1 Corinthians 8–10

The opening words of chapter 8 are really "Now concerning." The Corinthians did not seem to know the right course to take about things offered to idols, and they had raised the matter in their letter to Paul. No such problems face us. Yet we will find the instructions given here of great value for guidance in many a problem that does face us.

These opening words carry a tinge of irony. Perhaps something in the way they put the question seemed to call for this rebuke, when he thought of their practical condition... Still, it is true, when said of Christians, that all have knowledge. But knowledge puffs up... Love builds up. At Corinth there was both too much knowledge and too little. Their brains were active. But their hearts were learning little of the love which alone is true knowledge. So instead of building up there was division.

Gaining knowledge has its dangers. Paul showed this in 1 Corinthians 8:1, where he writes, "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up." When the truth of God stays in the mind only, and never reaches the heart and the conscience, the danger is that it puffs a person up. But if the truth enters the heart and touches the affections and the conscience, it builds him up instead.

The Word says, "Knowledge puffs up" (1 Corinthians 8:1). It is striking that the "knowledge" spoken of here is a knowledge of the Word and ways of God. It should make us stop and think when we realise that even a knowledge of the Bible may puff us up... Someone has said that there is pride of race, pride of place, pride of face, but the worst pride of all is pride of grace.

Simply as knowledge, it is worth nothing. If we look at it as knowledge that we have, it only puffs us up. It is something in me, my knowledge. True Christian knowledge unfolded something in God. Through what He reveals of Himself, God became better known, and so became greater to the soul. The greatness lay in Him, the One who is known — not in a knowledge of mine that made me greater.

As the apostle examined this plea and dealt with it, he raised a point they seem to have overlooked. He fully admitted that the idol is nothing (v. 4). Yet knowledge in such matters is not everything, for knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. A Christian was to act in this matter out of care for his brother.

In this passage the apostle speaks of love to God. He reminds us that a man who loves God realises more than that he knows God in some small measure. He realises that God knows him. Knowing that God knows me, and all that I have done, leaves no room for the pride that mere knowledge puffs up.

The Apostle first shows that this is one of those important questions that knowledge alone cannot answer. Love settles it very quickly... Today, in this country, we do not face the question of eating meat offered to idols. Yet many other questions come up — for instance, whether a Christian should smoke. Some would settle such a question by knowledge, which thinks only of the harm it may do to the body. But the better way is love, which asks, "What effect will it have on my brother?"

People have a great thirst for knowledge. But if I chase knowledge for its own sake, it will only puff me up, while love will build up my brother. And we only know in part. So trusting our partial knowledge to settle questions will often lead us badly astray.

When the truth of God is held only in the mind, and has not touched the heart and conscience, there is the danger of being puffed up. But if the truth enters the heart, reaching the affections and the conscience, it will build up instead of puffing up.

These are healthy words rebuking the unexercised and vain, and which humble the believer who feels that any little knowledge he has gained through learning only shows him that there is a vast field of divine knowledge into which his soul has hardly entered.

The word of God is endless. No matter what we have learned, it only puts us in a position to discover our own ignorance. When people are completely in the dark, they think they know all there is to know. But as we make real progress, we feel more deeply how little we know. At the same time we grow more patient with others who may know a little less — or even a little more. Spiritual understanding does not puff up a loving heart. It gives a growing sense of our own smallness. Where that is missing, we have reason to fear that the mind runs ahead of the conscience, and that both are far from being subject to the Holy Spirit.

The very thing I know best is the thing I feel that I do not know well. If you hear someone speaking of the love of God you think, "Do I know it?" Perhaps it is the very truth you know most of, but it is so great to you that you think you hardly know it.

As mere knowledge, it is worth nothing. If we look at it as knowledge we own, it only puffs us up; it is something in me, my knowledge. True Christian knowledge opened up something in God. Through what God reveals, He becomes better known and greater to the soul. It was in Him the thing known, and not a knowledge in me by which I made myself greater.

The Apostle speaks of love to God. He reminds us that if a man loves God, he sees not just that he knows God a little, but that God knows him. Knowing that God knows me, and all that I have done, leaves no room for the pride that mere knowledge puffs up.

As mere knowledge, it is worth nothing. If we look at it as knowledge that we have, it only puffs us up. It is something in me, my knowledge. True Christian knowledge unfolded something in God. Through what He reveals, God became better known and greater to the soul. The thing known was in Him. It was not a knowledge in me by which I made myself greater. The one who loves God is known by Him.

Knowledge puffs up; love builds up. We only know love in God's presence, where self is judged. But the apostle does not say that the one who loves God knows Him. He says that he is known by Him. The turn may be unexpected, and it has puzzled the critics, but it is entirely fitting. Not that the believer does not know Him, for that knowledge is eternal life. It was timely for the consciences of the Corinthians to weigh that God knows them: a serious matter, but a blessed one. The word "known" does not mean "has been made to know," and it does not mean "approved." Its ordinary meaning is the best one.

Those who truly love God do so by believing His own love to them. So their love is not a doubtful or uncertain feeling. Men deceive themselves by thinking that they know. God's children taste the grace of the One they trust. Knowledge is precious when it is added to this faith. But for a creature who is still sinful, though redeemed, to be known in love is better than to know. The serpent used knowledge as his first bait. The Spirit pours the love of God into the heart of the believer, and the heart filled this way gives back a portion of the love that fills it. Love is from God first, and then back to God.

Here the Apostle speaks of love to God. He reminds us that a man who loves God realises more than that he knows God a little. He realises that God knows him. Knowing that God knows me, and all that I have done, leaves no room for the pride that mere knowledge would puff up.

At best all our knowledge is partial. It has strict limits. We do not know anything with full and absolute knowledge. If we imagine that we do, that very fact shows we do not yet know anything as we ought to know it. But if we love God, we can be sure that He knows us. And that is the great thing.

In the heart of the bride in the Song of Songs, and in the heart of the Christian, it is still true that love is the means and the capacity for divine knowledge. In a word, the one who loves most knows most. Mary Magdalene is a striking illustration. Peter and John had more light than she had... And yet the Lord revealed Himself to Mary... Her heart was in the right state, even though her spiritual understanding was not enlightened. That is why the Lord could come and show Himself to her.

The parallel in the last clause of verse 4 seems to favour translating it "there is no idol," rather than "an idol is nothing in the world." Either is legitimate in itself. It is quite true, as the prophets say, that the idols of the Gentiles are empty and powerless. But here the apostle appears to affirm that they had no existence in the world. There were no such beings as the pagans associated with their idols. Later on he shows there were demons behind them, as the law had already hinted (Deut. 32:17).

Fallen man imagines many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth. But to us Christians there is only one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Here the point is not to set before us the Deity of Christ. The point is how God has chosen to reveal Himself, and the place the divine Persons hold in the ways of grace towards men. The Father remains in Godhead, and God is the source of all, and all is for Him. The Son, while never ceasing to be God, has become flesh, and in Manhood has taken the place of Lord.

Pagans may venerate many gods and lords, but to us they are nothing. We know only one God and one Lord... Since this is so, we may refuse to recognise the idols of the pagans in any way. We can treat all meats alike — whether offered to idols or not.

They had to own that the idol was nothing, and yet own that it was something to the consciences of men. Looked at in itself, as an idol, it was nothing; and the meat offered to it was what God created. But then the consciences of men got connected with demons about it... Yet knowledge only puffs up. The man who knew all this might eat this meat with a clear conscience himself. But he would stumble his brother, whose conscience was weak.

If the idols were nothing in themselves, the demons were a terrible reality of subtle and malicious evil. They ruined those who gave the idols reverence.

