (made conscious of guilt) by eating, because in that case the eating would be ἐκπίστεως (Romans 14:23). ΜΟΛΎΝΕΙΝ (comp 2 Corinthians 7:1), of ethical defilement; also in Sir 21:28; Porphyr. de Abstin. i. 42; Synesius, Ephesians 5. Comp Titus 1:15: ΜΙΑΊΝΕΙΝ. Observe there the two sides of the conscience: it was weak to begin with, and afterwards it is defiled as well.

[1347] See generally, besides von Zezschwitz (Profangräcit. pp. 52 ff., 75), Köhler, Schriftgemässe Lehre vom Gew., 1864; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 133 ff.; Lindes, de vi et ratione συνειδήσεως ex. N. T., Lund, 1866; R. Hofmann, Lehre vom Gew., Leipz. 1866.

NOTE.

The ἕωςἄρτι, which points back to their state before conversion, puts it beyond question that the weak brethren are not to be conceived of as Jewish-Christians, but as Gentiles, whose conscience was still burdened with the belief, brought with them from the heathen period of their lives, that the idol was a divine reality. They must have supposed the idols to be subordinate divine being (not demons, as Neander thought, which, according to 1 Corinthians 10:20, would have been the correct conception), from whose worship they had been brought to that of the one Supreme God; so that they could not look upon the consumption of sacrificial flesh as a mere harmless eating of meat, but had their conscience always hampered with the thought that by so eating they were brought into contact with those idol-deities. Theophylact puts it rightly (comp Chrysostom): ἮΣΑΝΓᾺΡΠΟΛΛΟῚἘΞΕἸΔΩΛΟΛΑΤΡΊΑςΤῇΠΊΣΤΕΙΠΡΟΣΕΛΘΌΝΤΕςΟἻἝΩςἌΡΤΙ, ΤΟΥΤΈΣΤΙΚΑῚΜΕΤᾺΤῸΠΙΣΤΕῦΣΑΙ, ΤᾺΕἸΔΩΛΌΘΥΤΑἘΣΘΊΟΥΣΙΝὨςΕἸΔΩΛΌΘΥΤΑ. Theodoret says: ΟὐΧἩΒΡῶΣΙςΜΟΛΎΝΕΙ, ἉΛΛᾺἩΣΥΝΕΊΔΗΣΙςΤῊΝΤΕΛΕΊΑΝΟὐΔΕΞΑΜΈΝΗΓΥῶΣΙΝ, ἜΤΙΔῈΤῇΠΛΆΝῌΤῶΝΕἸΔΏΛΩΝΚΑΤΕΧΟΜΈΝΗ. This in opposition to the common view, that the weak brethren are to be sought among the Petrine party. Schenkel even goes the length of explaining the name of that party from the abstinence of the members from sacrificial flesh; therein they held strictly, he thinks, to the Apostolic Council, whose decree had been arrived at specially through the influence of Peter (?). The correct view, that the weak brethren were Gentile-Christians, is advocated also by Hofmann, and finds expression in Lachmann’s reading of συνηθείᾳ.

1 Corinthians 8:8

1 Corinthians 8:8 f. This is not an objection urged by the Corinthians in defence of their eating meat offered to idols, which is then followed, in 1 Corinthians 8:9, by the apostle’s reply (Calvin, Pareus, Mosheim, Zachariae, Pott, Heydenreich, Billroth); for here, too, we have no formula to mark that an objection is being adduced, and those who ate the sacrificial flesh would in their interest have required to write: οὔτεἐὰνμὴφάγωμεν, περισσεύομεν, οὔτεἐὰνφάγωμεν, ὑστερούμεθα. No, Paul is now going on (the advance being indicated by δέ) to show what regard should be paid to those weaker brethren: “Now, food is not the determining element in the Christian’s relation to God; to abstain from it does no harm, and to partake of it gives no advantage (see the critical remarks). Therefore (1 Corinthians 8:9) ye ought not to make yourselves a cause of stumbling to the weak through your liberty to eat sacrificial flesh.” If food were not a thing indifferent,—if abstinence from it brought loss, and partaking of it blessing with God,—then it would be our duty not thus to adapt ourselves to the weak.

