I corinthians 8 commentary

I CORI THIA S 8 COMME TARY
Edited by Glenn Pease
Food Sacrificed to Idols
1. ow about food sacrificed to idols: We know
that we all possess knowledge.[a ] Knowledge puffs
up, but love builds up.
1. BAR ES, "Now as touching - In regard to; in answer to your inquiry whether it
is right or not to partake of those things.
Things offered unto idols - Sacrifices unto idols. Meat that had been offered in
sacrifice, and then either exposed to sale in the market, or served up at the feasts held in
honor of idols, at their temples, or at the houses of their devotees. The priests, who were
entitled to a part of the meat that was offered in sacrifice, would expose it to sale in the
market; and it was a custom with the Gentiles to make feasts in honor of the idol gods on
the meat that was offered in sacrifice; see 1Co_8:10, of this chapter, and 1Co_10:20-21.
Some Christians would hold that there could be no harm in partaking of this meat any
more than any other meat, since an idol was nothing; and others would have many
scruples in regard to it, since it would seem to countenance idol worship. The request
made of Paul was, that he should settle some “general principle” which they might all
safely follow.
We know - We admit; we cannot dispute; it is so plain a case that no one can be
ignorant on this point. Probably these are the words of the Corinthians, and perhaps
they were contained in the letter which was sent to Paul. They would affirm that they
were not ignorant in regard to the nature of idols; they were well assured that they were
nothing at all; and hence, they seemed to infer that it might be right and proper to
partake of this food anywhere and everywhere, even in the idol temples themselves; see
1Co_8:10. To this Paul replies in the course of the chapter, and particularly in 1Co_8:7.
That we all have knowledge - That is, on this subject; we are acquainted with the
true nature of idols, and of idol worship; we all esteem an idol to be nothing, and cannot
be in danger of being led into idolatry, or into any improper views in regard to this
subject by participating of the food and feasts connected with idol worship This is the
statement and argument of the Corinthians. To this Paul makes two answers:
(1) In a “parenthesis” in 1Co_8:1-3, to wit, that it was not safe to rely on mere
knowledge in such a case, since the effect of mere knowledge was often to puff
people up and to make them proud, but that they ought to act rather from

“charity,” or love; and,
(2) That though the mass of them might have this knowledge, yet that all did not
possess it, and they might be injured, 1Co_8:7.
Having stated this argument of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge, in 1Co_8:1,
Paul then in a parenthesis states the usual effect of knowledge, and shows that it is not a
safe guide, 1Co_8:1-3. In 1Co_8:4, he “resumes” the statement (commenced in 1Co_8:1)
of the Corinthians, but which, in a mode quite frequent in his writings, he had broken off
by his parenthesis on the subject of knowledge; and in 1Co_8:4-6, he states the
argument more at length; concedes that there was to them but one God, and that the
majority of them must know that; but states in 1Co_8:7, that all had not this knowledge,
and that those who had knowledge ought to act so as not to injure those who had not.
Knowledge puffeth up - This is the beginning of the parenthesis. It is the reply of
Paul to the statement of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge. The sense is,
“Admitting that you all have knowledge; that you know what is the nature of an idol, and
of idol worship; yet mere knowledge in this case is not a safe guide; its effect may be to
puff up, to fill with pride and self-sufficiency, and to lead you astray. charity or love, as
well as knowledge, should be allowed to come in as a guide in such cases, and will be a
safer guide than mere knowledge.” There had been some remarkable proofs of the
impropriety of relying on mere knowledge as a guide in religious matters among the
Corinthians, and it was well for Paul to remind them of it. These pretenders to
uncommon wisdom had given rise to their factions, disputes, and parties, (see 1 Cor. 1;
2; 3); and Paul now reminds them that it was not safe to rely on such a guide. And it is
no more safe now than it was then. Mere knowledge, or science, when the heart is not
right, fills with pride; swells a man with vain self-confidence and reliance in his own
powers, and very often leads him entirely astray. Knowledge combined with right
feelings, with pure principles, with a heart filled with love to God and human beings,
may be trusted: but not mere intellectual attainments; mere abstract science; the mere
cultivation of the intellect. Unless the heart is cultivated with that, the effect of
knowledge is to make a man a pedant; and to fill him with vain ideas of his own
importance; and thus to lead him into error and to sin.
But charity edifieth - Love (ᅧ ᅊγάπη hē agapē); so the word means; and so it would
be well to translate it. Our word “charity” we now apply almost exclusively to alms-
giving, or to the favorable opinion which we entertain of others when they seem to be in
error or fault. The word in the Scripture means simply “love.” See the notes on 1 Cor. 13.
The sense here is, “Knowledge is not a safe guide, and should not be trusted. love to each
other and to God, true Christian affection, will be a safer guide than mere knowledge,
Your conclusion on this question should not be formed from mere abstract knowledge;
but you should ask what love to others - to the peace, purity, happiness, and salvation of
your brethren - would demand. If love to them would prompt to this course, and permit
you to partake of this food, it should be done; if not, if it would injure them, whatever
mere knowledge would dictate, it should not be done.” The doctrine is, that love to God
and to each other is a better guide in determining what to do than mere knowledge. And
it is so. It will prompt us to seek the welfare of others, and to avoid what would injure
them. It will make us tender, affectionate, and kind; and will better tell us what to do,
and how to do it in the best way, than all the abstract knowledge that is conceivable. The
man who is influenced by love, ever pure and ever glowing, is not in much danger of
going astray, or of doing injury to the cause of God. The man who relies on his
knowledge is heady, high-minded, obstinate, contentious, vexatious, perverse,
opinionated; and most of the difficulties in the church arise from such people. Love

makes no difficulty, but heals and allays all; mere knowledge heals or allays none, but is
often the occasion of most bitter strife and contention. Paul was wise in recommending
that the question should be settled by love; and it would be wise if all Christians would
follow his instructions.
2. CLARKE, "As touching things offered unto idols - This was another subject
on which the Corinthians had asked the apostle’s advice, and we shall understand the
whole of this chapter the better when we consider one fact, viz. That there had long
subsisted a controversy between the Karaites and the Traditionists, how far it was lawful
to derive any benefit or advantage from things used by the Gentiles. The Karaites were a
sect of the Jews who scrupulously held to the letter of the sacred writings, taking this
alone for their directory. The Traditionists were those who followed the voice of the
elders, interpreting the Divine testimonies by their decisions. From a work of the
Karaites, entitled Addereth Eliyahu, Triglandus has extracted the following decisions,
which will throw light upon this subject. “It is unlawful to receive any benefit from any
kind of heathen worship, or from any thing that has been offered to an idol.” - “It is
unlawful to buy or sell an idol, and if, by accident, any such thing shall come into thy
power, thou shalt derive no emolument from it.” - “The animals that are destined and
prepared for the worship of idols are universally prohibited; and particularly those
which bear the mark of the idol. This should be maintained against the opinion of the
Traditionists, who think they may lawfully use these kinds of animals, provided they be
not marked with the sign of the idol.” Thus far the Karaites; and here we see one strong
point of difference between these two sects. The Karaites totally objected to every thing
used in idolatrous services: the Traditionists, as the Talmud shows, did generally the
same; but it appears that they scrupled not to use any animal employed in idolatrous
worship, provided they did not see the sign of the idol on it. Now the sign of the idol
must be that placed on the animal previously to its being sacrificed, such as gilded horns
and hoofs, consecrated fillets, garlands, etc. And as, after it had been sacrificed, and its
flesh exposed for sale in the shambles, it could bear none of these signs, we may take it
for granted that the Jews might think it lawful to buy and eat this flesh: this the Karaite
would most solemnly scruple. It may be just necessary to state here, that it was
customary, after the blood and life of an animal had been offered in sacrifice to an idol,
to sell the flesh in the market indiscriminately with that of other animals which had not
been sacrificed, but merely killed for common use. Even the less scrupulous Jews,
knowing that any particular flesh had been thus offered, would abhor the use of it; and
as those who lived among the Gentiles, as the Jews at Corinth, must know that this was a
common case, hence they would be generally scrupulous; and those of them that were
converted to Christianity would have their scruples increased, and be as rigid on this
point as the Karaites themselves. On the other hand, those of the Gentiles who had
received the faith of Christ, knowing that an idol was nothing in the world, nor was even
a representation of any thing, (for the beings represented by idol images were purely
imaginary), made no scruple to buy and eat the flesh as they used to do, though not with
the same intention; for when, in their heathen state, they ate the flesh offered to idols,
they ate it as a feast with the idol, and were thus supposed to have communion with the
idol; which was the grossest idolatry.
From these observations it will at once appear that much misunderstanding and
offense must have existed in the Corinthian Church; the converted Jews abominating
every thing that they knew had been used in the heathen worship, while the converted
Gentiles, for the reasons above assigned, would feel no scruple on the account.

