JUDGMENT (9)
[p. 426] JUDGMENT (9)
1 Corinthians 8: 1 - 13; 1 Corinthians 10: 14 - 33
JT As to the selection made of the scriptures to be read in this epistle it may be remarked that there are only two meetings left in this series. Some well-known portions are left out, but the subjects that have been passed by are too extended to meet the requirements of the meeting tonight. For instance, chapter 5 treats of the incestuous wickedness in Corinth, a well-known subject: therefore it was not thought wise to bring it up at this time. Then chapter 7, which is the subject of marriage, would be also very extended if we were to touch it at all. Chapter 8 is selected, linked on with chapter 10, because it deals with a subject with which we are not usually familiar. Chapter 8 is one of the passages in which allusion is made to a letter of inquiry which the brethren at Corinth had made to the apostle. This inquiry is regarding idols, but there are several such inquiries in the book and they are all interesting. Chapter 7 is of course one of them. But chapter 8 is a very important one because it treats of things sacrificed to idols, though the apostle immediately turns from the main thought to the question of knowledge. He says, “concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know (for we all have knowledge: knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. If anyone thinks he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know it. But if any one love God, he is known of Him)”. So that we have a touch there that ought to appeal to us as loving God; and God notices particularly those who love Him; He singles them out, we might say, as they come into view.
JHE Is it not noticeable that this is a parenthesis, as if it were added to give further weight to what was on the apostle’s mind?
JT Well, he clearly turned aside from the inquiry to bring in this matter. I suppose, as with many other [p. 427] cases in the two letters, there had been questions asked, and this is one of them. Clearly the apostle had in mind that in spite of the immediate question there must have been some tendency to be puffed up because of knowledge, which is often the case. Some men have learning and are men of parts and would be puffed up by what they know.
JHE And in that case love would be left out, which is the most essential thing, is it not?
JT Because it builds up. Love edifies, it is constructive, whereas knowledge is apt to puff up. How often we put ourselves forward because we know a little Greek or the like, whereas it does not edify. But then in verse 4 he turns to the inquiry and says, “concerning then the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God save one. For if indeed there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, (as there are gods many, and lords many), yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him”. And so we come to this point that is always of importance, how to distinguish divine Persons; whether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit; they are to be distinguished.
AR Would you say how they are to be distinguished? Is this title ‘God’ the full idea?
JT Yes, it is mentioned first, “if any one love God”; that is, ‘God’ as thus used would include the three Persons really when fully stated: “if any one love God, he is known of him”. Then it says, “there is no other God save one”; and again, “yet to us there is one God”, then specifying who He is; He is the Father. Then it is specified who the Lord is, as the mediatorial Person, so that clearly we have the Father and the Son specified here, but not the Spirit yet.
FHL It is striking what you are emphasising [p. 428] about knowledge because in chapter 13, where love is paramount, knowledge is done away; in the love chapter knowledge is to be done away.
JT Showing how unimportant it is in itself.
RWS “Yet to us”, it says, “there is one God, the Father”. Is there something distinctive in that as bearing on the assembly and the assembly’s day?
JT I suppose so. In the second epistle, as we noted recently, it says, “I ... will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty”; that is to say, God there refers to names He had already taken with Abraham and others. Jehovah Almighty was one name He has taken. But now He is saying that, added to these — though not in any way cancelling them — is the name of ‘Father’. It was added to those names. So that the names in the Old Testament are not abrogated, they remain in their force, conveying the idea of power and the like; but the name of ‘Father’ is a new name, the name of relationship, and that is characteristic of God’s relation with us, with christians. He is our Father. Although in that particular passage in chapter 6 of the second epistle where it says, “ye shall be my sons and daughters”, we have to distinguish because the full thought with us is not sons and daughters, but sons — sons only, or children.
AR In Genesis 1 you have just ‘Elohim’, but in Genesis 2 you have added to Elohim, ‘Jehovah’. Is that the same idea here?