Simply as knowledge, it is worth nothing. If we look at it as knowledge that we have, it only puffs us up; it is something in me, my knowledge. True Christian knowledge unfolded something in God. Through what is revealed, God, better known, became greater to the soul... As to the question itself, love decided it.

Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one (1 Cor. 8:4). Yet they thought that, seeing this, they might sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong, and the apostle corrects their mistake. Care for their weaker brothers should have kept them away from idolatrous rites, even from an outward share in them. But more than this, they had no business to be there at all.

Though there are those who are called gods by their worshippers, they are no more than an unclean dream. Heaven, as well as earth, is stained by idolatrous imaginings. Man makes gods of what God despises and hates. Man chose to forget the living and true God. Since then a darkened understanding has worn itself out in a pointless search for what should never have been lost.

True, there are those "called gods." Man calls them that. Even the Scriptures do: the elders of Israel were called this, only because they were God's representatives on earth (Ps. 82:6; Jn. 10:34,35). But that title never gave them any place of worship. If there were "gods many, and lords many," these were simply like lightless asteroids compared with the sun.

Pagan idolaters have "gods many and lords many" — a god, perhaps, for every virtue and for every vice too; and a lord for every separate place. For the Christian there is no other God but one.

We may not be guilty of bowing down to a god of our own making — "gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." But other idols are always trying to steal our hearts away from Him... The greatest and most subtle idol is self.

Fallen man imagines many gods and many lords in heaven and on earth. But to us Christians there is only "one God, the Father" and "one Lord, Jesus Christ"... The Father remains in Godhead, and God is the source of all, and all for Him. The Son, while never ceasing to be God, has become flesh, and, in Manhood, has taken the place of Lord. So the One we know as Jesus Christ is the one Lord to Whom we all owe allegiance and submission. He is both the Creator of all things and the One by Whom we have been redeemed.

Deluded men may honour these strange objects and treat them as gods. But we know them as only the work of men's hands, and we know there is no other God but one. In saying this Paul had not forgotten that demons and their power lay behind the idols. He points to this sinister fact in 1 Cor. 10:19-20.

We may say — borrowing the language of 1 Corinthians 8:5 — that however many lords and kings there may be in heaven and on earth, the Lamb is Lord and King of them all, the beast and his followers included. They cannot help but fall before Him; and He has His associates, called, chosen and faithful.

Pagans may worship many gods and lords, but to us they are nothing. We know but one God and one Lord. There is the Father, the Originator and Source of all, and we are for Him. There is the Lord Jesus, the great Administrator in the Godhead. All things, ourselves included, are by Him. So we can refuse to recognise the idols of the pagans in any way, and treat all meats alike — whether offered to idols or not.

This passage completely refutes the idea of a "universal Fatherhood". The apostle says, "for us there is one God, the Father." Who are the "us"? In chapter 1 of the same letter Paul tells us who he is writing to: "all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ". They "wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ", and they have been "called into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord". These are the ones who stand in relation to God as Father. So the test of the relationship is the One whom those who spread these errors leave out completely: Jesus Christ our Lord.

In verse 6, the first preposition is the one used for a river flowing out of a source. The second preposition is the one used for a river running into the sea. So we must understand verse 6 more exactly like this: "to us there is one God, the Father, who is the source of the river of all existence, and we into Him". We do not really need John 4:14 to see this. It is by their worship that the saints return the flow to its Source in God the Father. The second part of the verse teaches that the one Lord, Jesus Christ, is the Creator of all things, and perhaps also the One who upholds them. This is His work for "all things" in the first creation, and for the saints in the new creation.

In this passage the words "God" and "Lord" plainly have different uses. It is not the divine nature as such, but the place that the divine Persons hold in what men call the economy of grace. The Father rested in Godhead alone, but the Son has become a man and taken the place of Lord in His manhood… It is not that He ceases to be Jehovah, but He has taken the place of Lord. I point this out, because it is in Christ as Lord that grace is administered to me. I am a child with the Father, but if I am looking for administration, I go to the Lord.

Without a doubt, this verse gives deity to the Father alone, and dominion as Lord to Jesus alone. But it has been well said: "you cannot deny the deity of Christ because the verse calls the Father 'one God,' any more than you can deny the dominion of the Father when it calls the Son 'one Lord.'" We may add: nor can anyone deny the deity and dominion of the Spirit, because this verse does not mention Him at all.

This opens up another thought about unity. The one God, the Father, from whom all things come, and the one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things come, are not two but One — "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). And that is more than mere equality or shared eternity. His words were His Father's words. His works, done in His Father's name, showed who He was.

He is still speaking of Christians. Some of them were truly alive to God. Yet they were so weak in faith, and knew the truth so poorly, that they thought idols were really gods, though false ones. In the mind of the Spirit they are "nothing." But not every saint has the mind of Christ developed in him to this point.

Among believers there will always be many who cannot see such matters in the calm, cool light of pure knowledge. They do not rise above their feelings and other personal impressions. Once these people knew the meat had been offered that way, they could not escape the feelings it stirred up. They had "conscience of the idol" and it troubled them constantly.

They had to admit the idol was nothing, and yet admit it was something to the consciences of men. Looked at in itself, as an idol, it was nothing; and the meat offered to it was what God created. But the consciences of men had become connected with demons over it… But knowledge only puffs up. The man who knew all this might eat this meat with a clear conscience himself. Yet he would stumble his brother, whose conscience was weak.

A believer's conscience is defiled by more than deliberate sin. It is also defiled by allowing anything that dishonours the name or truth of God in any way. If, as in this case, a Christian ate something offered to what he considered a false god, he sinned by his act against the truth he professed. By acknowledging the idol, he gave support to idolatry. Another Christian had learned the way of God more fully and was better established in the faith. To his conscience the same food was nothing but an ordinary meal, and he could share it without harm. Whether the believer doubts or not makes the whole difference between bad and good in such actions.

Defiling the conscience means that, if a man has a conscience about something as evil, he must follow his conscience, or he defiles it. If I think I ought to eat only vegetables, I must eat them, or my conscience is defiled.

They were not at all sure that these false gods were nothing. Several of the oldest manuscripts and versions read synetheia, "through custom," not conscience — that is, from long habit… Doubting like this, they stood condemned when they ate; and Satan took advantage of them through guilty fears.

Should a man press his knowledge on someone who, after all, had not reached so far? Instead, it was a case for yielding in love to another's weakness… He was only copying someone else's faith, and copied faith is not faith. This could put him in a state where he was drifting away from a right conscience toward God.

A weak Christian may see another go somewhere his own conscience forbids. But because the stronger Christian went, he goes too. The stronger has therefore encouraged the other to ignore his conscience.

The answer is very instructive. The Apostle firmly maintains the freedom of the stronger brother. It is a fact that food does not commend us to God. Our practices may differ. Some may eat and some not eat. But there is no advantage in the one, nor is there any falling short in the other. There is neither plus nor minus in the question, as before God.

This verse shows the sharp contrast between the old yoke of bondage and the true liberty of Christ. It was God who had once set up for His people the strict law that separated one food from another. But bodily ordinances end with the flesh they were made for. The believer is no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit... To a risen man all natural things must be indifferent in themselves. Each creature of God is thankfully acknowledged in its place and kind, as a passing mercy from the Father of lights.

The apostle admits that food will not commend us to God. Those who claimed this right should make sure that using it did not make the weak stumble. What if the weak one copied it with a conscience that was not free? What if he was emboldened, or built up the wrong way, and the brother for whom Christ died perished?

Verse 8 shows that eating meat or not eating meat has no advantage whatever before God. The important thing is then stated. "But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." One who is weak in faith sees a brother eating meat in the idol's temple. That example emboldens him to go against his own conscience and do the same. In doing it he sins. He acts not in faith, but copies another, and worse things may follow.