We know that we all have knowledge - I am inclined to think that these are not
St. Paul’s words, but a quotation from the letter of the Corinthians to him, and a proof of
what the apostle says below, knowledge puffeth up; but however the words may be
understood as to their origin, they contain a general truth, as they relate to Christians of
those times, and may be thus paraphrased; “All we who are converted to God by Christ
have sufficient knowledge concerning idols and idol worship; and we know also the
liberty which we have through the Gospel, not being bound by Jewish laws, rites,
ceremonies, etc.; but many carry their knowledge in this liberty too far, and do what is
neither seemly nor convenient, and thus give offense to others.”
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth - This knowledge is very nearly
allied to pride; it puffeth up the mind with vain conceit, makes those who have it bold
and rash, and renders them careless of the consciences of others. And this knowledge,
boasted of by the Corinthians, led them to contemn others; for so the word φυσιοι is
understood by some eminent critics.
3. GILL, "Now as touching things offered unto idols,.... This was another of the
things the Corinthians wrote to the apostle about, desiring to have his judgment in; it
was a controversy that had been before moved, whether it was lawful to eat things that
had been sacrificed to idols. This was considered in the council at Jerusalem, Act_15:28
and it was agreed to, for the peace of the churches, that the Gentiles, among other
things, be advised to abstain from them; which, it seems, the church at Corinth knew
nothing of, for the controversy was now moved among them: some that were weak in the
faith, and had not, at least, clear notions of Gospel liberty, thought it very criminal and
sinful to eat them; others that had, or boasted they had, more knowledge, would not only
eat them privately at home, having bought them of the Heathen priests, or in the
common meat markets, where they were exposed to sale, and at public feasts, to which
they were invited by their friends; but would even go into an idol's temple, and sit and
eat them there, to the great grief and prejudice of weak Christians; and what they had to
plead in their own defence was their knowledge, to which the apostle here replies:
we know that we all have knowledge; said either affirmatively and seriously; and
the meaning is, that the apostles and other Christians knew, and were conscious to
themselves of their light and knowledge, and were assured, and might affirm with
confidence, that they all, or the most part, only some few excepted, see 1Co_8:7 had the
same knowledge of Christian liberty as they had; knew that an idol was nothing, and that
eating meats offered to them could not defile, or do them any hurt; for they were very
sensible there was nothing common or unclean of itself, and yet did not think fit to make
use of their knowledge to the grieving and wounding of their fellow Christians: or else
this is said ironically, we are wise folks; you particularly are men of knowledge, and
wisdom will die with you; you know that you know; you are very knowing in your own
conceits, and very positive as to your knowledge. It was the saying of Socrates, that that
this one thing he knew, that he knew nothing; but men wise in their own opinions know
everything:
knowledge puffeth up; not true knowledge; not that which comes from above, which
is gentle and easy to be entreated; not sanctified knowledge, or that which has the grace
of God going along with it; that makes men humble, and will not suffer them to be
puffed up one against another; but a mere show of knowledge, knowledge in conceit,
mere notional and speculative knowledge, that which is destitute of charity or love:

but charity edifieth; that is, a man that has knowledge, joined with love to God, and
his fellow Christians, will seek for that which makes for the edification of others; and
without this all his knowledge will be of no avail, and he himself be nothing.
4. HE RY, "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 (1Co_8:10), 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
1Co_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, athuta 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, 1Co_8:4. 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 (1Co_8:1); 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, 1Co_
8:1. 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:
5. JAMISO , "1Co_8:1-13. On partaking of meats offered to idols.
Though to those knowing that an idol has no existence, the question of eating meats
offered to idols (referred to in the letter of the Corinthians, compare 1Co_7:1) might
seem unimportant, it is not so with some, and the infirmities of such should be
respected. The portions of the victims not offered on the altars belonged partly to the
priests, partly to the offerers; and were eaten at feasts in the temples and in private
houses and were often sold in the markets; so that Christians were constantly exposed to
the temptation of receiving them, which was forbidden (Num_25:2; Psa_106:28). The

apostles forbade it in their decree issued from Jerusalem (Act_15:1-29; Act_21:25); but
Paul does not allude here to that decree, as he rests his precepts rather on his own
independent apostolic authority.
we know that we all have knowledge — The Corinthians doubtless had referred
to their “knowledge” (namely, of the indifference of meats, as in themselves having no
sanctity or pollution). Paul replies, “We are aware that we all have [speaking generally,
and so far as Christian theory goes; for in 1Co_8:7 he speaks of some who practically
have not] this knowledge.”
Knowledge puffeth up — when without “love.” Here a parenthesis begins; and the
main subject is resumed in the same words, 1Co_8:4. “As concerning [touching]
therefore the eating,” etc. “Puffing up” is to please self. “Edifying” is to please one’s
neighbor; Knowledge only says, All things are lawful for me; Love adds, But all things do
not edify [Bengel], (1Co_10:23; Rom_14:15).
edifieth — tends to build up the spiritual temple (1Co_3:9; 1Co_6:19).
6. EBC, "LIBERTY AND LOVE
THE next question which had been put to Paul by the Corinthian Church, and to which
he now replies, is "touching things offered unto idols," whether a Christian had liberty to
eat such things or not. This question necessarily arose in a society partly heathen and
partly Christian. Every meal was in a manner dedicated to the household gods by laying
some portion of it on the family altar. Where one member of a heathen family had
become a Christian, he would at once be confronted with the question, rising in his own
conscience, whether by partaking of such food he might not be countenancing idolatry.
On the occasion of a birthday, or a marriage, or a safe return from sea, or any
circumstance that seemed to call for celebration, it was customary to sacrifice in some
public temple. And after the legs of the victim, enclosed in fat, and the entrails had been
burnt on the altar, the worshipper received the remainder, and invited his friends and
guests to partake of it either in the temple itself, or in the surrounding grove, or at his
own home. Here again a young convert might very naturally ask himself whether he was
justified in attending such a feast and actually sitting down to meat in the idol’s
presence. Nor was it only personal friendships and the harmony of family life that were
threatened; but on public occasions and national celebrations the Christian was in a
strait betwixt two; fearful, on the one band, of branding himself as no good citizen by
abstaining from participation in the feast, fearful, on the other hand, lest by compliance
he should be found unfaithful to his new religion. And even though his own family was
entirely Christian, the difficulty was not removed, for much of the meat offered in
worship found its way into the. common market, so that at every meal the Christian ran
the risk of eating things sacrificed to idols.
Among the Jews it had always been considered pollution to eat such food. Instances are
on record of men dying cheerfully rather than suffer such contamination. Few Jewish
Christians could rise to the height of our Lord’s maxim, "Not that which goeth into a
man defileth him." The Gentile converts also felt the difficulty of at once throwing off all
the old associations. When they entered the temple where but a few months ago they had
worshipped, the atmosphere of the place intoxicated them; and the long-accustomed
sights quickened their pulse and exposed them to serious temptation. Others, less
sensitive, could use the temple as they would an ordinary eating house, without the
slightest stirring of idolatrous feeling. Some went to the houses of heathen friends as
often as they were invited, and partook of what was set before them, making no minute
inquiries as to how the meat had been provided, asking no questions for conscience’

sake, but believing that the earth and its fulness were the Lord’s, and that what they ate
they received from God, and not from an idol. Others, again, could not shake off the
feeling that they were countenancing idolatry when they partook of such feasts. Thus
there arose a diversity of judgment and a variance in practice which must have given rise
to much annoyance, and which did not appear to be approaching any nearer to a final
and satisfactory settlement.
In answer to the appeal made to him on this subject, it might seem that Paul had nothing
to do but quote the deliverance of the Council of Jerusalem, which determined that
Gentile converts should be commanded to abstain from meats offered to idols. Paul
himself had obtained that deliverance, and was satisfied with it; but now he makes no
reference to it, and treats the question afresh. In the epistles of the Lord to the Churches,
embodied in the Book of Revelation, the eating of things sacrificed to idols is spoken of
in strongly, condemnatory language; and in one of the very earliest non-canonical
documents of the primitive Church we find the precept, "Abstain carefully from things
offered to idols, for that is worship of dead gods." Paul’s disregard of the decision of the
Council is probably due to his belief that that decision was merely provisional and
temporary. He had founded Churches which could scarcely be expected to go past
himself for guidance; and as the situation in the Corinthian Church was different from
what it had been in Antioch, he felt justified in treating the matter afresh. And while in
the early Church the partaking of sacrificial food which Paul allowed was sometimes
vehemently condemned, this was due to the circumstance that it was sometimes used as
a test of a man’s abandonment of idolatry. Of course where this was the case no
Christian could possibly be in doubt regarding the proper course to follow. What a man
may freely do in ordinary circumstances, he may not do if he is warned that certain
inferences will be drawn from his action.
The case laid before Paul, then, belongs to the class known as matters morally
indifferent. These are matters upon which conscience does not uniformly give the same
verdict even among persons brought up under the same moral law. On mingling with
society, everyone finds that there are many points of conduct regarding which there is
not an unanimous consent of judgment among the most delicately conscientious people,
and upon which it is difficult to decide even when we are anxious to do right. Such
points are the lawfulness of attending certain places of public amusement, the propriety
of allowing oneself to be implicated in certain kinds of private amusements or
entertainments, the way of spending Sunday, and the amount of pleasure, refinement,
and luxury one may admit into his life.
The state of feeling produced in Corinth by the discussion of such topics is apparent
from Paul’s mode of treating the question put to him. His answer is addressed to the
party who claimed superior knowledge, who wished to be known as the party which
stood for liberty of conscience, and probably for the Pauline axiom, "All things are lawful
for me." Paul does not directly address those who had scruples about eating, but those
who had none. He does not speak to, hut only of the "weak" brethren who had still
conscience of the idol. And apparently a good deal of ill-feeling had been engendered in
the Corinthian Church by the different views taken. This is always the trouble in
connection with morally indifferent matters. They do little harm if each holds his own
opinion, genially and endeavours to influence others by a friendly statement of his own
practice and the grounds of it. But in most instances it happens as in Corinth: those who
saw that they could eat without contamination scorned those who had scruples; while,
on their side, the scrupulous judged the eaters to be worldly timeservers, in a perilous
state, less godly and consistent than themselves.

