1 Corinthians 8
LenskiCHAPTER VIII
The Fourth Part of the Letter
Food Offered to Idols, 8:1–11:1
We may divide this part into four sections:
I. Love for the Weak, chapter 8.
II. Paul, an Illustration of Love, chapter 9.
III. Old Testament Examples and the Lord’s Supper in Warning, 10:1–22.
IV. Conduct in Detail, 10:23–11:1.
The phrase Concerning Offerings to Idols, which begins this part of Paul’s letter, stands out as a caption even more decidedly than the similar headings found in 7:1, 25, for it is scarcely in any way connected with the first sentence. This part, then, deals with Food Offered to Idols. Paul answers the inquiries submitted to him through the letter from Corinth.
Questions regarding these meats were certainly in order. The pagan temple rituals, many state occasions, festivals of various kinds of societies, the lives of families and of individuals, all involved sacrifices to the gods and the participation of larger or smaller circles in the feasts connected with these rituals. The desire to participate in such feasts as well as the obligations of family connections or of friendship raised the question as to how far a Christian might go in this regard.
A part of the animal was burned on the pagan altar, the rest was prepared for the feast that followed. Meat that was not consumed at the feast would be taken home and eaten there, and a Christian who was invited to dine with a pagan family might have such meat set before him. Meat that was left over from idol feasts also found its way into the butcher shops and was sold there like ordinary meat. Yet the claim that all butchering had a ritualistic feature goes too far. This is true only with reference to far earlier times. Only the term ἱερεῖα survived from these earlier times, but it came to mean only animals to be butchered.
Imported meat, game, and in Corinth especially fish, were naturally unconnected with heathen gods and their altars. During the ordinary butchering of animals for the regular sale of meat the butcher did, perhaps, cast a few hairs that were taken from the animal’s brow into the flames, but perhaps he neglected even this. The term εἰδωλόθυτον, “idol offering,” is the Christian designation, the pagan term would be ἱερόθυτον, “sacred offering.”
I. Love for the Weak, chapter 8
1 Corinthians 8:1
1 Paul begins: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The Corinthians, it seems, had made a statement in their letter to Paul to the effect that they were all duly informed in regard to idols and idol meats. Paul replies that that is correct, “we,” both you and I, know that we have knowledge, in fact, we “all” know it. The content of this knowledge he will mention presently although the caption already intimates that it is knowledge about idol meats. We should not, however, miss the peculiar stress which he places on this knowing and this knowledge: “We know that we all have knowledge.” One can be too conscious of his knowledge.
Thus knowledge itself may mislead. It is good in itself, but one must know how to use it, with what to combine it, or he will still go wrong. The Corinthians, it seems, sought to solve their difficulties by means of their knowledge alone. Here Paul begins his correction.
“Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” Without question, ignorance is a great handicap. The church cannot praise ignorance or make ignorance a principle of its work and reduce either its doctrine or its practice to the level of the ignorant. We must, therefore, have knowledge and must dispense it in order to dispel ignorance everywhere. Yet knowledge alone or knowledge unduly stressed proves dangerous. It tends to puff up, to make a man proud when he is comparing himself with others. This is true with regard even to Christian men. In the case of our present-day scientists we see knowledge and what passes for knowledge rise to the height of arrogance.
Something else is needed in addition to knowledge, something that will enable us to employ our knowledge aright, namely love, love to God (v. 3), which naturally includes love to our fellow Christians, the power that impels us to serve the true interest of our brethren. This love “builds up” or “edifies.” Instead of fostering pride in our own hearts and puffing us up, love considers others, aids them in strengthening their spiritual life and in protecting it from danger. The article with γνῶσις merely refers back to this term which is found in the preceding sentence while the article with ἀγάπη is only the article which a Greek abstract noun may or may not have.
1 Corinthians 8:2
2 The statements regarding knowledge and regarding love are now advanced to greater clearness. If one thinks he knows anything, not yet does he know as he ought to know; but if one loves God, he is known by God. While this may suffice as an ordinary translation it fails to bring out the force of the tenses used in the original. “If one thinks he has come to know and thus still knows (perfect tense) anything, not yet did he actually get to know (aorist) as he ought actually to know (aorist); but if he continues to love (present, durative) God, he has come to be known and is thus still known (perfect) by God.”
