Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 8

Introduction to First Corinthians Chapter 8

In this chapter, another subject is discussed, which had been proposed by the church at Corinth for the decision of the apostle.

Whether it was right for Christians to partake of the meat that had been offered in sacrifice to idols? On this question, there would be doubtless a difference of opinion among the Corinthian Christians.

When those sacrifices were made to heathen gods, a part of the animal was given to the priest that officiated, a part was consumed on the altar, and a part (probably the principal part) was the property of him who offered it.

This part was either eaten by him at home, as food which had been in some sense consecrated or blessed by having been offered to an idol; or it was partaken of at a feast in honour of the idol; or it was in some instances exposed for sale in the market, in the same way as other meat.

Whether, therefore, it would be right to partake of that food, either when invited to the house of a heathen friend, or when it was exposed for sale in the market, was a question which could not but present itself to a conscientious Christian.

The objection to partaking of it would be, that to partake of it either in the temples or at the feasts of their heathen neighbours, would be to lend their countenance to idolatry.

On the other hand, there were many who supposed that it was always lawful, and that the scruples of their brethren were needless. Some of their arguments Paul has alluded to in the course of the chapter: they were, that an idol was nothing in the world; that there was but one God, and that every one must know this; and that, therefore, there was no danger that any worshipper of the true God could be led into the absurdities of idolatry (1 Corinthians 8:4–6).

To this the apostle replies, that though there might be this knowledge, yet:

1. Knowledge sometimes puffed up and made us proud, and we should be careful lest it should lead us astray by our vain self-confidence (1 Corinthians 8:1–2, 7).
2. All had not that knowledge (1 Corinthians 8:7), and that they even then, notwithstanding all the light which had been shed around them by Christianity, and notwithstanding the absurdity of idolatry, still regarded an idol as a real existence, as a god, and worshipped it as such; and that it would be highly improper to countenance in any way that idea. He left the inference, therefore, that it was not proper, from this argument, to partake of the sacrifices to idols.

A second argument in favour of partaking of that food is alluded to in 1 Corinthians 8:8; namely, that it must be in itself a matter of indifference; that it could make no difference before God, where all depended on moral purity and holiness of heart, whether a man had eaten meat or not; that we were really no better or worse for it; and that, therefore, it was proper to partake of that food. To this Paul replies:

1. That though this was true as an abstract proposition, yet it might be the occasion of leading others into sin (1 Corinthians 8:9).
2. That the effect on a weak brother would be to lead him to suppose that an idol was something, and to confirm him in his supposition that an idol should have some regard and be worshipped in the temple (1 Corinthians 8:10).
3. That the consequence might be that a Christian of little information and experience might be drawn away and perish (1 Corinthians 8:11).
4. That this would be to sin against Christ if a feeble Christian should be thus destroyed (1 Corinthians 8:12).
5. That as for himself, if indulgence in meat was in any way the occasion of making another sin, he would eat no meat as long as the world stood (1 Corinthians 8:13), since to abstain from meat was a far less evil than the injury or destruction of an immortal soul.

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 honour 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 honour of the idol gods on the meat that was offered in sacrifice (see 1 Corinthians 8:10 of this chapter, and 1 Corinthians 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. 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 that 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. 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 1 Corinthians 8:10). To this Paul replies in the course of the chapter, and particularly in 1 Corinthians 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 in 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 1 Corinthians 8:1–3, namely, that it was not safe to rely on mere knowledge in such a case, since the effect of mere knowledge was often to puff men up and to make them proud, but that they ought to act rather from "charity," or love.
2. That though the mass of them might have this knowledge, yet all did not possess it, and they might be injured (1 Corinthians 8:7).

Having stated this argument of the Corinthians, that all had knowledge, in 1 Corinthians 8:1, Paul then in a parenthesis states the usual effect of knowledge and shows that it is not a safe guide (1 Corinthians 8:1–3). In 1 Corinthians 8:4, he resumes the statement (commenced in 1 Corinthians 8:1) of the Corinthians, which, in a mode quite frequent in his writings, he had broken off by his parenthesis on the subject of knowledge. In 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 1–3), 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 men, 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, to fill him with vain ideas of his own importance, and thus to lead him into error and to sin.

But charity edifieth. Love (hē agapē); so the word means, and so it would be well to translate it. Our word charity we now apply almost exclusively to almsgiving, or to the favourable opinion which we entertain of others when they seem to be in error or fault. The word in the Scripture means simply love (see notes on 1 Corinthians 13:1 and following).

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 men.

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.

And if any man think, etc. 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 about his knowledge, is so vain, 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 Romans 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 knows nothing yet, etc. 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 learned anything in such a manner 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 brothers. 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 does not seek 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 and 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 valleys to refresh the earth.

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 that is not connected with love to God. This will prompt a man also to love his fellow believers 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 approval of God."

Thus explained, this difficult verse accords with the whole scope of the parenthesis. The purpose of this parenthesis is to show that a man should not be guided in his interactions with others by mere knowledge, however great that may be. Instead, a safer and better principle was love, charity, (agaph) 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 1 Corinthians 13.