As a first step towards the settlement of this matter, Paul makes the largest concession to
the party of liberty. Their clear perception that an idol was nothing in the world, a mere
bit of timber, and of no more significance to a Christian than a pillar or a doorpost-this
knowledge is sound and commendable. At the same time, they need not make quite so
much of it as they were doing. In their letter of inquiry they must have emphasised the
fact that they were the party of enlightenment, who saw things as they really were, and
had freed themselves from fantastic superstitions and antiquated ideas. Quite true, says
Paul, "we all have knowledge"; but you need not remind me at every turn of your
superior discernment of the Christian’s true position nor of your wonderfully sagacious
discovery that an idol is nothing in the world. Any Jewish schoolboy could have told you
this. I know that you understand the principles which should regulate your intercourse
with the heathen much better than the scrupulous do, and that your views of liberty are
my own. Let us then hear no more of this. Do not always be returning upon this, as if this
settled the whole matter. You are in the right so far as regards knowledge, and your
brethren are weak; let that be conceded: but do not suppose you settle the question or
impress me more strongly with the righteousness of your conduct by reiterating that
you, whom your brethren call lax and misguided, are better instructed in the principle of
Christian conduct than they. Once for all, I know this.
Does this, then, not settle the question? If-the party of liberty might say-if we are right, if
the idol is nothing, and an idol’s temple no more than an ordinary dining room, does this
not settle the whole matter? By no means, says Paul. "Knowledge puffeth up, but charity
edifieth." You have as yet grasped only one end, and that the weaker end, of the
Christian rule. You must add love, consideration of your neighbour, to your knowledge.
Without this, knowledge is unwholesome and as likely to do harm as to do good. In very
similar terms the founder of the Positive philosophy speaks of the evil results of loveless
knowledge. "I am free to confess," he says, "that hitherto the Positive spirit has been
tainted with the two moral evils which peculiarly wait on knowledge. It puffs up, and it
dries the heart, by giving free scope to pride and by turning it from love." It is indeed
matter of everyday observation that men of ready insight into moral and spiritual truth
are prone to despise the less enlightened spirits that stumble among the scruples which,
like the bats of the moral twilight, fly in their faces. The knowledge which is not
tempered by humility and love does harm both to its possessor and to other Christians;
it puffs up its possessor with scorn, and it alienates and embitters the less enlightened.
Knowledge without love, knowledge which does not take into consideration the
difficulties and scruples of brethren, cannot be admired or commended, for though in
itself a good thing and capable of being used for the advancement of the Church,
knowledge dissociated from charity can do good neither to him who possesses it nor to
the Christian community. However the possessors of such knowledge vaunt themselves
as the men of progress and the hope of the Church, it is not by knowledge alone the
Church can ever solidly grow. Knowledge does produce an appearance of growth, a
puffing up, an unhealthy, morbid growth, a mushroom, fungous growth; but that which
builds up the Church stone by stone, a strong, enduring edifice, is love. It is a good thing
to have clear views of Christian liberty, to have definite, firmly held ideas of Christian
conduct, to discard fretting scruples and idle superstitions; add love to this knowledge,
exercise it in a tender, patient, self-denying, considerate, loving way, and you edify both
yourself and the Church: but exercise it without love, and you become a poor inflated
creature, puffed up with a noxious gas destructive of all higher life in yourself and in
others.
Paul’s law, then, is that liberty must be tempered by love; that the individual must
consider the society of which he forms a part; and that, after his own conscience is

satisfied regarding the legitimacy of certain actions, he must further consider how the
conscience of his neighbour will be affected if he uses his liberty and does these actions.
He must endeavour to keep step with the Christian community of which he forms a part,
and must beware of giving offence to less enlightened persons by his freer conduct. He
must consider not only whether he himself can do this or that with a good conscience,
but also how the conscience of those who know what he does will be affected by it.
Applying this law to the matter in hand, Paul declares that, for his own part, he has no
scruples at all about meat. "Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are
we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." If therefore I had to consult only
my own conscience, the matter would admit of prompt and easy solution. I would as
soon eat in an idol’s temple as anywhere else. But all have not the conviction we have
that an idol is nothing in the world. Some are unable to rid themselves of the feeling that
in eating sacrificial meat they are paying an act of homage to the idol. "Some with
conscience of the idol," with the feeling that the idol is present and accepting the
worship, "eat the sacrificial meat as a thing offered unto an idol, and their conscience
being weak is defiled." Their conscience is weak, not fully enlightened, not purged of old
superstition; but their conscience is their conscience: and if they feel they are doing a
wrong thing and yet do it, they do a wrong thing, and defile their conscience. Therefore
we must consider them as well as ourselves, for as often as we use our liberty and eat
sacrificial meat we tempt them to do the same, and so to defile their conscience. They
know that you are men of sound and clear spiritual discernment; they look up to you as
guides: and if they see you who have knowledge sitting at meat in the idol’s temple, must
not they be emboldened to do the same, and so to stain and harden their own
conscience?
It is easy to imagine how this would be exemplified at a Corinthian table. Three
Christians are invited, with other guests, to a party in the house of a heathen friend. One
of these invited Christians is weakly scrupulous, unable to disentangle himself from the
old idolatrous associations connected with sacrificial meat. The other two Christians are
men of ampler view and more enlightened conscience, and have the deepest conviction
that scruples about eating at a heathen table are baseless. All three recline at the table;
but, as the meal goes on, the anxious, scrutinising eye of the weak brother discerns some
mark which identifies the meat as sacrificial, or, fearing it may be so, he inquires of the
servant, and finds it has been offered in the temple: and at once he draws the attention
of his Christian friends to this, saying, "This has been offered in sacrifice to idols." One
of his friends, knowing that heathen eyes are watching, and wishing to show how
superior to all such scruples the enlightened Christian is and how genial and free a
religion is the religion of Christ, smiles at his friend’s scruples, and accepts the meat. The
other, quite as clear sighted and free from superstition, but more generous and more
truly courageous, accommodates himself to the scruple of the weak brother, and declines
the dish, lest, by eating and leaving the scrupulous man without support, he should
tempt him to follow their example, contrary to his own conviction, and so lead him into
sin. It need not be said which of these men acts the friendly part and comes nearest to
the Christian principle of Paul.
In our own society similar cases necessarily arise. I, as a Christian man, and knowing
that the earth and its fulness are the Lord’s, may feel at perfect liberty to drink wine. Had
I only myself to consider, and knowing that my temptation does not lie that way, I might
use wine regularly or as often as I felt disposed to enjoy a needed stimulant. I may feel
quite convinced in my own mind that morally I am not one whit the worse of doing so.
But I cannot determine whether I am to indulge myself or not without considering the
effect my conduct will have on others. There may be among my friends some who know

that their temptation does lie that way, and whose conscience bids them altogether
refrain. If by my example such persons are encouraged to silence the voice of their own
conscience, then I incur the incalculable guilt of helping to destroy a brother for whom
Christ died.
Or again, a lad has had the great good fortune to be brought up in a Puritanic household,
and has imbibed stringent moral principles, with perhaps somewhat narrow ideas. He
has been taught, together with much else of the same character, that the influence of the
theatre is in our country demoralising, that one day in the week is little enough to give to
the claims of spiritual education, and so forth. But on entering the life of a great city he is
soon brought in contact with men whose uprightness, and sagacity, and Christian spirit
he cannot but respect, but who yet read their weekly paper, or any book they are
interested in, as freely on Sunday as on Saturday, and who visit the theatre without the
slightest twinge of conscience. Now either of two things will probably happen in such a
case. The young man’s ideas of Christian liberty may become clearer. He may attain the
standpoint of Paul, and may see that fellowship with Christ can be maintained in
conditions of life he once absolutely condemned. Or the young man may not grow in
Christian perception, but being daunted by overpowering example, and chafing under
the raillery of his companions, may do as others do, though still uneasy in his own
conscience.
What is to be observed about this process, which is ceaselessly going, on in society, is
that the emboldening of conscience is one thing, its enlightenment quite another. And
were it possible to get statistics of the proportion of cases in which the one process goes
on without the other, these statistics might be salutary. But we need no statistics to
assure us that Christian people by selfishly using their own liberty do continually lead
less enlightened persons to trample on their scruples and disregard their own
conscience. Constantly it happens in every department of human life that men who once
shrank from certain practices as wrong now freely engage in them, although they are not
in their own mind any more clearly convinced of their legitimacy than they were before,
but are merely emboldened by the example of others. Such persons, if possessed of any
self-observation and candour, will tell you that at first they felt as if they were stealing
the indulgence or the gain the practice brings, and that they had to drown the voice of
conscience by the louder voice of example.
The results of this are disastrous. Conscience is dethroned. The ship no longer obeys her
helm, and lies in the trough of the sea swept by every wave and driven by every wind. It
may indeed be said, What harm can come of persons less enlightened being emboldened
to do as we do if what we do is right? Is not that, most strictly speaking, edification? It is
not as if we emboldened anyone to transgress the moral law; we are merely bringing our
weak brother’s conduct up to the level of our own. Do we not act wisely and well in so
doing? Again it must be answered, No, because, while yielding themselves to the
influence of your example, these persons abandon the guidance of their own conscience,
which may be a less enlightened, but is certainly a more authoritative, guide than you. If
the weak brother does a right thing while his conscience tells him it is a wrong thing, to
him it is a wrong thing. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin"; that is to say, whatsoever is
not dictated by a thorough conviction that it is right is sin. It is sin which in some
respects is more dangerous than a sin of passion or impulse. By a sin of passion the
conscience is not directly injured, and may remain comparatively tender and healthy;
but when you refuse to acknowledge conscience as your guide and accept some other
person’s conduct as that which may dictate to you what you may or may not do, you
dethrone conscience, and sap your moral nature. You shut your own eyes, and prefer to
be led by the hand of another person, which may indeed serve you on this occasion; but