Paul has in mind two actual, contrasting cases, hence he uses two conditions of reality and thus describes what he means in a concrete way. He would say: Look at these two concrete examples. One is that of a man who came to know something in the past and is sure that he still knows it. Consider this matter of idols and of idol meats; he may have learned and thus still know the facts about both. If, however, he stopped with this he never really came to know when he acquired his knowledge about these matters in the past in the way (καθώς) he really ought to know these matters. His lack does not lie in the facts or in the amount of his acquired knowledge—these may be quite complete; one cannot charge him with ignorance. His lack lies in the manner of his knowing, and this is a serious lack, indeed.
1 Corinthians 8:3
3 Now consider the other concrete case. Here is a man who is filled with continual love to God, the love (ἀγάπη, ἀγαπᾶν) of true understanding and true purpose toward God (not mere affection for God). We might expect Paul to say: Here is a man who loves his brethren with the love of true understanding and Christian purpose, he knows in the right way as one ought really to know. But this would be stopping at the halfway station. For the love of the brethren must always be the outflow of love to God. Hence Paul at once reaches out to our love to God.
This man, Paul says, has been and thus is still known by God. Here Paul again leaps over the intermediate point that this man knows in the right manner, which is true enough as far as it goes but does not go far enough by half. So Paul reaches out to the ultimate point: this man has been and thus is known of God. Here, then, is the γνῶσις that really counts, one that is not mere knowledge, however correct and extensive, but one that is united with and permeated by love to God, the love of true understanding and true purpose. In regard to the questions at issue among the Corinthians, Paul would say: “What is the use of mere knowledge in trying to solve these perplexing questions about idol meats? Mere knowledge gets you nowhere with your brethren or with God.
Only a knowledge that is permeated with love, love that rises to God, will make him acknowledge us and our knowledge as his own. With such a γνῶσις we can solve these questions about meats offered to idols.”
Here we meet the use of γινώσκειν in the sense that is frequently found in the New Testament (for instance Matt. 7:23; John 10:14): noscere cum affectu et effectu, a knowing which acknowledges the person known, knowing as one’s own with the affection of love and with the effect of blessing. What is the value of our knowing, even our knowledge of God in contrast with idols, if in the end God does not know us as his own?
1 Corinthians 8:4
4 After the explanation regarding knowledge the resumptive οὗν takes up the original question in regard to idols and idol meats. The question itself is first restated and made more specific: Concerning the Eating of Idol Offerings, this περί phrase is again in the nature of a caption as in v. 1. May a Christian at such meat or may he not? The knowledge regarding this matter with which the Corinthians seem to have been satisfied is now clearly and fully formulated. We know that there is no idol in the world, and that there is no God save one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven, whether on earth, even as there are gods many and lords many, nevertheless for us there is one God the Father, of whom are all things and we for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him. “We know,” Paul writes as if to say: “There is no difference of opinion between us in regard to these simple facts. They belong to the elements of Christian knowledge.”
We translate: “There is no idol in the world,” just as we translate: “There is no God save one”; for οὑδέν is not the predicate: “an idol is nothing,” A. V., but modifies εἴδωλον just as οὑδείς modifies Θεός. The world, of course, contains many images that are called “idols” such as those of Jupiter, Mercury, Apollo, Venus, etc., but nowhere do beings exist that correspond to these images; such reputed beings are simply non-existent. What kind of beings are in fact connected with these images and idols Paul tells us later, namely demons. Here he deals only with the “knowledge” voiced by the Corinthians. “No God save one (God)” constitutes the exception, and εἷς is the numeral. The oneness of God is numerical in the mathematical sense.