JT It is. Elohim is the well-known name of the first chapter of Genesis, which would mean supremacy, but Jehovah is added to it, which means that He is entering into relationship. In the second chapter He takes that relation as Jehovah Elohim, that is to say, it is a question of the light of what He is to be to Israel; but He retains the name of supremacy also.
FNW Is it in your mind that every feature in [p. 429] which God has come out towards men is to be gathered up in our souls?
JT That is right; every feature entering into the knowledge of God is to be gathered up in our souls, a good phrase — gathering things up in our souls; not in our heads but in our souls, because it is a question of love. If we are dealing with God it is a question of love, “if any one love God, he is known of him”. The person who loves Him is known of Him, therefore it is a question of love.
ABP In the verse that you quote, “If any one love God, he is known of Him”, I notice the unusual use of the capital in the pronoun ‘Him’. Is that brought in as a title?
JT I think it must have been put in designedly so as to distinguish God Himself; to distinguish Him, that it is God that is in mind, that God knows the person that loves Him. I suppose the capital is introduced just to guard that.
ABP I had not noticed it before, I must confess, and I wondered if there was anything in the original that justified the capital.
JT Well, I doubt it; I do not suppose it is in the Authorised Version. It must be to guard the pronoun ‘Him’, that it refers to God. That is to say, that the person who loves God is known of God; God knows him, so that if He were to meet him in a crowd, so to speak, He would take notice of him because He loves him.
GH Mary pondered those things in her heart. It is the idea of affection, love being attached to it.
ANW You have the same peculiarity as to the capital letter in the end of Numbers 7; it says, “When Moses went into the tent of meeting to speak with Him”; it is a capital there, “then he heard the voice speaking to him from off the mercy-seat which was upon the ark of testimony, from between the two cherubim; and he spoke to Him”, the capital again, signalising, as you say, a divine Person.
ABP Would the matter of God distinguishing a man be worked out in God’s relations with Abraham who had come out from idolatry? He says, “I know him that he will command his children and his household after him”, Genesis 18: 19.
JT Yes; God says, I called him alone, showing that He distinguished him. “I called him when he was alone, and blessed him”, Isaiah 51: 2.
RWS Is it not remarkable that this wonderful truth as to “God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him”, should be placed in a section which deals with idols and a weak conscience and sinning against Christ and being a fall-trap to my brother? Is it not a very elevated thought in the presence of very base and low thoughts?
JT That word ‘elevated’ was the one that was in our minds, as you may remember, when we suggested this section, because the thought was to elevate the minds of the brethren in the epistle to the Corinthians. It is so much read and spoken of that it was thought we should get the most elevated thoughts in it at this particular time, and I think what you say is one of these thoughts; that is to say, the place that God has here, and that the person who loves Him is distinguished in His mind. Then it is emphasised that there is only one God, although ‘God’ is a plural thought, as Elohim in the first of Genesis; yet here it is a singular, it is brought down to the singular; that is, God discerned as such — as the Father — instead of being inclusive of the Son and the Spirit. The baptismal formula in Matthew 28 would distinguish the three Persons: “to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.
AR It says, “one God, the Father, of whom all things, ... and one Lord. Jesus Christ, by whom are all things”. Is the idea that God stands by Himself, “of whom all things”?
JT So it is also in Hebrews 2: “it became him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”, verse 10.
ANW I was going to ask as to that passage: “for whom are all things and by whom are all things” Does not that refer to the Father? “For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make perfect the leader of their salvation through sufferings”.
JT Well, that just shows how divine Persons may be distinguished and may be named interchangeably. The Father may be in mind at one time and the Son at another time in saying the same things. In Hebrews 2 it refers to the Father, and that certain things became Him, the Father.
JAP Referring to the Holy Spirit, in verse 40 of the previous chapter it says, “but I think that I also have God’s Spirit”. Is that one of the elevated thoughts? The apostle said he did not have the Lord’s commandment about certain things, “but I think that I also have God’s Spirit”. Would that have equal authority?