οὐπαραστήσει] it will not (in any case which may arise; future) present us to God; non exhibebit nos Deo, i.e. it will not affect the position of our moral character in the judgment of God, either for the worse or for the better. We have thus a description of an adiaphoron in its relation to God. Comp Bengel, Osiander, Hofmann. Most interpreters take the word in the sense of commendabit, or, keeping by the Rec[1353] ΠΑΡΊΣΤΗΣΙ, commendat, as if it were συνιστήσει or ΣΥΝΊΣΤΗΣΙ. This is untenable according to the rules of the language; and it is illogical besides, for both the cases which follow οὔτε … οὔτε are included under the collective conception, ΟὐΠΑΡΑΣΤ. Τ. ΘΕῷ.[1354]

ὑστερούμ.] do we come short, do we lack anything in our relation to God. The opposite of this (comp Philippians 4:12) is περισσ.: we have an overflowing abundance, something more than mere sufficiency in our relation to God; τουτέστινεὐδοκιμοῦμενπαρὰτῷΘεῷὡςἀγαθόντιποιήσαντεςκαὶμέγα, Chrysostom.

βλέπετεδέ] The δέ, now then, introduces what is their positive duty, as contrasted with the foregoing negative state of the case.

πρόσκομμα] stumbling, i.e. occasion to act contrary to conscience. Comp Romans 14:13.

[1353] ec. Textus receptus, or lectio recepta (Elzevir).

[1354] This holds also against the modification which Valckenaer, Rückert, and de Wette have made upon the ordinary view: “does not bring us near to God, does not put us into a position to appear before Him.” Comp. Theophylact: οὐκοἰκειοῖἡμᾶςτῷΘεῷ.

1 Corinthians 8:10

1 Corinthians 8:10. Τίς] any such weak brother, namely.

τὸνἔχονταγνῶσιν] quippe qui cognitionem habes, in significant apposition to σέ. It is just this, which the weaker believer knows respecting the stronger, that leads him astray.

ἐνεἰδωλείῳκατατκείμενον] Their liberal-mindedness went, it seems, so far that they even reclined at table in idol-temples with those who held the sacrificial feasts there. The absolute prohibition of this abuse of liberty (which follows afterwards in 1 Corinthians 10:14-22) would not have come in suitably here, where the connection of itself naturally led the apostle simply to point out in the way of warning the bearing of such conduct upon the weak.

Instances of the use of εἰδωλεῖον—which does not occur in profane writers—from the LXX. and the Apocrypha, may be seen in Schleusner, Thes. II. p. 246. See also Eustath. a[1357] Od. vi. p. 263. 17. In the Fragm. Soph. 152 (Dind.), the true reading is ἑδώλια.

οἰκοδομηθήσεται] is neither a vox media (Clericus, Elsner, Wolf, al[1358]), nor does it mean impelletur (Castalio, Kypke, Hermann, Stolz, al[1359]) or confirmabitur (Syr[1360], Grotius, Zachariae, Schulz, Billroth), but as always in the N. T.: will be built up, advanced in a Christian frame of mind, so as to eat (εἰςτὸἐσθ). To be brought to eat sacrificial flesh while one is weak (ἀσθων. ὄντος, opposite of γνῶσινἔχειν), is, as Calvin rightly expresses it, a ruinosa aedificatio, seeing that the foundation which it ought to have, the πίστις, is wanting. We have here, therefore, an ironically significant antiphrasis; without the ἀσθ. ὄντος it might be a case of a real οἰκοδομεῖσθαι; things being as they are, however, it can be so only in appearance, and, in reality, it is the very opposite.[1361] Egregie aedificabitur! The hypothesis (Storr, Opusc. II. p. 275 f.; Rosenmüller, Flatt, comp Neander), that Paul borrows the word from the letter of the Corinthians to him (in which they had said that by partaking of sacrificial flesh people edify the weak), and gives it back to them in an antiphrastic way, cannot be established, and is unnecessary.

[1357] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1358] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1359] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[1360] yr. Peschito Syriac

[1361] Wetstein compares with this the passage in Nedarim, f. 40. 1 : “Si dixerint tibi juniores aedifica, et seniores demolire, audi seniores et non audi juniores, quia aedificatio juniorum est demolitio, et demolitio seniorum est aedificatio.”

