Why Is The "Christmas Spirit" So Different?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

What about when it says to not eat meats offered to idols. I posted that a while back but no one answered that one.

I answered it.

http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...0&postcount=83

If meats offered to a nonexisted false god then why not eat if not in heart to worship false god.

I explained this. A person who has a weak conscience, is one who DOES NOT KNOW the truth and actually acknowledges the existence of a false god when in reality it does not exist.

This explains it well:

CLARKE:

1Co 8:7
There is not in every man that knowledge - This is spoken in reference to what is said, 1Co_8:4 : We know that an idol is nothing in the world; for some with a conscience of the idol, viz. that it is something, eat it - the flesh that was offered to the idol, as a thing thus offered, considering the feast as a sacred banquet, by which they have fellowship with the idol. And their conscience being weak - not properly instructed in Divine things, is defiled - he performs what he does as an act of religious worship, and thus his conscience contracts guilt through this idolatry.

BARNES:

1Co 8:7
Howbeit - But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the argument of the Corinthians - that they all knew that an idol was nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that on their account they should abstain; see 1Co_8:11-13.

There is not ... - There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have still remains of pagan opinions and superstitious feelings.

That knowledge - That there is but one God; and that an idol is nothing.

For some with conscience of the idol - From conscientious regard to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and that his favor should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not to be supposed that converted people would regard idols as the only God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favor or avert their wrath. We are to bear in mind that the pagan were exceedingly ignorant; and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon leave them even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices, or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their religious character.

Eat it as a thing ... - As offered to an idol who was entitled to adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favor should be sought, or his wrath averted by sacrifice.

And their conscience being weak - Being unenlightened on this subject; and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and delicate on this subject, they might be disposed to do right, and yet not have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and that they ought not to regard it.

Is defiled - Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his conscience becomes more enlightened; 1Co_8:11, 1Co_8:13. From superstitious reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the effect would be to lead him to conformity to idol worship that would defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to the first argument in favor of partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.

[Truthseeker]

thanks, I missed that.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

thanks, I missed that.

[Truthseeker]

Think I'm put mistletoes all over the house too.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Sam

I was using the terms Grinches and Scrooges for those who do not celebrate Christmas and I was using the words pagans and heathens for those who do celebrate Christmas.

"Why YOU!" (Moe of the Three Stooges)

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by missourimary

...and if the new brother was reminded of his idolatry by putting a gift under a decorated tree, he could and should be all means refrain for conscience's sake. Yet he shouldn't look down on those who have no such memory or intent. That's my understanding of what Paul was writing.

Someone asked, inside another quote, what songs came from pagan roots. Almost all the songs we sing in Apostolic churches... and not too long ago at that. Any song we sing using drums and electric guitars would turn some little old lady's hair blue in a number of other churches, because we "bring the world into the church" with it. Because that little old lady is remembering Elvis's debut or some of the Beatles' songs... My own mother thinks if a song has a beat other than the left hand part in a hymn, it borders on sin when performed in church. Tamborines? Holdover from hippies. Guitars, drums, and electric keyboards? Rock. Stages and stage lights? Outrage! Heresy! That's straight out of rock and roll. Who popularized fog machines or light shows? Rock musicians? That's how I learned about them. Seeing them used at youth convention seemed a little worldly even to me.

Boothe-Clibborn wrote the wonderful hymn Down From His Glory with Elvis' tune, It's Now or Never

Oh great reluctance
flesh and blood His substance
He took the form of man
revealed the hidden plan
oh glorious mystery
precious lamb of calvary
and now I know Thou art the great I AM.

Oh how I love Him
How I adore Him
My breath, my sunshine
My All in all
The great Creator
became my Savior
and all the fulness
dwelleth in Him!

What a Great Hymn of the Church!

[mfblume]

Albert Barnes has some of the best explanations of this issue.

1Co 8:1
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 (ἡ ἀγάπη 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.

[mfblume]

1Co 8:4
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 that had been slain in sacrifice to idols.