Here is the very real personal exercise of one whose care for souls is such that he will gladly sacrifice his personal rights for the sake of the blessing of another. But this is far removed from making any rule about avoiding certain foods. Nor does he consider that eating or refraining from eating has any effect on the spiritual state of his own soul (1 Cor. 8:8). These things must be kept clearly distinct. God created foods themselves to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

It is not food and drink. It is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit... In themselves, they deserve neither blame nor praise (1 Cor. 8:8). But if they are not used in subjection to the truth that is above them, they certainly work evil and not good... Food and drink can establish no heart before God. They may, and often do, unsettle it, but it is grace alone which can establish, strengthen and settle the soul.

The next question was about eating things offered to idols. It seems to have been raised by the conduct of those who pleaded their liberty or right (exousia) in such a matter. The apostle examined this plea and dealt with it. In doing so he raised a point they had clearly overlooked. He fully admitted that the idol is nothing (v. 4), yet knowledge in such matters is not everything; for knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

The liberty of God's children is absolute, but they are expected to use it as imitators of God. We have to consider not ourselves only, but both our brothers and the world. A believer may be walking without care and yet with an untroubled conscience. But this is dangerous. We must take care. While we enjoy our liberty — in one sense blamelessly — we can become a stumbling block to others without knowing it. A showy use of liberty rarely fails to injure both the boaster and those who watch his ways. True grace, because it is free and knows its happiness in fellowship with God, makes no effort to seem free. Instead it will seek to use its liberty in love. It considers the weak. It neither despises them nor tempts them by a bad example to act in anything beyond their faith.

There will always be many believers who cannot see such matters in the calm, level light of pure knowledge. They do not rise above their feelings and other personal impressions. Once they knew the meat had been offered that way, they could not get away from the feelings it stirred. They had "conscience of the idol" and it troubled them constantly. Their conscience was weak, because it lacked the clear and happy knowledge Paul enjoyed. Being weak, it was defiled.

Suppose someone had liberty to eat meat offered to idols, with no scruples of conscience. He must still be careful not to stumble those whose conscience is weak. True knowledge is considerate, not overbearing... This principle applies to all kinds of situations we may be in today. A weak Christian may see another go somewhere his own conscience forbids. Because the stronger Christian went, he goes too. The stronger has therefore encouraged the other to ignore his conscience. God would not let any believer perish. But my heartless treatment of him is, in effect, showing no concern about whether he perishes. And Christ died for him!

The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means instead that a wounded conscience would put the weak brother out of action. It would destroy him as to his spiritual state, and so as to his testimony and service. No believer who falls under a cloud through a defiled conscience is of any use in the wars of the Lord.

It is of the greatest importance to let Scripture have its full effect on the soul. We must not blunt its edge with the dogmas of systematic theology... The same authority that says "My sheep shall never perish" also warns us. We must not cause a weak brother to perish by a self-indulgent, unloving use of our liberty. It will be our wisdom, and certainly our moral safety, to listen to the one as well as to the other.

"Are we then never to use our undoubted liberty?" Yes, says the apostle. If you have faith to use it, keep it to yourself before God. Use it in private, not in public, when using it might stumble a weak brother.

Two Christians are in view here. One has a faith so sound that he feels at ease even in an idol's temple, because he knows the idol is no god at all. The other hates idolatry, but still believes in idols. The thoughtless freedom of the first pours a false boldness into the spirit of the second. It rushes him into an act which, in his case, is not done to God. So the act is not of faith, and is therefore sin. Such examples only build up what the truth must afterwards pull down.

What if the weak one copied it with a conscience that was not free? What if he was emboldened, or built up the wrong way, and the brother for whom Christ died perished? Scripture describes an act by where it tends. It does not soften the act by the resources of grace that step in to stop the outcome.

The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means instead that a wounded conscience puts the weak brother out of action. It destroys him as to his spiritual state, and so as to his testimony and service. No believer who falls under a cloud through a defiled conscience is of any use in the wars of the Lord.

It is of the greatest importance to let Scripture have its full play on the soul. We must not blunt its edge with the dogmas of systematic theology. The same authority that says "My sheep will never perish" also warns us against causing a weak brother to perish. That happens through a self-indulgent, unloving use of our liberty. It will be our wisdom, and certainly our moral safety, to listen to the one as well as to the other.

Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. Yet they thought that because they saw this, they might sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong... But more than that, they had no business being there at all. The question of being there at all was settled for good by their place at the Lord's table, and their sharing in the Lord's Supper. Granted, the idol was nothing. Yet behind it were demons. By sitting and eating at the idol's festival they would be in fellowship with demons.

Suppose the one who had knowledge sat and ate in the idol's temple. This might embolden others to do the same thing, at a moment when their own conscience spoke against it. We can apply this principle to all sorts of situations we find ourselves in today. A weak Christian may see another go to a place his own conscience forbids. But because the stronger Christian has gone, he goes too. The stronger has therefore encouraged the other to ignore his conscience.

Suppose a man without this knowledge saw a man who had it sitting at a table in an idol's temple. Might that not encourage him to eat things sacrificed to an idol, even though his own conscience was not clear about it? He would only be copying another man's faith, and copied faith is not faith.

In verse 11, "shall the weak brother perish?" shows where my eating tends, as far as I can take it. I am leading him to sin against his conscience. It is not that the Lord will not step in and save him, but that is what I am doing... though I do not believe from other texts that God will leave him there, yet I am making my brother perish.

The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means that a wound to his weak conscience puts the weak brother out of action. It destroys his spiritual state, and so his testimony and service too. No believer who falls under a cloud, owing to a defiled conscience, is of any use in the wars of the Lord.

This does not raise the question of whether a believer can perish, because the Lord Himself says, "they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand." One passage looks at the believer from the Lord's side; the other looks from man's side. We may fail in our responsibility, and do something that, as far as we are concerned, would cause our brother to perish.

1 Corinthians 8 teaches us the high value God sets on conscience. So those who force the conscience of a brother are guilty of a crime. If I cannot give up what offends the weaker conscience of another, then as far as I am concerned I am working for his destruction. The Lord will preserve him. He will make good His Word toward him. But if it depended on me — as far as my influence goes — my will would even land my brother in the fire of hell. In that sense I "destroy" him. God charges me with this sin. In His faithfulness He still guards the weak brother from the effect of my unfaithfulness.

We are our brother's keepers, not their Savior. Well has it been said, "out of our careless hands they fall for safety into His."

Some of us might feel inclined to say, "Oh, but he is only a weak brother, of very little account as a servant or soldier of the Lord." If we spoke like that, we would forget that he is one of those "for whom Christ died." That makes him of immense value to Him. This is the true light in which to view our brother. So dear is he that to sin against him is to sin against Christ.

Human nature has a great thirst for knowledge. But if I chase knowledge just to gain knowledge, it will only puff me up. Love, on the other hand, builds up my brother. And we only know in part, so trusting our partial knowledge to settle questions will often lead us badly astray.

First, he says, "We all have knowledge", in measure at any rate. Knowledge, however, is not enough; we need love as well. Human nature has a great thirst for knowledge. But if I chase knowledge just to have knowledge, it will only puff me up, while love will build up my brother. We also know only in part. So trusting our partial knowledge to settle questions will often lead us badly astray.

Now this "sin against Christ" was all about a "trivial matter": whether a Christian should eat meat that had been offered to idols. Some saw that the meat was no worse for being offered that way, and that eating it made them neither better nor worse. To them it truly seemed a trifling thing. But to the weak ones, eating such food seemed a very serious matter — a most heinous sin. The apostle's counsel here is of extreme importance. The strong were to look at the matter, not from their own standpoint, but from that of the weak. What is so trifling in itself becomes of the utmost importance because of the weak brothers.