JT That raises a very important question as to a particular character of thing in chapter 7 that you refer to, where the apostle distinguishes between his own personal knowledge by experience, and revelation and inspiration. Paul makes much of the difference between inspiration and personal knowledge from experience in chapter 7; you hardly get it anywhere else.
JAP I was wondering if “God’s Spirit” is an allusion to the Holy Spirit.
JT Surely; the apostle says, “I think that I also have God’s Spirit”; that is to say, it is a question of supposition with him, which is remarkable; that he should at such a time come down to the thought of the [p. 432] difference between things that are inspired and the outcome of a brother’s knowledge because of his experience. That is found only in that section, and it is wonderful that it is so, because there is so much inquiry as to marriage and the different features of it.
TNW Is he suggesting that what he is saying does not grieve the Spirit?
JT He is suggesting, too, that he is an experienced man, that he has particular access to God and His things, and so he can say these things.
WAT He does not say that he has the Spirit, but “I think ...”
JT Well, it is to bring out what he was, a spiritual man. Perhaps there was not a more spiritual man on earth than he.
AM Would it be right to say that there is a kind of knowledge that the apostle commends here? That is, the knowledge of divine Persons as they are to be known. It is not the kind of knowledge that puffs up, is it?
JT He is distinguishing the knowledge of divine Persons, the outcome of which is love.
ABP When it speaks of “one God, the Father, of whom all things”, does it refer to His counsels and purposes, God being the source of counsel and of its expression?
JT I would think so, as it stands here; but we have to bear in mind what we were saying as to Hebrews 2: 10, that ‘for’ and ‘by’ there relate to the Father.
ABP And in Romans 11: 36 we have, “For of him and through him, and for him are all things”. I wondered if the ‘of’ refers to the origin or source of all that is of God really?
JT When we consult the first chapter of John we have to see that the Son is God, and that all things were made by Him, and that without Him was not one thing [p. 433] made that was made. So it says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”, and then that all things were made by Him. The making of things is attributed to the Son there.
ANW Your statement that the Persons are interchangeable must explain it, because chapter 1 of Hebrews distinctly attributes the creation of the worlds to the Son: “... by whom also he made the worlds”.
JT The thing to be noted is that it is instrumentality there, that God made them through the Son. But in John 1 it is not so; “All things were made by him”, is stated nakedly, as it were.
ANW Is the ‘by’, in Hebrews 2: 10, instrumentality or not? “By whom are all things”.
JT That would not be instrumentality; if it is attributable to God it would not be that.
ABP Would Mr. Darby be in the appreciation of what we have been considering in writing the hymn which reads, “All the Father’s counsels claiming equal honours to the Son” (14:4)? Is that not the atmosphere of this chapter?
JT Very good indeed; it is, as was suggested, the interchangeableness of the Persons-how they can be spoken of interchangeably. And that guards Deity. There is only one God really.
FSC Is it the apostle’s mind here to unify the minds of the brethren as to God over against idolatry? In Ephesians 4 it says, “using diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace”.
JT That is enjoined on us. “There is one body and one Spirit, as ye have been also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in us all”. That is a wonderful statement of the [p. 434] truth.
AM Why is lordship stressed on this line of instrumentality, and not sonship as in Hebrews? It is lordship here, is it not?
JT It is to bring out the mediatorial position in authority, that is, the Lord, one Lord, which would agree with certain lines of thought in this epistle to bring out the authority of Christ as over against that of the Father.
AM And of course a great corrective principle as over against idolatry.
RHS Would you say a word as to the difference between this thought, “one God, the Father”, and what we get in Timothy, “For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus”? Does that involve the three Persons or has it in mind just the Father?
JT The mediator is the Son of course, that is, the man Christ Jesus; the mediatorial position is occupied by the Lord, by Christ. And God is one, of course, to bring out the truth of the unity of God.