The same is known of him. The words "is known," (egnwstai), I suppose, are 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 notes on Matthew 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 approval of God. He will seek his glory and the good of his fellow believers; 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 approval 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.

As concerning therefore, etc. The parenthesis closes with 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 8:4–6; and in 1 Corinthians 8:7, he gives the answer to it. In 1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 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, etc. Whether it is right to eat them. Here the question is varied somewhat from what it was in 1 Corinthians 8:1, but substantially the same inquiry is stated. The question was, whether it was right for Christians to eat the meat of animals that had been slain in sacrifice to idols.

We know (1 Corinthians 8:1). We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed (1 Corinthians 8:7). But his object was to show that even admitting that, it would not follow that it would be right to partake of that meat. It is well to bear in mind, that the object of their statement in regard to knowledge was to show that there could be no impropriety in partaking of the food. This argument the apostle answers in 1 Corinthians 8:7.

That an idol is nothing. It is not the true God; it is not a proper object of worship. We are not so stupid as to suppose that the block of wood, or the carved image, or the chiseled marble is a real intelligence, and is conscious and capable of receiving worship, or benefiting its worshippers.

We fully admit, and know, that the whole thing is delusive; and there can be no danger that, by partaking of the food offered in sacrifice to them, we should ever be brought to a belief of the stupendous falsehood that they are true objects of worship, or to deny the true God.

There is no doubt that the more intelligent heathen had this knowledge; and doubtless nearly all Christians possessed it, though a few who had been educated in the grosser views of heathenism might still have regarded the idol with a superstitious reverence. For whatever might have been the knowledge of statesmen and philosophers on the subject, it was still doubtless true that the great mass of the heathen world did regard the dumb idols as the proper objects of worship, and supposed that they were inhabited by invisible spirits—the gods. For purposes of state, and policy, and imposition, the lawgivers and priests of the pagan world were careful to cherish this delusion (See 1 Corinthians 8:7).

Is nothing. It is delusive; it is imaginary. There may have been a reference here to the name of an idol among the Hebrews. They called idols HEBREW (Elilim), or, in the singular, HEBREW, (Elil), meaning vain, null, nothing-worth, nothingness, vanity, weakness, etc., indicating their vanity and powerlessness (Leviticus 26:1; 1 Chronicles 16:26; Isaiah 2:8, 18-20; 1 Chronicles 10:10; 19:1, 3; 1 Chronicles 31:7; Psalms 96:5; Ezekiel 30:13; Habakkuk 2:18; Zechariah 11:17, etc.).

In the world. It is nothing at all; it has no power over the world; no real existence anywhere. There are no such gods as the heathens pretend to worship. There is but one God; and that fact is known to us all. The phrase "in the world" seems to be added by way of emphasis, to show the utter nothingness of idols; to explain in the most emphatic manner the belief that they had no real existence.

And that there is none other God but one. This was a great cardinal truth of religion (see Barnes on Mark 12:29).

Compare Deuteronomy 6:4-5. To keep this great truth in mind was the grand object of the Jewish economy; and this was so plain and important, that the Corinthians supposed that it must be admitted by all. Even though they should partake of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols, yet they supposed it was not possible that any of them could forget the great cardinal truth that there was but one God.

That are called gods. Gods so called. The heathens everywhere worshipped multitudes and gave them the name of gods.

Whether in heaven. Residing in heaven, as some of the gods were believed to do. Perhaps there may be an allusion here to the sun, moon, and stars; but I rather suppose that reference is made to the celestial deities, or to those who were believed to reside in heaven, though they were believed to occasionally visit the earth, such as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, etc.

Or in earth. Upon the earth; or those that reigned particularly over the earth or sea, such as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient heathens worshipped some gods that were believed to dwell in heaven, others that were believed to reside on earth, and others that presided over the lower regions, such as Pluto, etc.

As there be gods many, (wsper), etc. As there are, in fact, many that are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the heathens worship many whom they esteem to be gods, or whom they regard as such. This cannot be an admission by Paul that they were truly gods and should be worshipped; rather, it is a declaration that they esteemed them to be such, or that a large number of imaginary beings were thus adored.

The emphasis should be placed on the word "many." The design of the parenthesis is to show that the number of these beings that were worshipped was not small but immense. They were in fact worshipped as gods and allowed to have the influence over their minds and lives that they would have if they were real.

That is, the effect of this popular belief was to produce just as much fear, alarm, superstition, and corruption as if these imaginary gods had a real existence. So, although the more intelligent of the heathen put no confidence in them, the effect on the great mass was the same as if they had had a real existence and exerted a real control over them.

And lords many, (kurioi polloi)—those who had a rule over them, to whom they submitted, and whose laws they obeyed. This name lord was often given to their idol gods. Thus, among the nations of Canaan, their idols were called by the Hebrew name (Baal, or lord), the tutelary god of the Phoenicians and Syrians (Judges 8:33; 9:4, 46).

The term is used here with reference to the idols and means that the laws that they were believed to have given regarding their worship had control over the minds of their worshippers.