1 Corinthians 8:5
5 This point of knowledge regarding the non-existence of idol beings and the existence of the one true God, which is shared by Paul and by the Corinthians, is so important that Paul amplifies it with an explanation (γάρ). “Even if there are so-called gods” grants the supposition for the sake of argument although “even if” regards the supposition as in reality not being true and in the face of it holds to the opposite that only one God exists, R. 1026. Note that εἰσί is placed forward because it has emphasis: “even if there are,” etc. The heathen have beings that are called gods by them. “Very well,” Paul says, “let us grant for the moment that they are gods and let us include all of them, ‘whether in heaven,’ their major gods, Jupiter and his company, ‘whether on earth,’ their minor gods such as dwell in forests, streams, fountains, etc.”
The concession of actual existence is made by the “even if” clause, which is naturally one of reality. The next clause: “even as there are gods many and lords many,” justifies the concession, for it is a fact that the heathen world is full of such gods and such lords. The εἰσί is again placed emphatically forward: “even as there are,” etc. The heathen deified their emperors, for instance, and these actually existed. On the title Κύριος as used with reference to both gods and emperors Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, 353–361, sheds much interesting light, and Paul, no doubt, adds this title because it was universally recognized in the pagan world. Many Christians chose death in preference to calling the emperor Kyrios when such a confession was demanded of them by a heathen tribunal.
Note the repetition of the word “many”: “gods many and lords many”; all of the heathen hold polytheistic beliefs, they have a vast multitude of gods, and their very number marks their vast inferiority to the true divine Being who is One, and only One. “Suppose they are actual beings,” Paul says, “this whole host of gods and deified lords, what of it?” We need not seek in the Old Testament or elsewhere for actual beings who bore the titles “gods” and “lords” such as angels or governmental personages in order to justify Paul’s words, for he is speaking only about heathen divinities and divine lords.
1 Corinthians 8:6
6 “It makes no difference,” Paul says, “how we may rate them even if we allow that such beings do exist, ‘for us’ they are wholly out of the question, ‘for us’ only One exists who is ‘God.’” This emphatic dative “for us” is not subjective and thus parallel to λεγόμενοι, “called” gods by men. Paul is not saying, “Heathen people think and say so while we think and say otherwise.” “Except one” in v. 4 is objective fact and not subjective opinion. God has revealed himself to us; therefore and therefore alone “for us there is one God,” and before this one God the entire polytheistic host disappears whether it be regarded as actual or only as fabled.
The addition to Θεός sounds like a solemn, formal, liturgical confession: “the Father, of whom are all things and we for him,” etc. The Father is the first person of the Godhead, he is called Father in relation to the Son, in relation to all creatures as being their Creator, and in relation to us as being his children in Christ Jesus. Because he is the Creator and is called so per eminentiam in the Scriptures, Paul writes: “of whom are all things,” ἐξοὗ denoting ultimate source, and τὰπάντα, das All, the universe, all that actually exists, that is called into being by his word. “And we” includes the believing Corinthians and Paul and thus all believers. Paul mentions “we” particularly because of our special relation to the Father: “we for him” with our entire being directed toward him in faith, love, worship, etc.
While Paul might have stopped with the mention of the Father he continues, “And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.” He does this mainly for one reason, viz., because he has above said “lords many.” While the title Κύριος is bestowed upon the Godhead as such and upon the Father as the first person, it is also and eminently, as here, bestowed upon the Son. Already this shows that the Son is true God, unabridged and not subordinate to the Father. His personal and his official name is “Jesus Christ,” not only because this is precious to all Christians, but also to designate him as the incarnate Son and our Redeemer. His deity is plainly marked by the significant phrase “through whom are all things,” the same τὰπάντα as before. His pre-existence is indicated in the phrase “through whom are all things,” and the prepositions ἐκ and διά mark the respective activities of the Father and of the Son in the work of creation.
A vast amount of learning and research is marshalled in an effort to connect Paul’s statement with the ideas of the Jew Philo and of others who philosophize about a personal or an impersonal intermediary in the creative act of the Father. But John’s word stands: “The Word was God … All things were made by (διά, through) him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made,” John 1:1–3. All philosophizing that deviates from this fact is eo ipso inadequate. See the author’s Interpretation of John’s Gospel.