WAT You were speaking about John 1, “All things were made by him”; in Colossians it says that all things were created by Him, and then it gives the details, the things in the heavens, things on the earth, thrones and so forth. Is that the same thought.
JT Well, it is; it is to bring out the place of the Son which is characteristic of Colossians; much is made of the Son there as over against God. Sonship is a great thought in Colossians.
RWS The instrumentality is perfect and complete in that sense because it is equal to the source. Would that not be so?
JT Just so, because it is a question of the Persons in the Godhead. The difference between the Persons can only be accounted for by the economy into which they have come, involving certain positional inferiority in the Spirit and the Son as compared with the Father.
[p. 435] That is only to work out the truth of the economy that enters into the dispensation. Do you think that? We can only speak of inferiority in any sense in the divine Persons as we bring in the idea of the economy into which they have come.
CAM That would mean the position they have taken?
JT Just so, they have taken it voluntarily, it was not imposed upon them.
TNW Did I understand your thought in referring to Hebrews 2 that while it applies to God it could apply likewise to any One of the three Persons including the Holy Spirit?
JT Quite so. God is God; and if we speak to God as God then we must include in our minds, even if we do not speak it, both the Son and the Spirit, which is important, especially so just now as regards what is in the minds of the brethren as to speaking to the Spirit. Because if we speak to God in the full sense we include the Spirit. The Spirit must be included because God is in the Spirit, as it says in Ephesians 2, “a habitation of God in the Spirit”.
ATD Is it correct to say, “our God and our Father”?
JT Quite so: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenlies”.
AR Do you think that is why Mr. Darby says he has no difficulty about calling the Spirit ‘Lord’?
JT Well, quite so, “the Lord the Spirit”; in 2 Corinthians 3 we have that expression. The Spirit is called Lord there, we might say, in interchange; the title usually belongs to the Son. But there is an interchange there, the Spirit is called Lord.
RWS And the Lord is called the Spirit.
Ques The Lord’s remark in John 4: 24 to the woman is that “God is a spirit; and they who worship [p. 436] him must worship him in spirit and truth”. Is it worked out there?
JT It is, only there it is the Father; if you worship the Father, it is the Father, that Person.
Rem In the verse prior it says, “the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth; for also the Father seeks such as his worshippers”.
JT There the Father is designated, that is very distinct there. When you get the Person designated then you are clear; when you get the Father designated it is the Father, not the Son nor the Spirit included.
AR When we speak to God as God, it must involve the Spirit?
JT Yes, as God it must involve the Spirit, the three Persons must be involved.
AR We do not really realise that we speak to the Spirit, do we?
JT Certainly we do, although many make a great difficulty about it; but then there it is. When we speak to God as such inclusive of the three Persons, we must speak to the Spirit.
DP Would the wonderful unity that exists between divine Persons cast contempt on the rival deities of the heathen?
JT Quite so, that is the very remarkable phraseology of Ephesians 2 that we are alluding to, that is to say, the unity in which we address the divine Persons.
WAT Is the word ‘one’ stressed here, “one God” and “one Lord, Jesus Christ”?
JT “Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ”; we must bring in the punctuation there — one Lord, and that Lord is Jesus Christ.
WAT And in 1 Corinthians 12 we get that “by one Spirit are we all baptised”. There also it is just the one.
JT You are distinguishing the different Persons [p. 437] of the Deity and how they are spoken of and how each may be regarded as one.
RTM Why is it that the Holy Spirit is not brought in here?
JT The fact the He is left out would not make any difference because the apostle is dealing with this matter of idolatry, and he is bringing in certain features to counter it, to contend against it. He is not leaving the Spirit out deliberately; He belongs to the Godhead in any case. The apostle is only speaking of the one God who is the Father, and the one Lord, Jesus Christ, without saying anything about the Spirit.
FNW It seems that the preposition ‘for’, “we for him”, is the same word as ‘in’ in John 1: 18, “the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father”. The ‘for’ and the ‘in’ are the same Greek word, ‘eis’.