We know - 1Co_8:1. We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed, 1Co_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 1Co_8:7.

That an idol is nothing - Is not the true God; 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 volaries. 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 pagan had this knowledge; and doubtless nearly all Christians possessed it, though a few who had been educated in the grosser views of paganism 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 pagan 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 1Co_8:7.

Is nothing - Is delusive; is imaginary. There may have been a reference here to the name of an idol among the Hebrews. They called idols אלילים 'ĕlı̂yliym (Elilim), or in the singular אליל 'ĕlı̂yl (Elil}, vain, null, nothingworth, nothingness, vanity, weakness, etc.; indicating their vanity and powerlessness; Lev_26:1; 1Ch_16:26; Isa_2:8; Isa_10:10; Isa_19:11, Isa_19:13, Isa_19:20; Isa_31:7; Psa_90:5; Eze_30:13; Hab_2:18; Zec_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 pagans 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 the note at Mar_12:29; compare Deu_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.

1Co 8:5
That are called gods - Gods so called. The pagans everywhere worshipped multitudes, and gave to them the name of gods.

Whether in heaven - Residing in heaven, as a part of the gods were supposed to do. Perhaps, there may be 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 supposed to reside in heaven, though they were supposed occasionally to visit the earth, as Jupiter, Juno, Mercury, etc.

Or in earth - Upon the earth; or that reigned particularly ever the earth, or sea, as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient pagans worshipped some gods that were supposed to dwell in heaven; others that were supposed to reside on earth; and others that presided over the inferior regions, as Pluto, etc.

As there be gods many - ὥσπερ hōsper, etc. As there are, in fact, many which are so called or regarded. It is a fact that the pagans worship many whom they esteem to be gods, or whom they regard as such. This cannot be an admission of Paul that they were truly gods, and ought to he worshipped; but 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;” and the design of the parenthesis is, to show that the number of these that were worshipped was not a few, but was immense; and that they were in fact worshipped as gods, and allowed to have the influence over their minds and lives which they would have if they were real; that is, that the effect of this popular belief was to produce just as much fear, alarm, superstition, and corruption, as though these imaginary gods had a real existence. So that though the more intelligent of the pagan put no confidence in them, yet the effect on the great mass was the same as if they had had a real existence, and exerted over them a real control.

And lords many - (κύριοι πολλοὶ kurioi polloi). Those who had a “rule” over them; to whom they submitted themselves; and whose laws they obeyed. This name “lord” was often given to their idol gods. Thus, among the nations of Canaan their idols was called בּצל Ba‛al, (“Baal, or lord”), the tutelary god of the Phoenicians and Syrians; Jdg_8:33; Jdg_9:4, Jdg_9:46. It is used here with reference to the IdoLS, and means that the laws which they were supposed to give in regard to their worship had control over the minds of their worshippers.

[mfblume]

1Co 8:6
But to us - Christians. We acknowledge but one God, Whatever the pagan worship, we know that there is but one God; and he alone has a right to rule over us.

One God, the Father - Whom we acknowledge as the Father of all; Author of all things; and who sustains to all his works the relation of a father. The word “Father” here is not used as applicable to the first person of the Trinity, as distinguished from the second, but is applied to God as God; not as the Father in contradistinction from the Son, but to the divine nature as such, without reference to that distinction - the Father as distinguished from his offspring, the works that owe their origin to him. This is manifest:

(1) Because the apostle does not use the correlative term” Son” when he comes to speak of the “one Lord Jesus Christ;” and,

(2) Because the scope of the passage requires it. The apostle speaks of God, of the divine nature, the one infinitely holy Being, as sustaining the relation of Father “to his creatures.” He produced them, He provides for them. He protects them, as a father does his children. He regards their welfare; pities them in their sorrows; sustains them in trial; shows himself to be their friend. The name “Father” is thus given frequently to God, as applicable to the one God, the divine Being; Psa_103:13; Jer_31:9; Mal_1:6; Mal_2:10; Mat_6:9; Luk_11:2, etc. In other places it is applied to the first person of the Trinity as distinguished from the second; and in these instances the correlative “Son” is used, Luk_10:22; Luk_22:42; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:35; Joh_5:19-23, Joh_5:26, Joh_5:30, Joh_5:36; Heb_1:5; 2Pe_1:17, etc.