The addition “and we through him” is a parallel to the preceding “and we for him.” Hence it does not say that we, too, were created through the Lord, but that we were in the ethical sense re-created through the Lord as believers. He is the causa medians in our regeneration and spiritual life. Moreover, “through him” is constant: as long as we are what we are, it is through him. “One God and one Lord excludes all pagan notions about gods as such for the Christian consciousness.” Meyer.
1 Corinthians 8:7
7 After evaluating the knowledge as such and then stating its contents Paul proceeds to the application. Nevertheless, not in all is this knowledge, but some, due to the custom hitherto in connection with the idol, eat as an idol offering, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
There is not a contradiction between v. 1: “we all have knowledge,” and the statement found in this verse: “not in all is this knowledge” (the Greek article refers to the knowledge already mentioned). For Paul at once explains in regard to what point the knowledge of some is insufficient: “due to the custom hitherto” (dative of cause, R. 532), when they were still Gentiles and attended idol feasts. They cannot, now that they are Christians, rid themselves of the old feeling regarding the idol that is honored by such a feast. The genitive “of the idol” merely connects the custom with the idol: “the custom connected with the idol.”
So these Christians, too, know well enough that idols have no real existence, and that only one God truly exists, v. 4; but what is true with reference to knowledge in so many cases applies also to them: this knowledge alone does not suffice them. The old custom or habit of thinking regarding the idol still has its effect, not, indeed, as though they still think that the idol is a real being, but that they eat “as an idol offering.” In other words, due to their habit of former times, their Christian knowledge regarding idols does not rid them of the consciousness that what they thus eat is sacrificial idol meat. They still feel that eating such meat in some way connects a person with the idol, unreal though that idol is to whom that meat has been sacrificed. This is their weak point.
The result is that their conscience, being still weak, is denied whenever they partake of such meat. A weak conscience is one that is not fully clear as to whether an act is right or wrong. Here the act of eating this kind of meat is in itself not wrong, but the conscience has the feeling that it may be wrong, or that it is wrong. And just telling itself that it is not wrong does not help. This is the conscientia consequens, a bad or an uncertain conscience after performing an act that seems at least questionable; for Paul is speaking about Christians who actually eat and then have a bad conscience regarding their eating. A defilement or stain is the result for this weak conscience.
This is always a dangerous effect. A man simply must follow his conscience unless he is willing to commit moral suicide. But when his conscience wavers because of weakness, when he is not certain whether he has done right, fearful lest, after all, he has done wrong, the condition of such a soul is pitiful. The verb μολύνειν is used in the Scriptures with reference to staining oneself with anything idolatrous or sexual, the two being closely joined.
1 Corinthians 8:8
8 A transitional δέ ushers in Paul’s own exposition of the matter, which has a double purpose in mind: first, to assist those who have a weak conscience and eat idol meat only with compunction; secondly, to correct those who have a strong conscience and eat without compunction and are proud of doing so. Now food will not affect our standing with God. Neither, in case we shall refuse to eat, are we the worse; nor, in case we shall consent to eat, are we the better.
Food has no power to determine our relation to God in one way or in another. The emphasis rests on “food” and on “with God”; the former is too small, and the latter too great to produce such an effect. The verb is neutral: “will not affect our standing,” literally, “will not place us beside God,” i.e., beside him in a favorable position or in an unfavorable position. The translation offered by our versions loses this neutral force and substitutes the favorable idea: “will not commend us to God”; while that offered by other translators substitutes the unfavorable idea: “will not bring us into judgment with God.”
The fact that the verb is neutral is made clear by the two specifications: neither the refusal nor the consent to eat makes a difference with God. The two conditional clauses contemplate cases that may occur at any time. The two aorist verbs μὴφάγωμεν and φάγωμεν denote definite acts, “shall not eat” and “shall eat,” which we translate “shall refuse to eat” and “shall consent to eat.” In the apodoses the tenses are present and thus durative. Refusal to eat does not imply that we are falling behind or are losing something in our relation to God: “neither are we the worse.” Consent to eat does not mean that we are abounding or are gaining something in regard to our standing with God: “nor are we the better.” Not eating leaves us with no deficit that we should deplore, ὑστερούμεθα, and eating gives us no balance to our credit to which we may point with pride, περισσευόμεθα.