1 Corinthians 8:11

1 Corinthians 8:11. Ἀπόλλυται (“terrificum verbum,” Clarius) γάρ unfolds the meaning of the antiphrastic element of the preceding οἰκοδ., the γάρ introducing the answer (Hartung, I. p. 477; Klotz, a[1363] Devar. p. 240; Baeumlein, Part. p. 72), in which the apostle’s irony loses itself in the deep earnestness which underlies it: he is in truth utterly ruined, etc.

ἀπόλλυται is meant here, as in Romans 14:15, of destruction κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the eternal ἀπώλεια to which a man becomes liable when he falls from the life of faith into that of sin through violation of his conscience. see on Romans 14:15. Billroth, indeed, holds the γάρ here to be quite inexplicable, unless we take ἀπόλλ. simply in the sense of is led astray (but see the critical remarks); while Rückert declares the γάρ utterly useless. Nevertheless, ἀπόλλυταικ.τ.λ[1364] makes it clear and unmistakeable how the case stands with the preceding ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΗΘ., so that ΓΆΡ is logically correct.

ἘΝΤῇΣῇΓΝΏΣΕΙ] belongs to ἈΠΟΛΛ.: by means of thy knowledge, so that it, through the use thou hast made of it, has occasioned this destruction. Ἐπί (see the critical remarks) would be: upon thy knowledge, so that it was the ground of what took place.

ὁἀδελφ. διʼ ὃνΧ. ἀπ.] a weighty twofold motive for not bringing about such a result. Comp Romans 14:15. The ΔΙʼ ὋΝΧ. ἈΠ. is frustrated by the ἀπολλ.! Comp 1 Corinthians 8:12. Bengel says well in reference to ΔΙʼ ὍΝ: “ut doceamur, quid nos fratrum causa debeamus.” Respecting διά, comp Romans 4:25.

[1363] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[1364] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.

1 Corinthians 8:12

1 Corinthians 8:12. Οὕτω] When ye sin against the brethren in this way, as described in 1 Corinthians 8:10-11.

καί] and especially.

τύπτοντες] in substance the same thing as μολύνοντες in 1 Corinthians 8:7, only expressed by a different metaphor, which makes the cruelty of the procedure more apparent. What befits a weak conscience is forbearance, not that it should morally receive blows, should be smitten through offence done to it as with a wounding weapon (Hom. Il. xix. 125; Herod, iii. 64; Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 5; Proverbs 26:22), so that now, instead of being but a weak, it becomes a bad conscience.

αὐτῶν] put first because correlative to the εἰςΧριστόν which follows; in the latter is finally concentrated the whole heinousness of the offence.

1 Corinthians 8:13

1 Corinthians 8:13. Comp Romans 14:21. The classic ΔΙΌΠΕΡ, for that very reason (because the offence in question is such a heinous one), meets us with certainty in the N. T only here and 1 Corinthians 10:14.

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

ΟὐΜῊΦΆΓΩ] “Accommodat suae personae, ut facilius persuadeat,” Piscator. The expression is not by way of exhortation, but of assurance, “then I will certainly not eat,” etc. Τοῦτοὡςδιδάσκαλοςἄριστοςτὸδιʼ ἑαυτοῦπαιδεύεινἃλέγει, Chrysostom.

ΕἸςΤ. ΑἸῶΝΑ] to all eternity, nevermore; hyperbolical mode of expressing the most thorough readiness. Comp as regards the idea, Romans 14:21.

ἽΝΑΜῊΚ.Τ.Λ[1370]] For this is what I should bring about, if he holds the flesh which I eat to be sacrificial flesh (1 Corinthians 8:9). Observe the emphatic repetition of the words, and the different order in which σκανδαλ. and τ. ἀδελφ. μ. are placed.

That the maxim here enunciated cannot be an universal rule in adiaphoris, has been pointed out already by Erasmus. Comp Galatians 2:5 with 1 Corinthians 9:19 ff. and Acts 16:3. It does not hold, when the truth of the gospel comes to be at stake. Comp Galatians 2:14.

[1370] .τ.λ. καὶτὰλοιπά.