Of whom - ἐξ οὗ ex hou. From whom as a fountain and source; by whose counsel, plan, and purpose. He is the great source of all; and all depend on him. It was by his purpose and power that all things were formed, and to all he sustains the relation of a Father. The agent in producing all things, however, was the Son, Col_1:16; see the note at Joh_1:3.

Are all things - These words evidently refer to the whole work of creation, as deriving their origin from God, Gen_1:1. Everything has thus been formed in accordance with his plan; and all things now depend on him as their Father.

And we - We Christians. We are what we are by him. We owe our existence to him; and by him we have been regenerated and saved. It is owing to his counsel, purpose, agency, that we have an existence; and owing to him that we have the hope of eternal life. The leading idea here is, probably, that to God Christians owe their hopes and happiness.

In him - (εἰς αὐτόν eis auton); or rather unto him: that is, we are formed for him, and should live to his glory. We have been made what we are, as Christians, that we may promote his honor and glory.

And one Lord ... - One Lord in contradistinction from the “many lords” whom the pagans worshipped. The word “Lord” here is used in the sense of proprietor, ruler, governor, or king; and the idea is, that Christians acknowledge subjection to Him alone, and not to many sovereigns, as the pagans did. Jesus Christ is the Ruler and Lord of his people. They acknowledge their allegiance to him as their supreme Lawgiver and King. They do not acknowledge subjection to many rulers, whether imaginary gods or human beings; but receive their laws from him alone. The word “Lord” here does not imply of necessity any inferiority to God; since it is a term which is frequently applied to God himself. The idea in the passage is, that from God, the Father of all, we derive our existence, and all that we have; and that we acknowledge “immediate and direct” subjection to the Lord Jesus as our Lawgiver and Sovereign. From him Christians receive their laws, and to him they submit their lives. And this idea is so far from supposing inferiority in the Lord Jesus to God, that it rather supposes equality; since a right to give laws to people, to rule their consciences, to direct their religious opinions and their lives, can appropriately pertain only to one who has equality with God.

1Co 8:7
Howbeit - But. In the previous verses Paul had stated the argument of the Corinthians - that they all knew that an idol was nothing; that they worshipped but one God; and that there could be no danger of their falling into idolatry, even should they partake of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. Here he replies, that though this might be generally true, yet it was not universally; for that some were ignorant on this subject, and supposed that an idol had a real existence, and that to partake of that meat would be to confirm them in their superstition. The inference therefore is, that on their account they should abstain; see 1Co_8:11-13.

There is not ... - There are some who are weak and ignorant; who have still remains of pagan opinions and superstitious feelings.

That knowledge - That there is but one God; and that an idol is nothing.

For some with conscience of the idol - From conscientious regard to the idol; believing that an idol god has a real existence; and that his favor should be sought, and his wrath be deprecated. It is not to be supposed that converted people would regard idols as the only God; but they might suppose that they were intermediate beings, good or bad angels, and that it was proper to seek their favor or avert their wrath. We are to bear in mind that the pagan were exceedingly ignorant; and that their former notions and superstitious feelings about the gods whom their fathers worshipped, and whom they had adored, would not soon leave them even on their conversion to Christianity. This is just one instance, like thousands, in which former erroneous opinions, prejudices, or superstitious views may influence those who are truly converted to God, and greatly mar and disfigure the beauty and symmetry of their religious character.

Eat it as a thing ... - As offered to an idol who was entitled to adoration; or as having a right to their homage. They supposed that some invisible spirit was present with the idol; and that his favor should be sought, or his wrath averted by sacrifice.