Some of the Corinthians, strong in their knowledge that idols are nothing, went as far as sitting at the meat inside the idol's temple. Some of the weaker ones might be tempted to copy them, wanting a larger liberty, and then become stricken by an accusing conscience, and perish. The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means instead that a wounded conscience puts the weak brother out of action. It destroys him as to his spiritual state, and so as to his testimony and service. No believer who falls under a cloud, owing to a defiled conscience, is of any use in the wars of the Lord.

Some of us might feel inclined to say, "Oh, but he is after all only a weak brother, and so of very little account as a servant or soldier of the Lord." If we speak like that, we are guilty of forgetting that he is one of those "for whom Christ died," and therefore of immeasurable value to Him. This is the true light in which to view our brother. So dear is he that to sin against him is to sin against Christ.

The real nature of all such inconsiderate acts is here touchingly, as well as solemnly, declared. To wound a Christian conscience is to offend the Lord. Because we forget that we are members of one another, we sin against Christ whenever we wrong our brothers. He is in His people, and what is done to them is done to Him. Paul knew this well. It was the very edge of that sharp sword from Jesus' mouth that had split his own self-righteous heart in two.

The Apostle never forgot those words, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And we must never forget them. The truth held in them meets us in many scriptures. Those who would strike a blow at Christ today, strike at His saints. Those who would serve Christ today, care for and serve His saints. Whatever is done to even the least of His brothers, He will accept as done to Himself. God grant that we may not forget this. Serving His cause and His people shows real devotion to Christ far better than pouring out warm, loving words to Him or about Him.

The fervency of this personal declaration is due to the sentiment expressed in the previous verse. He thinks of Christ, and of the possibility of wounding Him in one of His weak members, and from such a thought his soul instinctively recoils. Everything was indeed lawful for him. If anyone could push his God-given freedom to its furthest limit, he could. A teacher of liberty may surely live out his own teaching. But he walks by another rule.

For the glory of God and of Christ, he claims full liberty for everyone the Son of God has set free. But his own steps in this world are guided by tender, watchful care for the good of his brothers in the faith, not by proud delight in his own privileges. To bring them up to his own happy level, he is willing to descend, and, if need be, to remain with the weakest on the lowest ground. He has everything in Christ. So by His grace and in His name he can overcome the desires of his old nature. And for His sake, following His example, he can also say no to desires that carry no blame at all.

The Apostle first shows that knowledge alone cannot answer this important question, though love settles it very quickly. This matters greatly. He applies the principle here to eating things sacrificed to idols, but it has a wide application. In our day, and in this country, we would not face the question of eating meats offered to idols. Yet many other questions may arise — for instance, whether a Christian should smoke. Some would settle such a question by knowledge, which thinks only of the harm it may do to the body. The better way is love, which asks, "What effect will it have upon my brother?" Knowledge occupies me with the thing in question — its merits or demerits — but love thinks of my brother.

"So also Paul says, 'I will eat no flesh while the world stands,' literally 'to the age,' elsewhere translated 'forever.' The aion there is the period of his own life, and, if the saying were to be rendered idiomatically, it should have been translated, 'as long as I live.'"

Self stubbornly refuses to adjust to the tender consciences and weaknesses of others. It will not give way to them by a hair's breadth, yet it will surrender any amount of truth to keep fellowship with people just like itself. We could head this whole section: "Any length in self-denial; not an inch in surrendering truth." This should always be the Christian's motto. If it is only a question of self, surrender all; if it is a question of truth, surrender nothing.

No Christian has the "liberty" to act without considering his brothers and sisters — even in such trivial matters as food. If the love of Christ filled our hearts we would rather starve than indulge in any pleasure that stumbles a weak brother.

The apostle then takes the firm stand that if his eating meat would cause his brother to stumble, he would completely refrain from it. It is completely different if someone demands that Paul must not eat meat because of that person's conscience. He would not give in to a demand like that. But a genuinely weak conscience must be considered. How good if one can willingly give up his own liberty for the sake of others! This is a proper use of knowledge.

This follows well on his exhortation in the previous chapter. There he corrects a use of liberty that might trip up the weak. It was certainly not so with him. He did not even use his right to be supported while he was among them.

It is often just this lack of true balance that ruins the path of service. Some claim liberty and refuse subjection. Others press subjection and deny freedom in service. "Am I not free?" asked the apostle in 1 Corinthians 9:1. He said he was "free from all" (v. 19) in the work entrusted to him. Even so, he made himself the servant of all for their good. Yet he was truly subject: "not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ" (v. 21). No servant enjoyed greater freedom!

One of the proofs of an apostle was that he had seen the Lord. In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul says, "Am I not an apostle? … Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" The twelve apostles had seen the Lord Jesus as a Man on earth. They received their authority as apostles from Him then. Paul also truly had seen the Lord, but he had seen Him in the glory. And it was from the glory, from the Lord Himself in the glory, that Paul had received his authority as an apostle.

He affirms his independence of any human yoke as clearly as his apostleship. Liberty went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. Nor was his office vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His critics were right this far: he had received no rank from the group of apostles, and no commission from Jerusalem. Others might claim to succeed the twelve apostles, and claim it falsely. Paul had his authority straight from the Lord seen on high.

The Corinthians had been calling into question the apostolic authority of Paul. How does he meet this? He points them to themselves. God called them and turned them from idols to Himself, and that call is "the seal of his apostleship." It is as though he said, "If Christ has not spoken by me, how is it that you are Christians?"

Verse 2 gives a crushing answer to those among them who had listened to his opponents and were ready to question his apostleship. They were themselves the proof that his work was genuine! To throw doubt on the reality of his work was to throw doubt on the reality of their own conversion.

The mark of an apostle was that he could bear witness to Christ's resurrection… Paul had never seen Jesus during His life, or in the forty days before He went up to heaven. Even so, he rests his apostleship on the same ground. "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" … This was a condition of apostleship. So it is clear that no one who has not seen the risen Christ could be an apostle. In other words, apostles were only temporary gifts.

We know from the Second Letter that some were questioning Paul's apostleship. So he opens this part of his letter with a short assertion of his apostleship, and of his liberty as well. He had the outstanding mark of an apostle, for he had seen "Jesus Christ, our Lord." And how could the Corinthians have any doubt about it? They were the seal and proof of it. Their existence as an assembly grew out of his "work in the Lord."

False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he carried on his gospel preaching and his labours from selfish motives, and that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks of his ministry.

One use of the seal was to ratify a resolution or decision. We may add the thought of proof of a mission or service, as in 1 Corinthians 9:2. And when high officials used a seal, it carried an unmistakable thought of authority. No one who feared that official's power would dare to break the seal.

The Corinthians had been calling into question the apostolic authority of Paul. How does he meet this? He appeals to themselves — to God's own call of them, when He turned them from idols to Himself, "as the seal of his apostleship." It is as though he said, "If Christ has not spoken through me, how is it that you are Christians?"

He affirms his freedom from any human yoke as clearly as his apostleship. Liberty went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. His office was not vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His detractors were right this far: he had received no degree from the apostolic college, no mission from Jerusalem. Others might claim to follow in succession from the twelve apostles, and claim it falsely. Paul had his authority directly from the Lord seen on high... If he was not an apostle to others, surely those should not deny it who were its seal in the Lord.

Paul appeals to their consciences. Did he not have the credentials of an apostle? They could not fairly dispute that he had seen the Lord, and certainly not that they themselves had been converted through him. No one of these facts alone was proof of apostleship. But these, together with his own witness of God's clear appointment of him, were evidence their consciences could not ignore... Therefore their own state as Christians was proof of his apostleship. Whether others recognised this or not, they ought to.