JT The noun would be the objective in that sense.
FNW I really had in mind that that preposition involves motion; and would it therefore involve the place we acquire in the affections of the Father?
JT Quite so, we are ‘for’ Him, there is movement in that preposition, movement towards. It is a very precious thing that, if we are for the Father, or for the Son, the idea is that we move towards them, the idea is that we love them. And so it is that “if any one love God, the same is known of him”. The movement is towards Him.
CAM I would like to ask a question about the Spirit. In connection with the Lord here it says, “one Lord, Jesus Christ”. There are those personal names attaching to the Lord. But inasmuch as the Holy Spirit has not a personal name, would that be because of the place He has taken at the present time, and if we are referring to the Spirit in address should we not refer to Him as Lord or as God?
JT In addressing Him we cannot say, ‘Spirit’ to Him, but we can say ‘Lord’ according to what we have [p. 438] said as to 2 Corinthians 3. Mr. Darby enlarges on that too. We can use the word ‘Lord’ as to Him.
JHE According to verse 10, the one who has knowledge must always revert back to the fact of the weak one, “the brother for whose sake Christ died”. Such a sacrifice! It should hold our hearts.
JT And we should remember, too, if we are apt to despise the brother and if we might say anything that would mislead him, that Christ died for him.
AR Would you say a word on John 4: 24 where the Lord speaks to the woman about worshipping the Father in spirit and in truth, and says that “God is a Spirit; and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth”.
JT That is remarkable, “God is a Spirit”. I do not know that it is said anywhere else in just that way. What more have you to say about that?
AR One feels it is going beyond oneself to understand it. The Father is, as it were, a relative thought, but God is by Himself, in mystery, do you think.
JT He has to be worshipped. He is an Object to be worshipped, supremely so there: “The Father seeks such as his worshippers”.
ABP Is it significant in that passage that in relation to the Father. He is seeking worshippers; but when God is referred to as such there is a compulsion, there is a ‘must’ as to our approach, “they ... must worship him in spirit and truth”. I wondered if there was a point to that?
JT Quite so, the imperative thought as to our relations with God.
EAL You have recently drawn our attention to Genesis 24. It reads in verse 17, “And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, sip a little water out of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord!” Is that significant in connection with what we have been saying?
JT That shows, if we allow typical language in [p. 439] the Old Testament to speak as if it were inspired, and it is inspired, that the word ‘lord’ there refers to the Spirit. The Spirit is alluded to, and He is addressed by Rebecca.
WWM In regard to the service of God, in Ephesians 2 it says, “For through him we have both access by one Spirit to the Father”. That brings in the Lord and the Spirit and reaches the Father.
JT The three divine Persons are there, and all with a view to approach to God. This enters, therefore, into the service of God on the first day of the week.
AR In the service of God it is a question of understanding that we are in a spiritual realm.
GH John 17: 3 says: “And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent”. Would you include the Spirit in that verse, in the only true God?
JT It is the Father in the opening of the chapter, the Lord is speaking to the Father there. However, “the only true God” would include the three Persons. If we confine our thoughts to the first address of the Lord it would be only one Person, it would be the Father. But then another thing comes in there, it is ‘the’ eternal life, the article is put before it, showing that the thought of eternal life is more, much more than the simple idea of eternal existence; the thought of eternal life is much more in its significance in the Scriptures than the thought of eternal existence.
CAM You have that set over against idolatry, which we are occupied with here.
JT Just so, the only true God, that is the idea, it is over against idolatry. And the same term is applied to the Lord in the epistle of John, that “He is the true God and eternal life”. The same expression is applied there to the Son as to the Father in John 17.
CAM Do you not think that throws a great deal of light as being a sort of parallel with this [p. 440] chapter?