And their conscience being weak - Being unenlightened on this subject; and being too weak to withstand the temptation in such a case. Not having a conscience sufficiently clear and strong to enable them to resist the temptation; to overcome all their former prejudices and superstitious feelings; and to act in an independent manner, as if an idol were nothing. Or their conscience was morbidly sensitive and delicate on this subject, they might be disposed to do right, and yet not have sufficient knowledge to convince them that an idol was nothing, and that they ought not to regard it.

Is defiled - Polluted; contaminated. By thus countenancing idolatry he is led into sin, and contracts guilt that will give him pain when his conscience becomes more enlightened; 1Co_8:11, 1Co_8:13. From superstitious reverence of the idol, he might think that he was doing right; but the effect would be to lead him to conformity to idol worship that would defile his conscience, pollute his mind, and ultimately produce the deep and painful conviction of guilt. The general reply, therefore, of Paul to the first argument in favor of partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols is, that all Christians have not full knowledge on the subject; and that to partake of that might lead them into the sin of idolatry, and corrupt and destroy their souls.

1Co 8:8
But meat commendeth us not to God - This is to be regarded as the view presented by the Corinthian Christians, or by the advocates for partaking of the meat offered in sacrifice to idols. The sense is, “Religion is of a deeper and more spiritual nature than a mere regard to circumstances like these. God looks at the heart. He regards the motives, the thoughts, the moral actions of people. The mere circumstance of eating ‘meat,’ or abstaining from it, cannot make a man better or worse in the sight of a holy God. The acceptable worship of God is not placed in such things. It is more spiritual; more deep; more important. And therefore, the inference is, “it cannot be a matter of much importance whether a man eats the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, or abstains.” To this argument the apostle replies 1Co_8:9-13, that, although this might be true in itself, yet it might be the occasion of leading others into sin, and it would then become a matter of great importance in the sight of God, and should be in the sight of all true Christians. The word “commendeth” παράστησι parastēsi means properly to introduce to the favor of anyone, as a king or ruler; and here means to recommend to the favor of God. God does not regard this as a matter of importance. He does not make his favor depend on unimportant circumstances like this.

Neither if we eat - If we partake of the meat offered to idols.

Are we the better - Margin, “Have we the more.” Greek Do we abound περισσεύομεν perisseuomen; that is, in moral worth or excellence of character; see the note at Rev_14:17.

Are we the worse - Margin, “Have we the less.” Greek, Do we lack or want (ὑστερούμεθα husteroumetha); that is, in moral worth or excellence.

[mfblume]

1Co 8:9
But take heed - This is the reply of Paul to the argument of the Corinthians in 1Co_8:8. “Though all that you say should be admitted to be true, as it must be; though a man is neither morally better nor worse for partaking of meat or abstaining from it; yet the grand principle to be observed is, so to act as not to injure your brethren. Though you may be no better or worse for eating or not eating, yet if your conduct shall injure others, and lead them into sin, that is a sufficient guide to determine you what to do in the case. You should abstain entirely. It is of far more importance that your brother should not be led into sin, than it is that you should partake of meat which you acknowledge 1Co_8:8 is in itself of no importance.”

Lest by any means - μή πως mē pōs. You should be careful that by no conduct of yours your brother be led into sin. This is a general principle that is to regulate Christian conduct in all matters that are in themselves indifferent.

This liberty of yours - This which you claim as a right; this power which you have, and the exercise of which is in itself lawful. The “liberty” or power ἐξουσία exousia here referred to was that of partaking of the meat that was offered in sacrifice to idols; 1Co_8:8. A man may have a right abstractly to do a thing, but it may not be prudent or wise to exercise it.

Become a stumbling-block - An occasion of sin; see the note at Mat_5:29; also see the note at Rom_14:13. See that it be not the occasion of leading others to sin, and to abandon their Christian profession; 1Co_8:10.