If anyone had asked Paul, "Are you sure you are called to this work?" he could have replied, "If you have any doubts about it, go to Corinth, and you will see the effects of my calling." The saints in Corinth were his letter, his letter of commendation as to his apostleship.

The apostle faced the accusations of false teachers. They claimed that he preached and worked for what he could get out of it. They said he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.

Had it come to this? Paul was put on trial — at least at the preliminary inquiry, to see whether there was a case against him. And he had to make his plea, his speech of defence, to his own Corinthian children in the faith.

The simple form of the word means "to judge." Anakrisis is the technical term for the earlier enquiry, the preliminary investigation.

These words seem to belong to the challenge made in the opening verses rather than to what follows. He has already given the proofs of his apostleship. A statement of the privileges of that office follows. But that is hardly an answer to anyone who questioned his claim to the title of apostle in the first place.

Some were jealous of the Apostle and were ready to suggest that he preached for what he could get, seeking to make a profit out of his service (2 Cor. 11:9-12). The Apostle answers this in two ways. First he states the rights of the servant (verses 3-14). Then he shows how he had used those rights (verses 15-27).

So he goes on stating his rights, and giving his authority for those rights, both from the law and from the ordinances of God. But why does he state his rights at all? Simply so that he may give them all up for the sake of the gospel.

He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to be supported… So his plea for the rights of others was all the harder to challenge, because nothing in it was mixed with any desire for himself.

He had no visible proof that the Lord had called him to serve, as Peter and the rest had, for the Lord appointed them while He was here on earth. So he had to prove that his ministry came from God by its effect on souls, as all true ministry has had to do from that day on. As a result, people kept calling his ministry in question. The servant must expect this in our own day too, when he seeks to serve according to God's mind.

"Have we not authority to eat and drink?" That is, a right to maintenance… and the right not only to marry a sister in the Lord, but to bring her wherever he went, cared for by the saints along with him.

If he is an apostle, then the rights that belong to that office are justly his. Here they are summed up as a claim to free support for the apostles and their families, if they had them. He is not claiming only a right to marry. He is claiming that if he were married, or took a wife, she could look to the Church for support just as he could.

False teachers were accusing the apostle. They claimed he preached and worked for what he could get out of it, and that he took the property of Christians by trading on their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.

His enemies thought any stick was good enough to beat him with. Time after time he went without this food or that drink, out of care for others. Unlike the other apostles, he had no wife to help him and share his travels. He and Barnabas worked and travelled without a pause, and without the breaks for rest that others enjoyed… In fact all these things were to his credit, for each one was his by right. He was giving up what truly belonged to him, both as a man and as a servant of the Lord, because he was wholly devoted to his Master's interests.

It fits well that this follows what he urged in the chapter before, where he rebukes a use of liberty that might trip up the weak. He himself was clear of that. He did not even use his right to support while he was with them, and he had done the same about marriage (1 Cor. 7) right through his career, so that he could serve the Lord with a more undivided heart.

So he goes on stating his rights, and showing his authority for them, from both the law and the ordinances of God. But why does he set out his rights like this? Only so that he may give them all up for the gospel's sake.

God has ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." That is clearly the normal thing. Some who work like this have means of their own and do not need such help. Others need it, yet are great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. Only note this difference: there is no virtue in refusing help when you have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.

The servant of God is to share in the material things of the saints, yet there is not a hint of a bargain between them. To fix a salary and take it drags the whole service down. It makes the worker a servant of man, not of Christ. He is to look for support to the Lord who has employed him — not to the world, and not even to fellow Christians… He is free from all, so that he may serve all the better.

It is, "Why should I not have a sister as a wife?" It would not do for him to have an unconverted person. He was at liberty to marry, though an apostle. Cephas had a wife, we know; for Simon's wife's mother lay sick with a fever.

He does not claim only a right to marry. He claims that if he were married, or took a wife, she too could look to the Church for support, just as he could. Not all twelve of the first apostles were single men. The Lord's own brothers were not all single either. The others claimed and enjoyed freedom from ordinary work, so that they could give themselves fully to prayer and to the ministry of the word.

From this one would gather that Peter's wife accompanied him on his missionary journeys.

The Revised Version is right in its rendering, "She that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you" (an older translation). The apostle is just sending a Christian greeting from his wife. She was with him as he wrote, in Babylon, the old capital of King Nebuchadnezzar.

We know that for some time after He entered His public ministry His brothers did not believe in Him... But how sweet it is to see that the one next in age, and perhaps closest to Him, "James, the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19), was quickly won to be His loyal and faithful follower. And James was not the only one of those four won by Him; for in 1 Cor. 9:5 we see "the brothers of the Lord" linked with Cephas.

It was an evil day for Christendom when the idea took hold of men's minds that Christ's servants should remain unmarried. This idea has exposed frail human flesh to the gravest moral danger. It also defies both apostolic example and the plain instructions of Holy Scripture. In 1 Cor. 9:5 Paul insists that he had the same right to a wife as to eat and drink. He points to the example of "the other apostles," and names Cephas (Peter).

At the council of Nicaea they wanted to make a rule that church leaders must stay unmarried. But one old bishop stood up and told them they would only be setting a trap for their own feet.

He did not, like other apostles, have a wife to help him and share his travels... His critics seized on every one of these things to discredit him. In fact they were heavily to his credit; each one was within his rights.

He states his rights only so that he may give them up. Many quote his words only so that they may insist on the very rights he gave up for the gospel's sake. There would be no grace, no moral beauty, in giving up privileges you had no right to. But when the right is clearly established, the grace that gives it up is seen in full.

Had it come to this? Paul was put on trial — at least in the first inquiry, to see whether there was a case against him. He had to make his defence to his own Corinthian children in the faith. He then asserts the title of an apostle... To cut off the self-seeking of false apostles, he did not use his right, above all at Corinth. He worked with his own hands, as it seems Barnabas did too. Yet he lays down as beyond question the right of the spiritual worker to a living for himself and his family.

The apostle, at the opening of this chapter, states his rights and privileges as an apostle... "Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?" That is, working with their hands for their own support. So he goes on stating his rights, and he gives his authority for them, both from the law and from the ordinances of God.

Not many years before, these devoted fellow-workers had parted in anger over a point of godly judgment. From that moment the inspired record says no more about Barnabas and his labours. But it was not in Paul's heart to stop remembering his first and closest friend in Christ with affection. Now false Jewish influences were at work to belittle his own claims next to the original apostles. So he brings into the defence of his rights, as if by instinct, the name of the one fellow-worker in the gospel who from the first had been quickest to welcome and rejoice in God's grace reaching the nations outside Israel.

The mention is of him and Barnabas both being people who worked for their living while serving the Lord. It is written as though this was the way Barnabas continued to serve the Lord, even though no longer with Paul.

He states his rights only so that he may give them up. Many quote his words only so that they may claim the very rights he gave up for the gospel's sake. There would be no grace, no moral beauty in giving up privileges you had no right to. But once the right is settled, the grace that gives it up shines out in full. So it was with Paul. He had a right to live by the gospel, but grace led him to live by the work of his hands. He would take nothing from the Corinthians; but that was to their shame. He did receive "once and again" from the Philippians; that was fruit increasing to their account.

On the other hand it is a wonderful testimony when a man has the best gift and is full of the most self-denying labours, like the apostle, and still is not above working with his hands. He supplies the needs of others as well as his own... But, precious as this is, the church has no right to use such a scripture as an excuse for her own selfishness and neglect. It is a good word from a man who works like this to his fellow-workers, small or great. But it is quite out of place when the saints use it to hold back the faith of a spiritual worker, or to forget their own duty to those given up to the Lord's work.

False teachers accused the apostle. They said he carried on his evangelising and his labours from selfish motives. They said he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotedness. So he speaks of his ministry.