JT Just so. And now we ought to turn to chapter 10 because it is so fully linked up with this chapter; that is to say, it is a question of the Lord’s supper being introduced. It is only introduced in chapter 10 because something had to be said about the cup; the bread is not mentioned properly until the cup is mentioned. It brings in the Lord’s supper, but brings in the thought of the cup, and that the cup is the cup of blessing. Then all that follows hinges on idolatry and the danger of the idea of the idolatry being found linked up with the Lord’s supper in the cup.
CAM Would it be right in that way to say that it is looking at the Supper in connection with the general status around?
JT That is right; it is not a question of the whole subject of the Lord’s supper being brought in at all here, it is in chapter 11 that that is brought in. In chapter 10 it is just to bring in the thought of idolatry, and how it may creep into the subject of the cup. “The cup of the Lord” it is called here.
CAM So in that way it would apply to every day of the week.
JT Just so, it is an everyday matter.
AAT On Lord’s day morning in giving thanks for the cup the expression is often used, ‘the cup of blessing’.
JT That expression is quite right, but it is out of its place at the Supper because chapter 11 is properly the chapter for the Lord’s supper, and the bread comes before the cup in that chapter. Fellowship is the point in this chapter, but it is not that in the 11th. It is a question there of the Lord saying, ‘This do for a calling of Me to mind’.
WAT There seem to be just these two things: “the cup of the Lord”, and “the cup of demons”. Would that mean that if one does not partake of the cup of the Lord it is a very serious matter? What are you partaking [p. 441] of?
JT Quite so; and how easily we may link what we are going on with in that sense with idolatry. We do not wish to speak of any system in which idolatry may be found, it is not wise; but it is to be found in a certain system in the service of God, without saying anything more. Idolatry is there.
AM So the truth as to the cup is darkened in that very regard in connection with one of those systems, is it not?
JT They do not give the Supper in both kinds, as it is called; they give only the bread, they do not give the cup.
JHE Do you think that Joseph hid the cup in Benjamin’s sack to bring out this thought and to adjust his brethren?
JT It is very remarkable how that is brought in, in connection with Joseph; significantly in connection with Joseph in view of his making himself known to his brethren.
JAP You stressed in Los Angeles that the teaching of the Lord’s supper comes in chapter 11 and not in chapter 10. Chapter 10, you stressed, is the moral side.
JT The teaching properly is in chapter 11, the teaching as such, and therefore the first element is the bread. The cup is the second element.
FHL In so far as the Supper has a public side then, we should be completely clear in the line of chapter 10 as to all relationships and that side of things?
JT All our public relationships should be governed by what is there, and we get remarkable things there from verse 23 down: “All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify. Let no one seek his own advantage, but that of the other. Everything sold in the shambles eat, making no inquiry for conscience sake”. Note that, everything sold in the shambles, common property,
[p. 442] things that can be bought for everyday use. “For the earth is the Lord’s and its fulness. But if any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to go, all that is set before you eat, making no inquiry for conscience sake”. Notice how God comes down to this matter of an unbeliever inviting a christian, and a christian accepting it. That is a very remarkable thing; it shows how gracious God is with us; and yet we have to be careful not to make too much use of it. God would watch over us so that we should not. “But if any one say to you, This is offered to holy purposes, do not eat, for his sake that pointed it out, and conscience sake; but conscience, I mean, not thine own, but that of the other: for why is my liberty judged by another conscience?” The word ‘conscience’ is a thing to be noted too; a good conscience does not set anything right, we may do wrong things with a good conscience.
AM Have you anything to say about the weak conscience of chapter 8? It is a term that has had to be used.
JT It shows that God is considerate of a weak brother. What do you say about that?
AM I was only wondering if it relates to this question of knowledge, as to whether we are responsible to apply knowledge, and not to have a weak conscience.
JT Paul certainly afforded all the knowledge that could be wished for or desired or needed. He reserved certain things because of their low state; they were in a fleshly condition, therefore he decided to know nothing among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. The apostle had to limit himself in that way; they might be weak, you know, they might not be instructed.
AI In verse 14 of chapter 10 the apostle says, “Wherefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to intelligent persons: do ye judge what I say”. Would you say the apostle is accrediting the Corinthians with power to flee from idolatry?