To them that are weak - To those professing Christians who are not fully informed or instructed in regard to the true nature of idolatry, and who still may have a superstitious regard for the gods whom their fathers worshipped.


1Co 8:10
For if any man - Any Christian brother who is ignorant, or anyone who might otherwise become a Christian.

Which hast knowledge - Who are fully informed in regard to the real nature of idol worship. You will be looked up to as an example. You will be presumed to be partaking of this feast in honor of the idol. You will thus encourage him, and he will partake of it with a conscientious regard to the idol.

Sit at meat - Sitting down to an entertainment in the temple of the idol. Feasts were often celebrated, as they are now among the pagan, in honor of idols. Those entertainments were either in the temple of the idol, or at the house of him who gave it.
Shall not the conscience of him which is weak - Of the man who is not fully informed, or who still regards the idol with superstitious feelings; see 1Co_8:7.

Be emboldened - Margin, “Edified” οἰκοδομηθήσεται oikodomēthēsetai. Confirmed; established. So the word “edify” is commonly used in the New Testament; Act_9:31; Rom_14:19; Eph_4:12; 1Th_5:11. The sense here is, “Before this he had a superstitious regard for idols. He had the remains of his former feelings and opinions. But he was not established in the belief that an idol was anything; and his superstitious feelings were fast giving way to the better Christian doctrine that they were nothing. But now, by your example, he will be fully confirmed in the belief that an idol is to be regarded with respect and homage. He will see you in the very temple, partaking of a feast in honor of the idol; and he will infer not only that it is right, but that it is a matter of conscience with you, and will follow your example.”


1Co 8:11
And through thy knowledge - Because you knew that an idol was nothing, and that there could be really no danger of falling into idolatry from partaking of these entertainments. You will thus be the means of deceiving and destroying him. The argument of the apostle here is, that if This was to be the result, the duty of those who had this knowledge was plain.

Shall the weak brother - The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That it means real Christian there can be no doubt. Because:

(1) It is the usual term by which Christians are designated - the endearing name of “brother;” and,

(2) The scope of the passage requires it so to be understood; see the note at Rom_14:20.

Perish - Be destroyed; ruined; lost; see the note at Joh_10:28. So the word ἀπολεῖται apoleitai properly and usually signifies. The sense is, that the tendency of this course would be to lead the weak brother into sin, to apostasy, and to ruin. But this does not prove that any who were truly converted should apostatize and be lost; for:

(1) There may be a tendency to a thing, and yet that thing may never happen. It may be arrested, and the event not occur.

(2) the warning designed to prevent it may be effectual, and be the means of saving. A man in a canoe floating down the Niagara river may have a tendency to go over the falls; but he may be hailed from the shore, and the hailing may be effectual, and he may be saved. The call to him was designed to save him, and actually had that effect. So it may be in the warnings to Christians.

(3) the apostle does not say that any true Christian would be lost. He puts a question; and affirms that if “one” thing was done, “another might” follow. But this is not affirming that anyone would be lost. So I might say that if the man continued to float on toward the falls of Niagara, he would be destroyed. If one thing was done, the other would be a consequence. But this would be very different from a statement that a man “had actually”
gone over the falls, and been lost.

(4) it is elsewhere abundantly proved that no one who has been truly converted will apostatize and be destroyed; see the notes at Joh_10:28; compare the note at Rom_8:29-30.

For whom Christ died - This is urged as an argument why we should not do anything that would tend to destroy the souls of people. And no stronger argument could be used. The argument is, that we should not do anything that would tend to frustrate the work of Christ, that would render the shedding of his blood vain. The possibility of doing this is urged; and that bare possibility should deter us from a course of conduct that might have this tendency. It is an appeal drawn from the deep and tender love, the sufferings, and the dying groans of the Son of God. If He endured so much to save the soul, assuredly we should not pursue a course that would tend to destroy it. If he denied himself so much to redeem, we should not, assuredly, be so fond of self-gratification as to be unwilling to abandon anything that would tend to destroy.