These facts (note the present tenses) have an implied application to the weak consciences and intend to overcome this weakness. On the other hand, these facts apply frankly to those who think themselves strong in comparison with the weak and imagine that their eating without a hesitation of conscience gives them an advantage over the others in respect to God. This notion, Paul says, is a mistake.
1 Corinthians 8:9
9 The decisive point lies, not in the food and in its refusal or its consumption, but in something else. But see to it lest by any means this power of yours become a stumbling block for the weak. This question regarding eating or not eating idol meats turns, not on “knowledge” alone that applies only to him who eats or does not eat, but chiefly on the consideration for others, namely the weak, and the effect that our eating or our not eating may have upon them. Not our “knowledge” but our “love” for the weak must govern our action. A πρόσκομμα is something that lies in a path, against which an unwary foot may strike and cause a person to stumble or to fall; metaphorically, anything that may cause a person to sin and to suffer injury to his soul.
1 Corinthians 8:10
10 Paul illustrates this truth by an example (γάρ). For if one shall see thee who hast knowledge reclining in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be bolstered up to eat idol offerings? Paul is merely supposing a case that is likely to occur (the condition of expectancy) and is not speaking about a case that did actually occur. A man accepts an invitation to a certain celebration that is held in an εἰδωλεῖον, idol temple or temple court. He is an individual who is proud of having the proper “knowledge” and hence feels perfectly free to attend, knowing that he will not be contaminated. Because the temple is a public place, anyone may see who is present at the feast.
Now one of the weak brethren sees his Christian brother dining at the idol celebration, κατακείμενον, “reclining” on a couch after the Oriental fashion of eating. What will be the natural result?
He who has the weak conscience will be bolstered up also to eat of idol meats, τὰεἰδωλόθυτα in general which does not specify when or where he may eat such meat; and εἰςτό to with the infinitive indicates conceived or actual result, R. 1072: “so that he eats,” etc. The first man incurs no danger by his eating; but the other, whose conscience is weak, may fall into the gravest danger when he tries to imitate the example he has seen.
The verb οἰκοδομηθήσεται is striking: “will his conscience not be edified?” This has an ironical sound. The verb “build up,” “edify,” which is always used in a good sense in the New Testament, is here used quite otherwise. It seems that the strong and the boastful members of the Corinthian congregation justified their inconsiderate action toward their weaker brethren by saying that they wished “to build up” these brethren and make them strong. Paul asks: “Is this the way in which you would build them up?” Ruinosa aedificatio, Calvin. Egregrie aedificabitur! Meyer. A demolition calling itself edification. The verb never means “to embolden” as our versions translate it; we venture to use “bolster up” which retains somewhat the idea of the original.
Many other words were formed after the manner of εἰδωλεῖον or εἰδώλιον: Ἀπολλώνιον the temple of Apollo, Ποσιδώνιον, Ἀμμωνιεῖον, Ἀνουβιεῖον, Ἐρμεῖον, Ἰσιεῖον, etc. A papyrus has this invitation: ἘρωτᾷσεΧαιρήμωνδειπνῆσαιεἰςκλείνην (= κλίνην, table-couch) τοῦκυρίουΣαράπιδοςἐντῷΣαραπείῳαὕριονἥτιςἐστινιε (= 15th day of the month) ἀπὸὥραςθ (= 9th hour). Note κύριος as a title for the god. Heathen temples had large halls or platforms and kitchens for such feasts; those feasts were sometimes celebrated in the open air. Another invitation reads: “To Paulina a δεῖπνον and εὑνὴ (Beilager) τ. Ἀνουβέως is promised in the temple.”
1 Corinthians 8:11
11 There is no need to answer the question asked in v. 10. Better than a formal answer is the terrific blow which Paul drives home. For the weak perishes in connection with this knowledge of thine, the brother for whose sake Christ died. Wonderful “knowledge of thine” which does not see what it is really doing! Yes, he will be built up—call it that if you will; you build him up, and under your brotherly care—“he perishes,” spiritually, perhaps eternally.