JT [p. 443] Really he is; we have often alluded to that passage as to intelligent persons, that in approaching the Lord’s supper the word ‘intelligent’ is used. That is a matter that should be before us in approaching the Lord’s supper, that we know what we are doing and can give an account of what we are doing.
SW Would you say a word as to giving an occasion of stumbling? In chapter 7 it is being a ‘fall-trap’; in this chapter it is an ‘occasion to stumbling’.
JT Well, just as indicated here there is something that may be eaten from an idol house. The apostle says that you might have a good conscience in eating a particular food that might have come from an idol house, but if you ate it before a brother who knew what an idol house means or implies, he might be stumbled that you should do such a thing as to eat food of that kind; whereas the food of itself is just food.
AR Is that why Paul speaks about his liberty?
JT Just so; why should his conscience be judged by another? If the food is sold in the shambles and if you buy it and pay for it, why should you not eat it and give thanks for it although it might be linked up in some way with idolatry?
WAT Was it not his guiding principle to consider for the profit of the many, that they might be saved?
JT He was an evangelist, a man that gets people saved.
AI Is there such a thing as one having faith in himself in God?
JT Yes, having faith between yourself and God.
FNW Do these two sections we have read bring out that, while Paul is concerned to love God, he has made up his mind to be governed by love in relation to others too?
JT That is just what he was, considering for all of them, and if he did not consider for the Corinthians you would just wonder what would become of them.
[p. 444] But he was specially considerate of them; “all things”, he says, “for your sakes”.
RWS It would appear that he is not only concerned that no occasion of stumbling be given to the Jews or the Greeks or the assembly of God, but in verse 29 he seems concerned about the conscience of that ‘other’ person, “not thine own, but that of the other”. Is that the idea of the unbeliever, the person you are eating with?
JT Well, just so, you are thinking of the other person instead of yourself. Is not that a right thought? It governed Paul, as we have already remarked; he was thinking of others. All things are for your sakes, he says, “all are yours; and ye are Christ’s and Christ is God’s”. So wonderfully were they in the apostle’s mind! It is a right principle for every one of us who seeks to serve the Lord, that we think of the saints.
AR Is that why he says in the first verse of chapter 11, “Be my imitators, even as I also am of Christ”? Should that be linked on with chapter 10, do you think?
FHL He maintains this high level throughout the whole epistle despite all the failure and these three great problems that came in to be met. In the opening of the epistle he is holding the Corinthians and clothing them in great thoughts, is he not? And he maintains that platform, as if he would try to attract them back on to it.
JT That is what we thought when it came into our minds to read a few passages from this epistle, that we might get some elevated thoughts that would help the brethren at this particular time.
DP Would the believer in Corinth come under public notice in what he was doing, whether it be eating or otherwise?
JT He might, and if he was invited by a man of the world he might expose himself. We ought to be particular as to the persons from whom we accept invitations in that sense. “If any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to go” — well, I would be afraid to be ‘minded’. But the apostle is graciously liberal in that sense.
SW Having the glory of God in mind.
JT Just so.
AM I was thinking that it is possible the truth might be evil spoken of in that very connection, instead of God being glorified. Have we not to be watchful?
JT I was thinking of public eating, how important it is in public restaurants to bow our heads and give thanks. Sometimes it helps; people notice it.
RWS That is one way, I suppose, of extending the thought of God’s glory, to bring to light believers.
ANW The apostle speaks of “Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God”. Does that cover everything we are in relation with in that regard? Is it intended to cover everything?
JT And to give no offence to any; I would think so.
ANW “Do all things to God’s glory. Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God”. I wondered if that would refer to the religious world, and the heathen world, and the assembly of God itself.
JT One has often thought of these three places, they might be on the same street, the Jewish synagogue, the idol’s temple, and the assembly. The assembly is what God has His eye upon as His witness and testimony, where things are done according to Him.