The apostle often uses comparisons from nature to wake up a dull spiritual understanding. We have here a threefold comparison. He likens spiritual service to the calling and work of a soldier, a vine-planter, and a shepherd. The first and third of these concern the apostle's relation to his Master, and the provision which He has appointed for His servants. The second looks rather to his own special connection with the Corinthian Church. They might be called, in subjection to the Lord, Paul's vineyard.

If a man's country calls him to war, is he expected to pay all his own expenses? This pictures preaching the gospel in an enemy's country, and such work should rightly support the one who does it. Or if one plants a vineyard, should he not be allowed to eat of its fruit? This would speak of the labour of establishing the assembly. Or, in feeding a flock, is one denied even the milk of the flock? Here it is the labour of shepherding the assembly. In each case it is only morally right that those who receive blessing should help in the support of the labourer.

Nature speaks in verse 7, Scripture in verses 9 and 10, and the direct command of the Lord in verses 13 and 14. All agree in maintaining the rights of the one who ministers spiritual things to receive the material things of the saints.

All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human standards, no one can challenge this. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction.

The Apostle lays down a principle, and spiritual reasoning in verse 7 supports it... The principle then is overwhelmingly established. Let all who love the Lord be very careful not to neglect any true servant called by Him to His service. If we do so we shall be flying in the face of His word, and as a result be great losers ourselves.

While the servant of God is to share in the temporal things of the saints, there is not a hint of a bargain between them. To fix and take a salary is to degrade the whole service, and to make the labourer not a servant of Christ, but of man. He is to look to the Lord who has employed him for support — not to the world, nor even to his brothers and sisters... his ministry has none of the flavour of a bargain, the work of a hired man, but the freshness and spontaneity of love.

He draws the plain right to support for all labourers — from the soldier, the farmer, the shepherd, and the herdsman... While asserting the right, he refused to use it for himself in the gospel. It was God's grace in it that filled his heart and led his course.

"Do I say these things on human authority?" He was aware that his words might be criticised, and treated by some as merely his own, with no divine authority. So he hurries to back them up by appealing to the law of Moses. He knew that Jewish prejudice lay behind the opposition to his apostolic claims. He also knew that his opponents traded on Gentile ignorance to serve their own ends. So he does not quote the words of the Lord Jesus first. He cites the older command instead, to stop the mouths of such opponents more effectively.

Everyone lives on the return of their work: soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human standards, no one can question how fitting this is. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It goes even further in the same direction. When God spoke of not muzzling the ox as it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word.

Spiritual reasoning in verse 7 supports the principle the apostle lays down. But then this was not only the word of a man — even of a spiritual man. The law spoke in exactly the same way. Deuteronomy 25:4 holds a small law that seems oddly placed there, and it set the principle with a humble working animal. The temple service and the Jewish altars also put it into practice. Finally, the Lord Himself ordained it for the present time.

Let no one think that it is legal to look into the requirements of the law and to profit by them. Does not the apostle Paul write, "Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?" For it is written in the Law of Moses… — and he builds an important truth on it.

Verse 10 shows how freely the Spirit of grace applies all the Scriptures to the believer and his affairs, as parts of the "word of Christ." The words of Moses had to do with oxen. As far as Moses himself understood, they likely carried no further force. But the apostle is bold enough to claim them as a specific provision for himself and his fellow workers in the gospel. What Moses spoke was the word of God. God sees the end from the beginning, and He has sown seed in His earliest testimonies to bear fruit through time and into eternity.

Not that verse 9 means it had no literal reference to an ox. Of course the law expected the Jews to care properly for the life of their animals. Yet that was only minor compared with its spiritual meaning.

The Lord has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. The priests and Levites of old lived on the offerings the people brought. It is the same now. God truly calls some to preach the gospel, Christ gifts them, and the Holy Spirit equips them. Those who give themselves steadily and diligently to that glorious work have a moral right to material support. It is not that they should look to those they preach to for a fixed sum. There is no such idea in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support.

False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed he preached and worked for selfish gain, and that he took the property of Christians by trading on their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.

All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human reckoning no one can question how right this is. Did the law of God speak otherwise? The law is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view but His people, His servants in the word.

Was it really, after all, for the oxen that God cared so much? He does not, of course, mean to deny that God has care for oxen, but was that the great thing? Was there no higher purpose in such a principle as that? Does he not say it entirely, as the apostle puts it, for the sake of others — the ministers of His grace?

Here is another strong proof that the Old Testament Scriptures were written especially for our benefit today. This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 applies with far more force to the Church than to the case of a literal ox. That does not mean verse 9 denies any literal reference to an ox. Of course God expected the Jews to care properly for the life of their animals. Yet this was only minor compared to the spiritual meaning of it.

The words of Moses had to do with oxen, and as far as the lawgiver understood, they likely went no further. But the apostle is bold enough to claim them as a definite provision for himself and his fellow workers in the gospel. What Moses spoke was the word of God. God sees the end from the beginning, and He has sown seed in His earliest testimonies to bear fruit through time and on into eternity.

The law is the law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:9); and this is God's mind, taken for granted as being so. "Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" What Moses taught was what God taught.

The next commandment seems to come in very strangely, and only the spiritual sense, as the apostle gives it, explains it. Some object that this opens the door wide to very loose and fanciful explanations. No doubt that is to be feared. But the remedy is not to reject the principle; it is to guard the application strictly.

"For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages'" (1 Timothy 5:18). These words explain this verse, which would otherwise be rather unclear. The toiling ox is a picture of the servant and his ministry. And this has its rewards.

It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. There is no such idea as this in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support.

Let all who love the Lord be very careful not to neglect any true servant called by Him to His service. If we do so, we shall be flying in the face of His word, and so we ourselves will be the great losers.

Here is another strong confirmation that God wrote the Old Testament Scriptures for our benefit in this present day. This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 applies with far more force to the Church than to a literal ox. This does not mean the command had no literal reference to an ox. The Jews of course had to care properly for the life of their animals. But that was minor compared with its spiritual meaning.

The LORD wrote by Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Who would have thought this had any bearing on believers now, in supporting those who preach the gospel?

All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human reckoning no one can dispute that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It speaks even more strongly in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view. He had His people in view, His servants in the word. The picture is kept up exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing. That last phrase fits better, because the time for a share was clearly near.

Wordsworth is right to dwell on the use the apostle makes of it. It shows "that the law has a spiritual sense, in which it is still binding upon all". It also gives "us the key by which we may unlock the casket and take out of it its treasures." Gosman objects that this "opens wide the door to a very loose and fanciful exposition." No doubt that is to be feared. But the remedy is not to reject the principle; it is to guard the application strictly.

The ox pictures someone who labours for the Lord. He therefore has a right to the consideration of being supported by his work. One guilty of serious crime had to be punished (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), but one who laboured for the Lord had to be rewarded.

In speaking this way God is not thinking only of the oxen. He wrote it for our sakes. The one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their work. In the same way, if the Lord's servants have sown "spiritual things", they have every right to receive "material things" in return.

It is clear from the New Testament reference to the matter that there is to be a yield from the exercise. "He who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop" (1 Cor. 9:10).

Do not lose heart. If we truly labour we must be in some measure in conflict, trial and sorrow. It is a work of faith, even if it is also a labour of love and a patience of hope. Blessed fruits do come along the way, and we may see them ripening. But the great harvest is the time of joy. A clear view of that harvest, and constant reference to it, gives our work a real, deep, holy character, like His own. It will prove real in that day.

It is worth noticing that verse 11 also guards against anyone who would object that the comparison fails. The labourer just described is paid in the very thing he works with, while the spiritual labourer might need help in the things of this life. The apostle meets this senseless or selfish objection by showing that a return is owed all the more, since what is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh.