the end will be a dog and a string.
Two permanent lessons are preserved in this exposition which Paul gives of the matter
laid before him. The first is the sacredness or supremacy of conscience. "Let every man
be fully persuaded in his own mind"; that is the one legitimate source of conduct. A man
may possibly do a wrong thing when he obeys conscience; he is certainly wrong when he
acts contrary to conscience. He may be helped to a decision by the advice of others, but it
is his own decision by which he must abide. He must act, not on the conviction of others,
but on his own. It is what he himself sees that must guide him. He is bound to use every
means to enlighten his conscience and to learn with accuracy what is right and
allowable, but he is also bound always to act upon his own present perception of what is
right. His conscience may not be as enlightened as it ought to be. Still his duty is to
enlighten, not to violate it. It is the guide God has given us, and we must not choose
another.
The second lesson is that we must ever use our Christian liberty with Christian
consideration of others. Love must mingle with all we do. There are many things which
are lawful for a Christian, but which are not compulsory or obligatory, and which he may
refrain from doing on cause shown. Duties he must of course discharge, regardless of the
effect his conduct may have on others. He may be quite sure he will be misunderstood;
he may be sure evil motives will be imputed to him; he may be sure disastrous
consequences will be the first result of his action; but if conscience says this or that must
be done, then all thought of consequences must be thrown to the winds, But where
conscience says, not "You must," but only "You may," then we must consider the effect
our using our liberty will have on others. We lie as Christians under an obligation to
consider others, to lay aside all pride of advanced ideas, and this not merely that we may
submit ourselves to those who know better than we, but that we may not offend those
who are bound by prejudices of which we are rid. We must limit our liberty by the
scrupulosity of prejudiced, narrow-minded, weak people. We must forego our liberty to
do this or that if by doing it we should shock or disturb a weak brother or encourage him
to overstep his conscience. As the Arctic voyager who has been frozen up all winter does
not seize the first opportunity to escape, but waits till his weaker companions gain
strength enough to accompany him, so must the Christian accommodate himself to the
weaknesses of others, lest by using his liberty he should injure him for whom Christ
died. Never was there a man who more fully understood the freedom of the Christian
position than Paul; no man was ever more entirely lifted out of the mist of superstition
and formalism into the clear light of free, eternal life: but with this freedom he carried a
sympathy with weak and entangled beginners which prompted him to exclaim, "If meat
make any brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my
brother to offend."
Our conduct must be limited and to a certain extent regulated by the narrow
mindedness, the scruples, the prejudices, the Weakness in short, of others. We cannot
say, I see my way to do so-and-so, let my friend think what he pleases; I am not to be
trammelled by his superstition or ignorance; let my conduct have what effect it will on
him; I am not responsible for that; if he does not see it to be right, I do, and I will act
accordingly. We cannot speak thus if the matter be indifferent; if it be a matter we can
lawfully abstain from, then abstain we must if we would follow the Apostle who followed
Christ. This is the practical law which stands in the forefront of Christ’s teaching and
was sealed by every day of His life. It is enounced not only by St. Paul: "Destroy not him
with thy meat for whom Christ died"; "Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother
perish, for whom Christ died," but also in our Lord’s still more emphatic words, "Whoso
shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a

millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the
sea." Paul could not look on his weak brethren as narrow-minded bigots, could not call
them hard names and ride rough shod over their scruples; and to this delicate
consideration he was aided by the remembrance that these were the persons for whom
Christ died. For them Christ sacrificed, not merely a little feeling or a little of His own
way, but His own will and self entirely, And the spirit of Christ is still manifested in all in
whom He dwells, specially in humility and yieldingness of disposition which is not led by
self-interest or self-complacency, but seeks the weal of other men. Nothing shows us
more distinctly the thorough manner in which St. Paul partook of the spirit of Christ
than his ability to say, "I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the
profit of many, that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of
Christ."
7. RWP, "Now concerning things sacrificed to idols (peri de tōn eidōlothutōn).
Plainly the Corinthians had asked also about this problem in their letter to Paul (1Co_
7:1). This compound adjective (eidōlon, idol, thutos, verbal adjective from thuō, to
sacrifice) is still found only in the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, not so far in the papyri.
We have seen this problem mentioned in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Act_
15:29; Act_21:25). The connection between idolatry and impurity was very close,
especially in Corinth. See both topics connected in Rev_2:14, Rev_2:20. By eidōlothuta
was meant the portion of the flesh left over after the heathen sacrifices. The heathen
called it hierothuton (1Co_10:28). This leftover part “was either eaten sacrificially, or
taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets” (Robertson and Plummer). What
were Christians to do about eating such portions either buying in the market or eating in
the home of another or at the feast to the idol? Three questions are thus involved and
Paul discusses them all. There was evidently difference of opinion on the subject among
the Corinthian Christians. Aspects of the matter come forward not touched on in the
Jerusalem Conference to which Paul does not here allude, though he does treat it in Gal_
2:1-10. There was the more enlightened group who acted on the basis of their superior
knowledge about the non-existence of the gods represented by the idols.
Ye know that we all have knowledge (oidamen hoti pantes gnōsin echomen). This
may be a quotation from the letter (Moffatt, Lit. of N.T., p. 112). Since their conversion
to Christ, they know the emptiness of idol-worship. Paul admits that all Christians have
this knowledge (personal experience, gnōsis), but this problem cannot be solved by
knowledge.
8. HAWKER, "It should seem, from the opening of this Chapter, that the Apostle had
been written to by the Corinthians on the subject, how far it became sinful to eat of the
flesh which was offered unto idols. It should be remembered, that the Corinthians, by
nature, and by practice, were idolaters : and as many of the Lord’s people, now formed
into a Church at Corinth, had been before their conversion addicted to idolatry, and
many with whom they were connected, were still under this delusion; their minds, no
doubt, were solemnly exercised upon the subject, and they therefore had written to the
Apostle, to have his opinion upon it.

I beg the Reader to notice, and it is well worthy his attention, what occasion the Apostle
took, from the question, and enquiry of the Corinthians, to settle this grand and
fundamental point, of the glory of God in a threefold character of Person. He first shews
that there is, there can be, no such thing in reality as an idol. Men may, and men do,
frame to themselves a fiction of their brain, and call it an idol, or a god. But it only shews
the darkened and depraved state of the human heart, in its present fallen state, which
can take up with an idea, so ignorant, and stupid. The Apostle then proceeds to speak
with all possible reverence, of the Lord God, in his revealed character, and offices, as
existing in a threefold character of Persons. Beautifully he describes them, according to
the revelation of Scripture: and particularly with an eye to their several distinct offices in
the Covenant of grace. I need not dwell upon the subject, neither swell the pages of the
Poor Man’s Commentary in going over in this place, What more or less, is the sum and
substance of the whole Bible. I rather refer to some of the more striking passages, which
are in proof. See Mat_3:17 and Commentary; Mat_28:20; 1Jn_5:7.
9. CALVI , "He now passes on to another question, which he had merely touched
upon in the sixth chapter, without fully discussing. For when he had spoken of the
avarice of the Corinthians, and had drawn that discussion to a close with this
statement — either covetous, nor extortioners, nor fornicators, etc., shall inherit
the kingdom of God, he passed on to speak of the liberty of Christians — All things
are lawful for me. He had taken occasion from this to speak of fornication, and from
that, of marriage ow, therefore, he at length follows out what he had touched upon
as to things intermediate — how we ought to restrain our liberty in intermediate
things. By intermediate things, I mean those that are neither good nor bad in
themselves, but indifferent, which God has put in our power, but in the use of which
we ought to observe moderation, that there may be a difference between liberty and
licentiousness. In the outset, he selects one instance, distinguished above all the
others, as to which the Corinthians grievously offended — their having been present
on occasion of the sacred banquets, which were held by idolaters in honor of their
gods, and eating indiscriminately of the meats that were offered to them. As this
gave much occasion of offense, the Apostle teaches them that they rashly perverted
the liberty granted them by the Lord.
Concerning things offered unto idols. He begins with a concession, in which he
voluntarily grants and allows to them everything that they were prepared to
demand or object. “I see what your pretext is: you make Christian liberty your
pretext. You hold out that you have knowledge, and that there is not one of you that
is so ignorant as not to know that there is but one God. I grant all this to be true, but
of what avail is that knowledge which is ruinous to the brethren?” Thus, then, he
grants them what they demand, but it is in such a way as to show that their excuses
are empty and of no avail.
Knowledge puffeth up He shows, from the effects, how frivolous a thing it is to boast
of knowledge, when love is wanting. “Of what avail is knowledge, that is of such a
kind as puffs us up and elates us, while it is the part of love to edify ?” This passage,