A tragic apposition says still more: “the brother for whose sake Christ died.” Two mighty obligations converge: the one toward the brother, and the other toward Christ. Your knowledge is so great that you do not love your brother enough to abstain from an idol feast in order to save his soul. Your knowledge is so great that you do not see the price which Christ paid by his death to save your brother’s soul. The fact of brotherhood should be enough to impel you to reflect with tenderness and concern upon anything that may drive a weak brother to destruction. Regard for Christ should keep you from at least helping to rob him of the soul for which he paid so great a price. “For whose sake” includes the entire purpose of Christ’s atoning death. Christ died to save your brother—to this extent Christ loved him; by your selfish knowledge and proud power you help to destroy your brother—that is the extent to which you love him.
1 Corinthians 8:12
12 After pointing to the result which this action has upon the weak brother Paul points out the result it has upon the selfish actors themselves. From the dramatic second person singular he now changes to the broader second person plural. He often varies the number. After having individualized he now generalizes. And thus, by sinning against the brethren and by wounding their conscience when weak, you sin against Christ.
After Paul persecuted the Christians, Jesus asked him: “Why persecutest thou me?” Acts 9:4. A sin against the brethren is so serious because it is a sin against Christ. The two present participles “by sinning” and “by wounding” point to a course of action, namely partaking of idol meats as occasion offers. The verb τύπτειν means “to strike a blow” and thus “to wound.” The present participle “when weak” describes the helpless condition of the conscience which is unable to endure the blow.
To sin against the brethren is serious enough, but when this sin also strikes Christ, the sinners may well become alarmed, for their folly now reacts upon themselves. To what degree they sin against Christ, and what the result will be for them, Paul leaves unsaid. Disquieting silence!
1 Corinthians 8:13
13 From the second person singular Paul changed to the second person plural and now changes to the first person singular: concentrating, spreading, and concentrating again, and all is full of dramatic life. Paul exemplifies by referring to himself. Wherefore, if food entrap my brother, I will in no wise eat flesh to eternity in order that I may not entrap my brother.
The condition deals with a reality and is strong accordingly. Although Paul uses himself as an example he enunciates a principle that is far broader in its application than to idol offerings; he adduces a statement that covers all βρῶμα or food and all “flesh” (κρέα is found only twice and only this neuter plural formation from κρέας in the New Testament, R. 268) or meat food of any kind; in fact, this is a principle that applies to a large number of similar matters. Only twice in the New Testament we meet the inferential conjunction διόπερ, “on account of this,” “wherefore,” R. 1154, which Paul uses here to draw the final conclusion.
The figure suggested by σκανδαλίζω is that of the crooked stick in a trap to which the bait is affixed and by which the trap is sprung; but the word is used metaphorically, “to give offense,” it is like our derivative “to scandalize,” i.e., to outrage. Yet the offense is always fatal; the trigger springs the trap and thus kills the victim. A stumbling block causes only a painful fall. We imitate the Greek by rendering “to entrap.” The A. V.’s translation is incorrect: “if meat make my brother to offend.”
Rather than to give such fatal offense to a brother, Paul says, “I will in no wise eat flesh to eternity,” οὑμή, “not at all,” the strongest form of negation that is construed with the indicative and here with the volitive subjunctive. The aorist is constative and summarizes all eating. The phrase εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, “for the eon” = “to eternity” and is idiomatic. The repetition in the final clause: “in order that I may not entrap my brother,” emphasizes the two points that are vital to the principle that is here voiced: first that of the brother, secondly that of entrapping him, which is properly expressed by the aorist of accomplished result (σκανδαλίσω) while the present indicative is proper in the conditional clause of reality (σκανδαλίζει). Note also the shift in accent that is made prominent in the Greek: “entrap my brother” and then “my brother entrap.” Paul is, above all, determined not to harm a brother, to harm by fatally catching him in a trap.
We who are strong in knowledge must be equally strong in love. Knowledge alone is nothing, knowledge combined with love is everything. We must protect the weak until they, too, become strong. Negatively, we must not offend their conscience; positively, we must bear with them and instruct them. With reference to the entire subject compare also Rom. 14:2, 3, 13–23.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.