Many look at the second thing — giving to servants of our Lord Jesus Christ — as the "great thing." That is a mistake! The giving of spiritual things is what is truly great, and the other is only a right and ordinary return. The labourer must be supported. It is not good when those who benefit from his service neglect the one who sows spiritual things. Spiritual poverty may follow.

The rights of the servant remained, as pictured in the service connected with the temple and its altar. Above all, the apostle asserts that these rights follow what the Lord has ordained: "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel". Nature (verse 7), Scripture (verses 9, 10), and the direct command of the Lord (verses 13, 14) all agree. Each upholds the right of the one who ministers spiritual things to receive the material things of the saints.

God is not thinking only of the oxen. It is written for our sakes. If the one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their labours, so do the servants of the Lord. If they have sown "spiritual things", they have a full right to receive "material things" in return.

It is ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." That is plainly the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it, yet be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But note the difference. There is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.

He judged that in their case the interests of the gospel of Christ would best be served by his suffering "all things", rather than by taking their "material things". In his service the apostle was not governed by the thought of gain, but by the interests of Christ and His gospel.

Here too God used the willing hands of His people. But no one understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and it was his privilege to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference. You cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.

An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not help him. They would be losing one of their privileges.

False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he preached and worked from selfish motives. They said that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks of his ministry.

If others made use of this right to take their material things, how much more could the Apostle? He had served them so faithfully. If he held back from taking their material things, that was no proof that he was not an apostle. It did not mean that he had no right to receive from them. Rather, it showed his judgment. In their case, the interests of the gospel of Christ would be best served if he suffered "all things" instead of taking their "material things." In his service the Apostle was not driven by the thought of gain. He was driven by the interests of Christ and His gospel.

They are his witness too, that the right he so justly asserted he had never used. He had chosen another and a wiser way. Knowing the enemy's devices well, he would carefully cut off any occasion. He would let nothing appear in his ministry that the enemies of truth could use to do damage... No one should be able to hint, with any show of reason, that God's chosen ambassador of reconciliation to the world used his commission to make money. And no one should be able to claim that a man who openly gloried in the cross of Jesus Christ his Lord traded in the gospel of free grace.

He takes care, however, to show that he was wholly above selfish aims in pleading this way for the spiritual labourer and his right to support: "We have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ." He would plead for others and their right. He would press the duty of the saints who are served, on a right view of the work done. But he did not use the right for himself. Instead he bore every kind of trial, so as to put no hindrance in the way of the gospel.

Love is willing to put up with everything except sin. And sin, when confessed, love takes care to cover... It does not break under the weight of any secret, and is not discouraged by neglect. It can cheerfully face obstacles, because it has a steady and self-governing aim. The apostle bore all things for the gospel's sake. There is in true love all the force of will, and this is what distinguishes it from mere sentiment. It is not a duty only, but a power.

How much more, then, is this true of the servant of Christ? The servant of the Lord can never say, Why do you not minister to me? Rather, he will long to be like the Apostle Paul. Paul held to the principle "that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Yet he adds, "But I have made no use of any of these rights." It will be his joy if he can, as far as possible, "present the gospel free of charge." He will be very afraid that he might hinder the gospel of Christ.

Verse 13 refers to the Levites who served in connection with the temple, and the priests waiting at the altar. The Levites received the tithes of the people (Num. 18:21); and as well as sharing in this, the priests received part of the sacrifices that they offered (Lev. 6:26; 7:6, 14). In this way God provided for their support. In the same way God had ordained that those who preach the gospel should "get their living by the gospel."

Jehovah Himself was the portion and inheritance of the priests among the sons of Israel, so He gave them a share in His offerings and sacrifices. In the same way, under the gospel, the Lord does not forget those who preach it. He appoints them to draw their living from it. There may be exceptions, as with the man who has written this rule for us.

He next makes a special reference to the Levitical system, to establish the analogy between the priestly service and reward under the former covenant, and the ministry of Christ under the new... Nor should it seem strange that Paul assumes these Gentile believers know Jewish ordinances. Apart from his own teaching among them, we may be sure they had listened to Apollos, a man so mighty in the Scriptures — and no one could do that without becoming familiar, at least in general, with the ordinances of the former sanctuary.

Whether it was nature (verse 7), or Scripture (verses 9, 10), or the direct ordinance of the Lord (verses 13, 14), all agree on the same right. The one who ministers in spiritual things may receive material things from the saints.

Although here also God used the willing hands of His people, it was not understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and his privilege was to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference; for you cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.

It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain fixed sum. There is no such idea in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support... True, He expected the people to serve Him by caring for His servants. He told them what to give, and blessed them in giving; it was their high privilege as well as their duty to give.

He was wholly above selfish aims in pleading for the spiritual labourer and his title to support... He would plead for others and their title, and for the duty of the saints who receive that ministry, based on a right view of the work done. But he did not use the right for himself. Instead he bore all sorts of trial, so as to put no hindrance in the way of the gospel.

Some who labour in this way have means of their own and do not need such help. Others need it, yet are great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. Only there is just this difference: there is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.

The labourer is indeed worthy of his food, and of his hire. There are other necessities beyond food, and the Lord forgot none. This twofold statement makes it plain (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, as cited in 1 Timothy 5:18). So the apostle declares that the Lord ordained the same for those who preach the gospel: they should live by the gospel, as the law had done before for those who ministered about holy things.

All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By any human reckoning, no one can question that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word. The figure holds exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing.

If a preacher gives up his trade for the Lord's sake, of course he may live by the gospel: others maintain and feed him, giving food, clothing, and what he needs. Or, if he has the energy, he may work like Paul all night. He can then support his household and stop selfish people, like some at Corinth, from saying, He is doing it for his pay. Not many have energy enough to do both things well. If you have a man preaching, supply him while he preaches.

It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support. Woe to him if he looks to the church, or to men in any way.

These and other scriptures show who should support the servant of the Lord: those who have received the Word through him, and other Christians. From the unsaved they were to take nothing (see 3 John 5-8). Think how out of place it is to preach to a room full of unsaved people. The preacher tells them of God's gift and urges them to accept it. He assures them they can give nothing to God until they receive Christ — and then comes the collection.

An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not assist him. They would be losing one of their privileges. The Philippians were very forward to do it, and so it was now with some. Such help would bring blessing not only on the one side but on the other. Locality makes no difference. An evangelist is a servant of Christ, not of the assembly.

The Apostle has carefully asserted the rights of the servant. In the rest of the chapter he shows how he had used his own rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher privilege.

The Lord ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." This is the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it and still be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But there is just this difference: those who have enough gain no virtue by declining help. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.

The apostle had now affirmed the principle. It was for others however, not for himself. He makes sure the Corinthians understand this. He had written in love for the glory of the Lord, "but," says he, "I have made no use of any of these rights." … Divine love cares for others and sacrifices self. The apostle was a living example of the gospel he preached. The rights were real, and grace does not forget them for others — it simply does not use them for itself.

Paul would not take a penny from the Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 9:15, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7-9), though he laid down the rule that the servant should be supported. He laid it down for others and flung it up for himself. He laboured and supported himself, ministered the truth, but kept the things of God far away from dirty money — from being "greedy for gain," as he himself puts it (Titus 1:7).

False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he preached and worked for what he could get out of it. They claimed that he took the property of Christians and traded on their devotion. … Now the Lord's will was that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. … Still, he had not used this right. The Lord's call obliged him to preach, and woe to him if he failed to do it! His glory was to preach free of charge, and so remove every opening from those who were looking for one.

The Apostle has carefully set out the rights of the servant. In the rest of the chapter he shows how he himself had used those rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. As one has said, "In his hands this privilege turns into a completely different privilege: the privilege of sacrificing himself for Christ and for His service". He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher one. He did not write this letter to ask them for material help. He would not take help from them, and so let anyone make his boast worthless.