which otherwise is somewhat obscure, in consequence of its brevity, may easily be
understood in this way — “Whatever is devoid of love is of no account in the sight of
God; nay more, it is displeasing to him, and much more so what is openly at
variance with love ow that, knowledge of which you boast, O ye Corinthians, is
altogether opposed to love, for it puffs up men with pride, and leads to contempt of
the brethren, while love is concerned for the welfare of brethren, and exhorts us to
edify them. Accursed, then, be that knowledge which makes men proud, and is not
regulated by a desire of edifying. ”
Paul, however, did not mean, that this is to be reckoned as a fault attributable to
learning — that those who are learned are often self-complacent, and have
admiration of themselves, accompanied with contempt of others. or did he
understand this to be the natural tendency of learning — to produce arrogance, but
simply meant to show what effect knowledge has in an individual, that has not the
fear of God, and love of the brethren; for the wicked abuse all the gifts of God, so as
to exalt themselves. Thus riches, honors, dignities, nobility, beauty, and other things
of that nature, puff up; because men, elated through a mistaken confidence in these
things, very frequently become insolent. (458) or is it always so; for we see that
many who are rich and beautiful, and abounding in honors, and distinguished for
dignity and nobility, are, nevertheless, of a modest disposition, and not at all tainted
with pride. And even when it does happen to be so, it is, nevertheless, not proper
that we should put the blame upon what we know to be gifts of God; for in the first
place that were unfair and unreasonable; and farther, by putting the blame upon
things that are not blameworthy, we would exempt the persons themselves from
blame, who alone are in fault. My meaning is this — “If riches naturally tend to
make men proud, then a rich man, if proud, is free from blame, for the evil arises
from riches.”
We must, therefore, lay it down as a settled principle, that knowledge is good in
itself; but as piety is its only foundation, (459) it becomes empty and useless in
wicked men: as love is its true seasoning, where that is wanting it is tasteless. And
truly, where there is not that thorough knowledge of God which humbles us, and
teaches us to do good to the brethren, it is not so much knowledge, as an empty
notion of it, even in those that are reckoned the most learned. At the same time,
knowledge is not by any means to be blamed for this, any more than a sword, if it
falls into the hands of a madman. Let this be considered as said (460) with a view to
certain fanatics, who furiously declaim against all the liberal arts and sciences, as if
their only use were to puff men up, and were not of the greatest advantage as helps
in common life. (461) ow those very persons, who defame them in this style, are
ready to burst with pride, to such an extent as to verify the old proverb — “ othing
is so arrogant as ignorance.”
10. BI, "Liberty and love
1. The question about meats necessarily arose in a society partly heathen and partly

Christian. Every meal was dedicated to the household gods by laying some portion of
it on the family altar. On a birthday, a marriage, or a safe return from sea, &c., it was
customary to sacrifice in some public temple. And after the legs of the victim,
enclosed in fat, and the entrails had been burnt on the altar, the worshipper received
the remainder, and invited iris friends to partake of it either in the temple itself, or in
the surrounding grove, or at home. A convert might therefore naturally ask himself
whether he was justified in conforming to this custom. Thus personal friendships
and the harmony of family life were threatened; and on public occasions the
Christian was in danger of branding himself as no good citizen, or by compliance of
seeming unfaithful to Christ.
2. Apparently a good deal of ill-feeling had been engendered by the different views
taken, as is always the case with morally indifferent matters. They do little harm if
each holds his own opinion genially and endeavours to influence others in a friendly
way. But in most instances it happens as in Corinth: those who saw that they could
eat without contamination scorned those who had scruples; while the scrupulous
judged the eaters to be worldly time-servers.
3. As a first step towards the settlement of this matter, Paul makes the largest
concession to the party of liberty. Their clear perception that an idol was nothing in
the world was sound and commendable. “But do not,” says the apostle, “think that
you have settled the question by reiterating that you are better instructed than your
brethren. You must add love, consideration of your neighbour, to your knowledge.”
Men of ready insight into truth are prone to despise less enlightened spirits; but
however such vaunt themselves as the men of progress and the hope of the Church, it
is not by knowledge alone the Church can ever solidly grow. Knowledge does produce
a puffing-up, an unhealthy, morbid, mushroom growth; but that which builds up the
Church stone by stone, a strong, enduring edifice, is love. It is a good thing to have
clear views of Christian liberty; but exercise it without love, and you become a poor
inflated creature, puffed up with a noxious gas destructive of all higher life in
yourself and in others.
4. It is easy to imagine how all this would be exemplified at a Corinthian table. Three
Christians are invited to a party in the house of a heathen friend. One is weakly
scrupulous, the others are men of ampler view and more enlightened conscience. As
the meal goes on the weak brother discerns some mark Which identifies the meat as
sacrificial, or, fearing it may be so, he inquires of the servant, and finds it has been
offered in the temple, and at once says to his friends, “This has been offered to idols.”
One of them, knowing that heathen eyes are watching, and wishing to show how
superior to all such scruples the enlightened Christian is, and how genial and free the
religion of Christ is, smiles at his friend’s scruples, and accepts the meat. The other,
more generous and truly courageous, declines the dish, lest by leaving the scrupulous
man without support he should tempt him to follow their example, contrary to his
own conviction, and so lead him into sin. It need not be said which of these men
conies nearest to the Christian principle of Paul.
5. In our own society similar cases necessarily arise. I, as a Christian man, and
knowing that the earth and its fulness are the Lord’s, may feel at perfect liberty to
drink wine. But I must consider the effect my conduct will have on others. There may
be some among my friends whose temptation lies that way, and whose conscience
bids them refrain. If by my example such persons are encouraged to silence their
conscience, then I incur the guilt of helping to destroy a brother for whom Christ
died. Or again, a lad brought up in a Puritanic household has been taught, e.g., that

the influence of the theatre is demoralising; but on entering the life of a great city he
is soon brought in contact with some genuine Christians who visit the theatre
without the slightest twinge of conscience. Now either of two things will probably
happen. The young man’s ideas of Christian liberty may become clearer; or being
daunted by overpowering example and chafing under the raillery of his companions,
may do as others do, though still uneasy in his own conscience. What is to he
observed is that the emboldening of conscience is one thing, its enlightenment quite
another. Constantly it happens that men who once shrank from certain practices
now freely engage in them, and they will tell you that at first they felt as if they were
stealing the indulgence, and that they had to drown the voice of conscience by the
louder voice of example. The results of this are disastrous. Conscience is dethroned.
The ship no longer obeys her helm, and lies in the trough of the sea swept by every
wave and driven by every wind. It may indeed be said, What harm can come of
persons less enlightened being emboldened to do as we do if what we do is right? The
harm is this, that if the weak brother does a right thing while his conscience tells him
it is wrong, to him it is wrong. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” Note two
permanent lessons—
I. The sacredness or supremacy of conscience. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his
own mind.” A man may possibly do a wrong thing when he obeys conscience; he is
certainly wrong when he acts contrary to conscience. He may be helped to a decision by
the advice of others, but it is his own decision by which he must abide. His conscience
may not be as enlightened as it ought to be. Still his duty is to enlighten, not to violate, it.
It is the guide God has given us, and we must not choose another.
II. That we must ever use our Christian liberty with Christian consideration of others.
Love must mingle with all we do. There are many things which are lawful for Christian,
but which are not compulsory or obligatory, and which he may refrain from doing on
cause shown. Duties he must, of course, discharge, regardless of the effect his conduct
may have on others. But where conscience says, not “You must,” but only “You may,”
then we must consider the effect our using our liberty will have on others. We must
forego our liberty to do this or that if by doing it we should shock a weak brother or
encourage him to overstep his conscience. As the Arctic voyager who has been frozen up
all winter does not seize the first opportunity to escape, but waits till his weaker
companions gain strength enough to accompany him, so must the Christian
accommodate himself to the weaknesses of others, lest by using his liberty he should
injure him for whom Christ died. (M. Dods, D. D.)
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.—
A twofold knowledge
I. A pride generating knowledge. “Knowledge puffeth up.” One that is—
1. Merely intellectual. A stock of mental conceptions, concerning objects material or
spiritual, referring to the creature or to the Creator. Now such knowledge tends to
self-conceit.
2. Essentially superficial. The more superficial mere intellectual knowledge the
stronger its tendency. The men who go farthest into the essence of things, take the
widest view of the domain of knowledge, will be the least disposed to self-elation.
II. A man-edifying knowledge.

