1Cor 8:4-6 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 4. As concerning therefore , etc. The parenthesis closes with . 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 ; and in , he gives the answer to it. In , everything is admitted by Paul which they asked in regard to the real extent of their knowledge on this subject; and in 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 , 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 . . We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed, . 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 . 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 rotaries. 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 . Is nothing . Is delusive; is imaginary. There may have been a reference here to the name of all idol among the Hebrews. They called idols ( Elilim ,) or, in the singular, , ( Elil ,) vain, null, nothing-worth, nothingness, vanity, weakness, etc.; indicating their vanity and powerlessness, ; ; , 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. . Comp. . 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. (b) "idol"

1 Corinthians 8:4-6

Verse 4. As concerning therefore, etc. The parenthesis closes with 1Cor 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 1Cor 8:4,5,6; and in 1Cor 8:7, he gives the answer to it. In 1Cor 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 1Cor 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 1Cor 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. 1Cor 8:1. We Corinthians know; and Paul seems fully to admit that they had all the knowledge which they claimed, 1Cor 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 1Cor 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 rotaries. 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 1Cor 8:7.

Is nothing. Is delusive; is imaginary. There may have been a reference here to the name of all idol among the Hebrews. They called idols (Elilim,) or, in the singular, , (Elil,) vain, null, nothing-worth, nothingness, vanity, weakness, etc.; indicating their vanity and powerlessness, Lev 26:1, 1Chr 16:26; Isa 2:8,18-20, 10:10, 19:1,3, 31:7, Ps 96:5, Eze 30:13; Hab 2:18; Zech 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. Mk 12:29. Comp. De 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.

(b) "idol" Is 41:24 Verse 5. That are called gods. Gods so called. The heathens 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 over the earth, or sea, as Ceres, Neptune, etc. The ancient heathens 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, (ωσπερ,) etc. As there are, in fact, many which 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 of Paul that they were truly gods, and ought to be 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 heathen 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, (κυριοιπολλοι) 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 were called , (Baal, or lord,) the tutelary god of the Phenicians and Syrians, Jud 8:33, 9:4,46. 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.

(d) "are called gods" Jn 10:34,35 Verse 6. But to us. Christians. We acknowledge but one God. Whatever the heathen 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 Ms 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, Ps 103:13, Jer 31:9, Mal 1:6, 2:10, Mt 6:9, Lk 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, Lk 10:22, 22:42, Jn 1:18, 3:35, 5:19-23,26,30,36, Heb 1:5; 2Pet 1:17, etc.

Of whom. εξου. 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. Jn 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. ειςαυτον; or rather, unto him: that is, we are formed for hun, and should live to his glory. We have been made what we are, as Christians, that we may promote his honour and glory.

And one Lord, etc. One Lord, in contradistinction from the "many lords" whom the heathens 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 heathens 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 men; 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 men, to rule their consciences, to direct their religious opinions, and their lives, can appropriately appertain only to one who has equality with God.

By whom, etc. διου. By whose agency; or through whom, as the agent. The word "by" (δι) stands in contradistinction from "of" (εξ) in the former part of the verse; and obviously means, that though "all things" derived their existence from God, as the Fountain and Author, yet it was "by" the agency of the Lord Jesus. This doctrine, that the Son of God was the great agent in the creation of the world, is elsewhere abundantly taught in the Scriptures. Jn 1:3.

Are all things. The universe; for so the phrase ταπαντα, properly means. No words could better express the idea of the universe than these; and the declaration is therefore explicit that the Lord Jesus created all things. Some explain this of the "new creation;" as if Paul had said that all things pertaining to our salvation were from him. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious.

(1.) It is not the natural signification.

(2.) The phrase "all things" naturally denotes the universe.

(3.) The scope of the passage requires us so to understand it. Paul is not speaking of the new creature; but he is speaking of the question whether there is more than one God, one Creator, one Ruler, over the wide universe. The heathen said there was; Christians affirmed that there was not. The scope, therefore, of the passage requires us to understand this of the vast material universe; and the obvious declaration here is, that the Lord Jesus was the Creator of all.

And we. We Christians, (1Pet 1:21;) or, we as men; we have derived our existence "by" (δι) or through him. The expression will apply either to our original creation, or to our hopes of heaven, as being by him; and is equally true respecting both. Probably the idea is, that all that we have, as men and as Christians, our lives and our hopes, are through him, and by his agency.

By him. (διαυτου) By his agency. Paul had said, in respect to God the Father of all, that we were unto (εις) him; he here says that in regard to the Lord Jesus, we are by (δι) him, or by his agency. The sense is, "God is the author, the former of the plan; the source of being and of hope; and we are to live to him: but Jesus is the agent by whom all these things are made, and through whom they are conferred on us." Arians and Socinians have made use of this passage to prove that the Son was inferior to God; and the argument is, that the name God is not given to Jesus, but another name implying inferiority; and that the design of Paul was to make a distinction between God and the Lord Jesus. It is not the design of these Notes to examine opinions in theology; but in reply to this argument we may observe briefly,

(1.) that those who hold to the divinity of the Lord Jesus do not deny that there is a distinction between him and the Father: they fully admit and maintain it, both in regard to his eternal existence, (i.e., that there is an eternal distinction of persons in the Godhead,) and in regard to his office as Mediator.

(2.) The term "Lord," given here, does not of necessity suppose that he is inferior to God.

(3.) The design of the passage supposes that there was equality in some respects. God the Father and the Lord Jesus sustain relations to men that in some sense correspond to the "many gods" and the "many lords" that the heathen adored; but they were equal in nature.

(4.) The work of creation is expressly in this passage ascribed to the Lord Jesus. But the work of creation cannot be performed by a creature. There can be no delegated God, and no delegated omnipotence, or delegated infinite wisdom and omnipresence. The work of creation implies divinity; or it is impossible to prove that there is a God: and if the Lord Jesus made "ALL THINGS," he must be God.

(a) "to us" Mal 2:10, Eph 4:6 (1) "we in him" "for" (b) "by whom" Jn 1:3, Heb 1:2