1. “Charity,” or love to God, is the true knowledge. Love is the life and soul of all true
science. Love is the root of the universe, and you must have love rightly to interpret
love.
2. This true knowledge builds up the soul; not as a house is built up, by putting dead
stones and timber together, but as the oak is built up, by the appropriating force of
its own life, compelling nature to deepen its roots, extend its bulk, multiply its
branches, and push it higher towards the heavens.
3. This true knowledge insures the approval of God (1Co_8:3). In the last day, Christ
will say to those who have not this love, “I never knew”—i.e., approved of—“you.”
This love for God in the heart converts the tree of intellectual knowledge into the tree
of life. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The difference between Christian and secular knowledge
A great controversy is going on in the matter of education. One partly extols the value of
instruction, the other insists that secular education without religion is worse than
useless: Paul spoke of both as secular and worthless without love. That knowledge which
he treated so slightingly was—
I. Knowledge without humility. It is not so much what is known as the spirit in which it
is acquired which makes the difference between secular and Christian knowledge (1Co_
8:2). The greatest of modern philosophers and historians, Humboldt and Niebuhr, were
both eminently humble men. So, too, you will find that real talent among mechanics is
generally united to great humility. Whereas those puffed up by knowledge are those who
have a few religious maxims and shallow doctrines. There are two ways therefore of
knowing. One is that of the man who loves to calculate how far he is advanced beyond
others; the other, that of the man who feels how infinite knowledge is, and how little he
knows.
II. Liberty without reverence. The men whom the apostle rebukes were free from many
superstitions. An idol, they said, was nothing in the world. But it is not merely freedom
from superstition which is worship of God, but loving dependence on Him; the
surrender of self. “If any man love God, the same is known of Him,” i.e., God
acknowledges the likeness of spirit. There is much of the spirit of these Corinthians now.
Men throw off what they call the trammels of superstitions, and then call themselves
free: they think it grand thing to reverence nothing. This is not high knowledge. It is a
great thing to be free from mental slavery, but suppose you are still a slave to your
passions? From bonds of the spirit Christianity has freed us, but it has bound us to God
(1Co_8:5-6). The true freedom from superstition is free service to religion: the real
emancipation from false gods is reverence for the true God. And not merely is this the
only real knowledge, but no other knowledge “buildeth up” the soul. “He that increaseth
knowledge increaseth sorrow.” Separate from love, the more we know, the profounder
the mystery of life, and the more dreary existence becomes. I can conceive no dying hour
more awful than that of one who has aspired to know instead of to love, and finds
himself at last amidst a world of barren facts and lifeless theories.
III. Comprehension without love to man. These Corinthians had got a most clear
conception of what Christianity was (1Co_8:4-6). “Well,” said the apostle, “and what
signifies your profession of that, if you look down with supreme contempt on your
ignorant brothers, who cannot reach to these sublime contemplations?” Knowledge such
as this is not advance, but retrogression. How immeasurably superior in the sight of God

is some benighted Romanist who has gone about doing good, or some ignorant, narrow
religionist who has sacrificed time and property to Christ, to the most correct theologian
in whose heart there is no love for his fellow-men. Breadth of view is not breadth of
heart; the substance of Christianity is love to God and man. Hence it is a precious fact
that St. Paul, the apostle of liberty, whose burning intellect expounded the whole
philosophy of Christianity, should have been the one to say that knowledge is nothing
compared to charity, nay, worse than nothing without it: should have been the one to
declare that “knowledge shall vanish away, but love never faileth.” (F. W. Robertson, M.
A.)
Knowledge and charity
No person ever entertained a higher idea of true wisdom than St. Paul, but he saw that
learning makes not the man of God perfect, and that the complete scholar may fall short
at last of the kingdom of heaven. He saw that spiritual, like bodily wealth, unless used
for the benefit of others, would prove no blessing to its owner. And therefore, that the
wise man might not glory in his wisdom, the apostle determines that, not only human
learning, but the knowledge of all prophecies and mysteries, will profit nothing if charity
be not superadded.
I. Knowledge without charity endeth in pride.
1. It produces an inflation in the mind, which, like a tumour in the body, carries the
appearance of solidity, but has in reality nothing within, and only indicates a
distempered habit. And, indeed, knowledge, as well as faith, if it be alone, is vain—it
is dead. For all knowledge is given as a means to some end. The means, abstracted
from their end, cease to be means, and answer no purpose whatsoever. The end of
knowledge is action (Joh_13:17). Every article of the creed involves in it a
correspondent duty, and it is practice alone that gives life to faith and realises
knowledge. “The manifestation of the Spirit (as that Spirit Himself testifies) is given
to every man to profit withal.” Otherwise it is of no effect, and the man becomes “a
cloud without water”; raised aloft it sails before the wind, proudly swelling in the
sufficiency of its own emptiness, instead of dropping plenty on the lands over which
it passes.
2. Consider the instances of this truth.
(1) Ascend into heaven and there view the glories that once encircled Lucifer (cf.
Eze_28:12). He saw, he knew; but he loved not, and through pride he fell. A
proof, to the learned of all ages, that knowledge without charity will turn a good
angel into an evil one.
(2) Yet this has all along been the fatal mistake, and the tree of knowledge still
proved the occasion of a fall. Knowledge wrought destruction by pride. “The
serpent,” says Eve, “beguiled me”; lit., elated, puffed me up. All the fruits of error
and vice have sprung from the same root of bitterness.
(3) Take the case of the Gentiles (Rom_1:21). Lack of knowledge was not their
original fault; “they knew God.” But knowledge in the understanding for want of
charity in the heart did not operate to a holy obedience. “When they knew God,
they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.”
(4) Turn to the Jew. “Having the form of knowledge, and of the truth in the law.”
Yet knowledge puffed him up; his privileges became an occasion of boasting

himself against his brethren, and envy ate out his charity. “Going about to
establish his own righteousness” upon the strength of his own wisdom, he
rejected the Lord his righteousness, and nailed Him, who is the source of
wisdom, to the Cross.
(5) When the distinction of Jew and Gentile ceased, and one Church
comprehended all believers, knowledge puffed men up into heretics and
schismatics. Pride made them rather choose to see themselves exalted at the
head of a faction, than the Church edified by their labours in an inferior station.
This was the case in the Church of Corinth, and has been the cause of every
heresy and schism since.
II. Charity directeth knowledge to its right end—the edification of the Church. This will
be seen in some instances the reverse of the foregoing.
1. If we ascend a second time into heaven, we shall find that the principle which
triumphed over the proud knowledge of Lucifer was the wisdom of God actuated by
love. In our redemption, wisdom contrived, power executed, but love set all to work,
and perfected and crowned the whole.
2. To reverse the sad effects of a vain thirst after knowledge in our first parent,
Divine love became incarnate. All that He did and suffered was because He loved us.
Because man, by the temptation of knowledge, was seduced to infidelity and
disobedience, He encountered and overcame the tempter by the Word of God, and by
love keeping the commandments. The treasures of wisdom and knowledge in Him
were not suffered to rust and canker, locked up from the public by a supercilious
reservedness, but out of them He continually dispersed abroad, and gave to the poor
in spirit. On the Cross love regained what pride had lost, and the wound made in our
nature by the fruit of the tree of knowledge was healed by the leaves of the tree of life.
3. To combat the vain wisdom of the Greek, and the self-justifying arrogance of the
Jew, the apostles were sent forth. The strongholds of false knowledge could not stand
before the gospel. Blasted by the lightning of inspired eloquence, the arm of false
philosophy withered and lost all its holds on the minds of men. “The Roman empire
wondered to see itself Christian; to see the Cross exalted in triumph over the globe,
and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ. But
what was it that gained this victory over the pride of earth and hell? What, but the
same all-suffering, and, therefore, all-subduing charity which taught the disciples of
a crucified Jesus, after His example, to endure all things for the salvation of their
brethren?
4. If we view the unity of a primitive church, as opposed to the sad divisions and
distractions since produced by heresy and schism, it will appear that charity built up
that solid and durable edifice. As at its formation, the Spirit descended upon the
disciples, when “they were all with one accord in one place,” so, in like manner, after
more were added to them, it is remarked that “the multitude of the believers were of
one heart and one mind.” The spirit of unity knit all the members together, insomuch
that if one member suffered the rest sympathised with it, And thus they “grew up
into Him in all things, even Christ … made increase of the body to the edifying itself
in love.” (Bp. Horne.)
Knowledge and love

I. Knowledge puffeth up.
1. This applies to all knowledge, whether human or Divine, when unaccompanied
with love to God.
2. Its effect is—
(1) To inflate men’s notions of the powers of human reason and the importance
of human knowledge.
(2) To encourage self-confidence and conceit.
3. The reason—
(1) Knowledge without faith acts upon the intellect, but leaves the heart
untouched.
II. Love edifieth.
1. Love—
(1) Depends on faith.
(2) Implies confidence, submission, obedience, sacrifice.
2. Its effect. It edifies—
(1) By strengthening the understanding and the will.
(2) By building up the moral character.
(3) By elevating the spirit.
(4) By bringing man into direct communion with God. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Knowledge and love
This knowledge is not secular as distinguished from Divine and theological, but
knowledge of Divine things without love—knowledge by itself as distinguished from the
knowledge of Divine things with love. The same contrast is drawn out more at length in
chap. 13.; but as there he is led to speak of it chiefly by insisting on the superiority of
active usefulness to spiritual ecstasies, so here he is led to speak of it by insisting on the
superiority of that love which shows a regard for the consciences of others, over that
knowledge which rests satisfied in its own enlightened insight into the folly of human
superstition. Knowledge such as this may indeed expand the mind, but it is a mere
inflation, as of a bubble, which bursts and vanishes away. Love alone succeeds in
building up an edifice tier above tier, solid alike in superstructure and in basis, so as to
last for ever. (Dean Stanley.)
The two guides—knowledge and love
I. They are both excellent.
1. The pupil of Gamaliel would have been the last to speak slightingly of real
knowledge. How much has knowledge accomplished in the world! Ignorance is a
fool’s paradise; knowledge is power.
2. And how excellent is love. How dull and sad and more prolific in crime the world

would be without it! One’s only regret is that there is so little of it. Herein heaven and
earth contrast. The triumphs of knowledge are great, but greater are the victories of
love.
II. They are complementary.
1. Knowledge without love leads to—
(1) Pride.
(2) Intolerance.
(3) Selfishness.
(4) Injury to others.
(5) Many blunders in thought, feeling, and action.
2. Love without knowledge leads to moral catastrophe. Knowledge is necessary to
determine within what limits we may rightly act; love determines what within the
limits of the” lawful “we should choose.
3. Knowledge and love united lead to that more perfect, penetrating, true practical
knowledge, the opposite of that described in 1Co_13:2. E.g., a man may know God as
God—have some conception of the Divine attributes, &c., but when he loves God his
knowledge makes incalculable strides. (W. E. Hurndall, M. A.)
Knowledge and love
These beautiful words are introduced into a discussion which has long ceased to have
any practical interest. In pagan Corinth the banquet and the sacrifice were part of the
same proceeding. The animal was slain and offered to the gods. Then the priest claimed
his part, and the rest was taken home and used in providing a feast. To these feasts the
pagans invited their friends, and some of these friends might be Christians. The question
was, Could they conscientiously go? Some, the most simple, honest, earnest souls, said,
No. It was recognising idolatry, it was disloyalty to Christ; or, to say the best of it that
could be said, it was going into evil associations and temptation. Others who prided
themselves on their superior knowledge laughed at these scruples. We know, they said,
that there are no gods except One. The offering of the sacrifice to them is an empty farce.
The meat has not been polluted at all. We have discernment enough to share in the feast
without recognising the occasion of it. We can rejoice with these pagans, and at the same
time smile at their superstitions. It is only weak, ignorant natures that will hold aloof
from these harmless enjoyments through the fear of being drawn into sin. The pride of
knowledge and its accompanying disdain and want of consideration towards their less-
instructed brethren were their distinguishing features. Knowledge puffeth up, charity
edifieth. Knowledge passeth away, charity abides for ever. Knowledge sees through
coloured glass darkly, love sees face to face. Knowledge may be greatest in devils, love
makes angels and saints. Knowledge is temporal and earthly, ever changing with the
fashions of earth; love is God-like, heavenly, immortal, enduring like the mercy of the
Lord for ever. Now, if any other of the apostles had written in this way about knowledge,
men would have been found ready to quote against him the old fable of AEsop about the
grapes. Untutored peasants and fishermen lifting up their voices in disparagement of
knowledge would have furnished the intellectual scorner with a convenient sarcasm. Ah,
yes, these men were ignorant! Knowledge was beyond their reach, and therefore they
depreciated it. Singularly enough, however, it is St. Paul, the one learned man in the

apostolic band, who talks in this way. Never once did those unlearned fishermen, Peter,
James, and John, write slightingly of knowledge. That was left to Paul, the scholarly
man. Had not his own learning made him a hard, haughty, cruel Pharisee, shutting out
the vision of God, hiding from him the beauty of Jesus Christ, filling him with violent
prejudice and hatred against all men save those of his own class? With all his knowledge,
he had been blind to whatsoever things were lovely, and just, and reverent, and Divine.
He had reason, indeed, to write, Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Knowledge
puffeth up. Yes, from the raw schoolgirl to the man of greatest literary attainments, this
is the effect of knowledge when it is found without the warm and generous and tender
emotions of the heart. There is the young man with his smattering of literary
attainments, with little more than an outward daub of culture. He has little reason to be
proud; not a bit of that knowledge of which he makes his boast has been his own
discovering. It has been drilled into him by patient, painstaking teachers. There is no
more reason to be proud of knowledge received from another person than there is for a
beggar to be proud of receiving alms. How wise he thinks himself in dealing with
religious things, in measuring the preacher, in criticising the Bible, in disposing of
questions of faith, in setting down the old-fashioned people who in their simple
ignorance have been content to believe all that has been taught them! You see it in
literary circles, and in the utterances of the scientist. How conspicuous by its absence is
the grace of humility! Because they know something more about letters, and words, and
cells, and germs, and rocks, and chemical elements than other people, they write and
talk as if their judgments on all subjects were to be received ex cathedra as authoritative
and unquestionable. Their word on all the great subjects of morality, faith, inspiration,
the Bible, God, is to be deemed final and conclusive. They write as if all men were fools
who dare to dispute their conclusions. Yet there is more genius, insight, and real vision
in one of David’s psalms than there is in all the books they have written. An artist or a
poet who has none of their knowledge will see more of beauty and glory and reality in a
moment than they would see in a thousand years. We are always boasting that
knowledge is power, that knowledge has enriched the world, that knowledge has done
wonderful things for humanity. It is the idlest of delusions. Knowledge by itself has done
very little. Even the greatest material inventions have come through men who had rather
the swift insight of genius than the lore of the schools. They were not knowing men who
gave us the railway, the steam-engine, the telegraph. Still less were they knowing men
who enriched the world with the sweetest poems, with the noblest pictures, with the
most charming stories. Titian, and Raphael, and Shakespeare, and Bunyan, and Burns,
and Thomas a Kempis, not to speak of Homer, and David, and Isaiah, and the
evangelists, and the fishermen, Peter and John—from these men, who had less
knowledge on most things than any undergraduate of the present day, we have inherited
the wisdom and the immortal thoughts and words which are beyond all wealth. They
were men with great hearts, seeing things with the keen, clear eyes of love, rather than
men whose heads had gathered a large stock of culture. Heart rather than head has given
to humanity its noble inheritance; love rather than knowledge. Think of the martyrs, the
reformers, the defenders of liberty, the philanthropists, the missionaries. And who are
doing the best work in the world now?—its purifying, saving, uplifting work? Not the
men who call themselves the cultured class. No; knowledge for the most part sits in
judgment on the work of others, criticises, and sneers; while love goes on its way, its
loins girded for service with quenchless faith in God, and hope which nothing can
discourage. It is love, not knowledge, that carries light and sweetness and health into the
dark, foul places of city life; it is love, not knowledge, that generates all the power of
sweet activities. In the highest kind of knowledge what the world calls knowledge breaks
down utterly. What can mere intellect know about God ? His greatness infinitely

transcends the grasp of the most cultured mind. Before His wisdom the profoundest
reaches of the human intellect are folly. Yes, it is to the pure, gentle, tender heart that
God tells His secrets. You can hardly prove the simple fact of God’s existence, still less
the supremely good, loving, and tender character of God, except to those whose hearts
by their very likeness to Him beget their own witness of Him. His own love helps him to
grasp the love Divine. So with immortality. All the knowledge of Butler and Plato could
not prove it. Men who are only wise in the things of nature never find it there. But when
the heart of man has found by experience the measureless power of its own love, found
out what a human soul is capable of in long-suffering, patience, self-forgetfulness—how
great, how even infinite the soul is in the power of loving—then the proof comes. God
could not have made the soul thus and not made it immortal. And the loving heart, too,
understands the mystery of sorrow and pain as the head does not and never can. The
heart which loves God, and feels His love, knows that beyond all the sorrows and the
darkness there is brightness and joy. So give me love and not knowledge, for knowledge
puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (J. G. Greenhough, M. A.)
“Love edifieth”
Think of love—
I. As the essential spirit of all other graces. It is the life, beauty, strength, very soul of
them all. Consider its position in the circle of the Divine attributes. Truth, justice, purity,
&c., are perfections of the Divine character; but “God is love.” A similar position does
love occupy in the ideal character of His true children.
II. As the bond of christian unity. Keenness of spiritual insight, zeal for truth, fidelity to
conscience, may of themselves have a separating effect; but love draws and cements men
together in a real fellowship. Differences in opinion, &c., become of comparatively small
account.
III. As an incentive to christian activity. “Love is the fulfilling of the law,” the end of the
commandment. Get your soul filled with love, and you will never want for an effectual
motive to all noble living. As the materials of the building arrange themselves and rise
into their finished form in obedience to the thought and will of the architect; as the notes
fall, as if by an instinct of their own, into their due place according to the inspiration of
the musician; as the words flow in rhythmic cadence in answer to the mood of the poet’s
genius; as the grass, flowers, and corn grow by the spontaneous energy of the creative
and formative mind that animates them all—so will you rear for yourself the structure of
a beautiful and useful Christian life, if your heart is filled with love.
IV. As the mightiest of all instruments of blessing to others. By the sweet constraint of
His love Christ wins the heart of those for whom He died. By the almightiness of His love
He will ultimately conquer the world and build up that glorious temple to His praise—a
redeemed humanity. Let His love be the inspiration of our life, and we wield a moral
force akin to His and share His triumph. (J. Waits, B. A.)

2. The man who thinks he knows something does
not yet know as he ought to know.
1. BAR ES, "And if any think ... - The connection and the scope of this passage
require us to understand this as designed to condemn that vain conceit of knowledge, or
self-confidence, which would lead us to despise others, or to disregard their interests. “If
anyone is conceited of his knowledge, is so vain, and proud, and self-confident, that he is
led to despise others, and to disregard their true interests, he has not yet learned the
very first elements of true knowledge as he ought to learn them, True knowledge will
make us humble, modest, and kind to others. It will not puff us up, and it will not lead us
to overlook the real happiness of others.” See Rom_11:25.
Any thing - Any matter pertaining to science, morals, philosophy, or religion. This is
a general maxim pertaining to all pretenders to knowledge.
He knoweth nothing yet ... - He has not known what is most necessary to be
known on the subject; nor has he known the true use and design of knowledge, which is
to edify and promote the happiness of others. If a man has not so learned anything as to
make it contribute to the happiness of others, it is a proof that he has never learned the
true design of the first elements of knowledge. Paul’s design is to induce them to seek the
welfare of their brethren. Knowledge, rightly applied, will promote the happiness of all.
And it is true now as it was then, that if a man is a miser in knowledge as in wealth; if he
lives to accumulate, never to impart; if he is filled with a vain conceit of his wisdom, and
seeks not to benefit others by enlightening their ignorance, and guiding them in the way
of truth, he has never learned the true use of science, any more than the man has of
wealth who always hoards, never gives. It is valueless unless it is diffused, as the light of
heaven would be valueless unless diffused all over the world, and the waters would be
valueless if always preserved in lakes and reservoirs, and never diffused over hills and
vales to refresh the earth.
2. CLARKE, "He knoweth nothing yet, etc. - The person who acts in this rash,
unfeeling way, from the general knowledge which he has of the vanity of idolatry and the
liberty which the Gospel affords from Jewish rites, with all his knowledge does not know
this, that though the first and greatest commandment says, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, etc., yet the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself. He, then, that can torment his neighbour’s weak or tender conscience with his
food or his conduct, does not love him as himself, and therefore knows nothing as he
ought to know.
3. GILL, "And if any man think that he knows anything,.... Whoever has an
opinion of himself, or is conceited with his own knowledge, and fancies that he knows
more than he does; which is always the case of those that are elated with their
knowledge, and treat others with contempt, and have no regard to their peace and

edification:
he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know; if he did, he would know this, that
he ought to consult the peace, comfort, and edification of his brother; and therefore
whatever knowledge he may fancy he has attained to, or whatever he may be capable of,
and hereafter obtain, for the present he must be put down for a man that knows nothing
as he should do; for he knows neither his duty to God nor man; if he knew the former, he
would know the latter.
4. HE RY, "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!
5. JAMISO , "And — omitted in the oldest manuscripts The absence of the
connecting particle gives an emphatical sententiousness to the style, suitable to the
subject. The first step to knowledge is to know our own ignorance. Without love there is
only the appearance of knowledge.
knoweth — The oldest manuscripts read a Greek word implying personal
experimental acquaintance, not merely knowledge of a fact, which the Greek of “we
know” or are aware (1Co_8:1) means.
as he ought to know — experimentally and in the way of “love.”
6. RWP, "Puffeth up (phusioi). From phusioō (present indicative active). See note
on 1Co_4:6. Pride may be the result, not edification (oikodomei) which comes from love.
Note article (hē) with both gnōsis and agapē, making the contrast sharper. See note on
1Th_5:11 for the verb oikodomeō, to build up. Love is the solution, not knowledge, in all
social problems.
That he knoweth anything (egnōkenai ti). Perfect active infinitive in indirect
discourse after dokei (condition of first class with ei). So “has acquired knowledge” (cf.

1Co_3:18), has gone to the bottom of the subject.
He knoweth not yet (oupō egnō). Second aorist active indicative, timeless aorist,
summary (punctiliar) statement of his ignorance.
As he ought to know (kathōs dei gnōnai). Second aorist active infinitive, ingressive
aorist (come to know). Newton’s remark that he was only gathering pebbles on the shore
of the ocean of truth is pertinent. The really learned man knows his ignorance of what
lies beyond. Shallow knowledge is like the depth of the mud hole, not of the crystal
spring.
7. CALVI , "2.And if any man thinketh That man thinketh that he knoweth
something, who is delighted with the opinion that he entertains of his own
knowledge, and despises others, as if he were far above them. For Paul does not here
condemn knowledge, but that ambition and haughtiness which ungodly men
contract in consequence of it. Otherwise he does not exhort us to be sceptical, so as
to be always hesitating and hanging in doubt, and he does not approve of a false and
counterfeit modesty, as if it were a good thing to think that we are ignorant of what
we do know. That man, therefore, who thinketh that he knoweth something, or, in
other words, who is insolent from an empty notion of his own knowledge, so that he
prefers himself before others, and is self-conceited, he knoweth nothing yet as he
ought to know For the beginning of all true knowledge is acquaintance with God,
which produces in us humility and submission; nay more, it prostrates us entirely
instead of elating us. But where pride is, there is ignorance of God (462) — a
beautiful passage! Would to God that all knew it aright, so as properly to
understand the rule of right knowledge!
3. But the man who loves God is known by God.
1. BAR ES, "But if any man love God - If any man is truly attached to God; if he
seeks to serve him, and to promote his glory. The sense seems to be this. “There is no
true and real knowledge which is not connected with love to God. This will prompt a
man also to love his brethren, and will lead him to promote their happiness. A man’s
course, therefore, is not to be regulated by mere knowledge, but the grand principle is
love to God and love to man. Love edifies; love promotes happiness; love will prompt to
what is right; and love will secure the approbation of God.” Thus, explained. this difficult
verse accords with the whole scope of the parenthesis, which is to show that a man
should not be guided in his contact with others by mere knowledge, however great that
may be; but that a safer and better principle was “love, charity” (ᅊγάπη agapē), whether

exercised toward God or man. Under the guidance of this, man would be in little danger
of error, Under the direction of mere knowledge he would never be sure of a safe guide;
see 1Co_13:1-13.
The same is known of him - The words “is known” (ᅞγνωσται egnōstai) I suppose to
be taken here in the sense of “is approved by God; is loved by him; meets with his favor,
etc.” In this sense the word “known” is often used in the Scriptures. See the note at Mat_
7:23. The sense is, “If any man acts under the influence of sacred charity, or love to God,
and consequent love to man, he will meet with the approbation of God. He will seek his
glory, and the good of his brethren; he will be likely to do right; and God will approve of
his intentions and desires, and will regard him as his child. Little distinguished,
therefore, as he may be for human knowledge, for that science which puffs up with vain
self-confidence, yet he will have a more truly elevated rank, and will meet with the
approbation and praise of God. This is of more value than mere knowledge, and this love
is a far safer guide than any mere intellectual attainments.” So the world would have
found it to be if they had acted on it; and so Christians would always find it.
2. CLARKE, "But if any man love God - In that way which the commandment
requires, which will necessarily beget love to his neighbor, the same is known of him - is
approved of God, and acknowledged as his genuine follower.
3. GILL, "But if any man love God,.... As they do, and show it, who love their
brethren, and are careful not to grieve them; and make use of their superior knowledge,
not for their destruction, but edification:
the same is known of him; is taught by him, made to know more by him; such an one
increases in spiritual knowledge, or he is highly approved of, esteemed, and beloved by
God: he takes a special and particular notice of him, manifests his love to him, and will
own and acknowledge him another day, when proud, haughty, overbearing, and hard
hearted professors, will be rejected by him.
4. RWP, "The same is known of him (houtos egnōstai hup' autou). Loving God
(condition of first class again) is the way to come to know God. It is not certain whether
houtos refers to the man who loves God or to God who is loved. Both are true. God knows
those that are his (2Ti_2:19; Exo_33:12). Those who know God are known of God (Gal_
4:9). We love God because he first loved us (1Jo_4:19). But here Paul uses both ideas
and both verbs. Egnōstai is perfect passive indicative of ginōskō, an abiding state of
recognition by (hup') God. No one is acquainted with God who does not love him (1Jo_
4:8). God sets the seal of his favour on the one who loves him. So much for the principle.
5. JAMISO , "love God — the source of love to our neighbor (1Jo_4:11, 1Jo_4:12,
1Jo_4:20; 1Jo_5:2).
the same — literally, “this man”; he who loves, not he who “thinks that he knows,”
not having “charity” or love (1Co_8:1, 1Co_8:2).

is known of him — is known with the knowledge of approval and is acknowledged
by God as His (Psa_1:6; Gal_4:9; 2Ti_2:19). Contrast, “I never knew you” (Mat_7:23).
To love God is to know God; and he who thus knows God has been first known by God
(compare 1Co_13:12; 1Pe_1:2).
6. CALVI , "3.But if any man loves God Here we have the conclusion, in which he
shows what is especially commendable in Christians, and even renders knowledge,
and all other endowments worthy of commendation, if we love God; for if it is so, we
will also love our neighbors in him. By this means all our actions will be properly
regulated, and consequently approved by God. He shows, therefore, from
consequences, that no learning is commendable that is not dipped in the love of
God; because that alone secures, that whatever endowments we have are approved
by him, as it is said in the second Epistle —
If any man be in Christ he is a new creature.
(2 Corinthians 5:17.)
By this he intimates, that without the Spirit of regeneration, all things else, whatever
they may have of show, are of no value. To be known by God means to be held in
any estimation, or to be reckoned among his sons. Thus he erases all proud persons
from the book of life, (Philippians 4:3,) and from the roll of the pious.
4. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols:
We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world
and that there is no God but one.
1. BAR ES, "As concerning therefore ... - The parenthesis closes with 1Co_8:3.
The apostle now proceeds to the real question in debate, and repeats in this verse the
question, and the admission that all had knowledge. The admission that all had
knowledge proceeds through 1Co_8:4-6; and in 1Co_8:7 he gives the answer to it. In
1Co_8:4-6 everything is admitted by Paul which they asked in regard to the real extent
of their knowledge on this subject; and in 1Co_8:7 he shows that even on the ground of
this admission, the conclusion would not follow that it was right to partake of the food
offered in sacrifice in the temple of an idol.
The eating of those things ... - Whether it is right to eat them. Here the question is
varied somewhat from what it was in 1Co_8:1, but substantially the same inquiry is
stated. The question was, whether it was right for Christians to eat the meat of animals

I corinthians 8 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to I corinthians 8 commentary

Similar to I corinthians 8 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I corinthians 8 commentary