Love, burning with energy, rises above a privilege it is allowed to take. Paul would have argued less strongly for the rights of spiritual work if he had not firmly decided to give up his own claim. He was not seeking what they had; he was seeking them. By his own example he wanted to stir their minds to a nobler ambition than any they had yet imagined. He would show them that there is a spiritual heroism as well as a natural one, and that a person can win prizes in Christ as well as on the Olympic track. He admits that, as a Christian, he is an ambitious man.

Even what Christ has sent me, I do not take it for His sake. I glory in this, that I have given up everything I had a title to for the gospel's sake. It is a very strong expression. Better for me to die, than for me to do anything that would hinder the gospel.

His calling gave him nothing to boast about, and neither did his mission as an apostle. He could not even boast in carrying out his trust faithfully, because the commission he was given was also a necessity laid on him. When God sends a person, refusing to go brings a woe instead of a blessing... Yet he does have a boast, and he guards it jealously. What it is, he tells us in the words that follow.

It is important to see that preaching is not something to boast about. It is an obligation — a duty to Him who has called a person and given him a gift for this very purpose. So it is a necessity laid on everyone He calls, not a position of honour to claim, nor a right to plead. Christ has the right to send workers into His vineyard, and He does send them. That is what makes it a real necessity for the one who is sent. According to Scripture, the church never sends anyone to preach the gospel... And the One who sends also directs the worker. It is vitally important that this is kept in place, with the worker directly responsible to the Lord.

Notice the word "Woe." I do not find it anywhere else in the New Testament letters, except where the apostle applies it in a very different way to himself: woe to him if he did not make the good news known (1 Cor. 9:16).

He knew that God had entrusted a "stewardship" (or an "administration") to him, and that woe would come on him if he failed in it. The work might have been unpleasant to him and against his will, just as preaching to Nineveh was against Jonah's will. But necessity rested on him. He would have had to serve through a good deal of woe, as Jonah did. In his case, though, the work was not distasteful. He gloried in it, though in doing it he had nothing to boast about.

Since that is how things stand, a person may as well have a willing heart in the matter, and Paul holds that a willing spirit will reap a reward. If instead he is unwilling, that does not change his responsibility for the gospel entrusted to him. He must still prove faithful in it.

In these last days it seems as if God allows a great deal of pressure on people's spirits to go to everyone. But as a rule there is also the thought of God's claim, not only the claim of souls, and then the worker is guided by Him who has that claim. Where that is present, it is "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" — but we do it guided by Him who has the claim over us.

His debt was a debt of love... Ceasing to preach the gospel would have caused him grief of heart, which comes through in his words, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"

What is his reward? In what does he glory? His answer is: "that in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel." In this way nothing hindered the gospel; it became more effective.

Let us note well what Paul considers his reward. It is the opposite of mere material reward: he would willingly give up all material benefits connected with the gospel, thinking of this self-sacrifice itself as a reward. For his own soul rejoiced in doing this for the sake of others.

That which was only a matter of self-interest before now becomes an opportunity for self-sacrifice on behalf of Christ and His gospel. This was a privilege indeed. Only this spirit can carry a man safely through Satan's world, not deceived and not lured by anything Satan may use against him.

Note that the word "abuse", used here and also in 1 Cor. 7:31, does not carry in either place the meaning we usually give it. The force of the word is "to use as one that has possession of a thing", or a person "using it as he likes, as his own". The Lord sent the Apostle to preach, and the Lord ordained that he had a right to be supported. He did not, however, use this right as if it were a possession that he could use as he liked.

There is really no thought of "abusing" in it. It would not be "abusing" to take a salary, or whatever you call it.

He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to a support for himself. This is the giving up of one's right for special reasons of grace. It is all the more beautiful in a man who had as deep a sense of righteousness as perhaps anyone who ever lived. So no one could question his plea for the rights of others, because nothing in it was mixed with any desire for himself.

False teachers accused him. They claimed that he preached and worked from selfish motives, and that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. Now the will of the Lord was that those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel. Still, he had not used this right. His glory was to do it free of charge, so as to take away all occasion from those who sought it.

In 1 Cor. 9, where he gives his motives, he makes no reference to these evil workers. In fact there could be no such people in Corinth when Paul came to preach, for no assembly existed there yet. What drove him was a heart filled with love, burning to show the gospel in action and in truth as he preached it in words.

This should be the aim of every gospel preacher — to present the free gift of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus, free of charge. If someone passes the collection plate around after the service and urges everyone to give, unsaved as well as saved, the gospel is not free of charge. The unsaved are not asked to give to the Lord's work; the saved are to do it cheerfully, out of a free will.

That seems to have been Paul's usual principle in his work. But the assembly at Philippi was a bright exception, for from them he received gifts again and again.

Paul was not under a yoke to anyone in his service, only to the Lord, of course. He was free in that sense… He did not serve out of his own will, but he was still free from man. Peter did not send him. That was what they charged against him; he had not seen the apostle; he did not come from Jerusalem. In verse 19 we find what "free" is: "Though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all."

In this way nothing hindered the gospel; it became more effective… This was his reward: to preach the gospel free of charge. Love governed him, and he had become a servant of all. He gave up his rights. He did not insist on his Christian freedom, but gave up his liberty so that "by all means I might save some."

The apostle was ready to yield at every side where Christ was not concerned. He was free — but free to be a bondman to anyone and everyone, so that he might gain, not ends of his own, but the most possible for Christ. So among the Jews he raised no question about the law. His heart was set on their salvation, and legal questions would not turn him aside… That was the only gain he sought — not what was theirs, but them; and them for God, not shaped to fit his own opinions or prejudices.

If they were weak, he would come down beside them. His aim was to show them the weakness that finds its answer of strength in Christ, and to gain them for Him. Becoming "all things to all people" never meant giving up proper moral principles. It meant sacrificing his own comfort and natural preferences to enter into the circumstances of others.

We may learn from this to resist the idea that only one principle can govern our conduct. That is not so when the relationships and circumstances of the people involved are completely different. Wisdom would then seek the Spirit's instruction from God's word to guide us in each separate case… An eye fixed on Christ alone and on His grace will find the true way. Grace knows where to stand firm and when to yield.

The argument is, "If Paul became as a Jew to the Jews, we ought to become as Wesleyans to the Wesleyans," etc. A careful reading of the passage shows the error in that conclusion. Such a statement contradicts the apostle's teaching about the church of God. The mistake is this: it puts people who profess the name of the Lord in the same class as those who may deny Him. Belonging to a kingdom and joining in its divisions is surely not the same as always having belonged to the enemy's ranks!

Let us remember that no one is able to give liberty to himself. If the love of God has given us liberty, it is so that, by this love in us, we may serve one another. He has made us free from self, free from independence, free from our own wills. We are to act as God acts, as He has acted in Christ — not to please ourselves, but to serve one another in love.

"Am I not free?" asked the apostle in 1 Corinthians 9:1. I am "free from all" (v. 19), he said, about the work entrusted to him, though he made himself servant of all for their good. Still, he was truly subject… It is the Son who makes us "FREE INDEED," for the Son is free. But He took the form of a servant, and said Himself, "I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."

In 1 Corinthians 9:20 there is an addition of great importance... The Revisers have restored the clause left out after "as under the law," namely, "not being myself under law." Many of our readers know that all competent scholars have long admitted that this clause was thrown out with no good reason... Read rightly, it settles the much-debated question of whether the Christian is still under law.

After the second word "law" in verse 20 a clause has been left out: "not being myself under law." It is recognised as belonging to the text by all who have examined it. He puts subjection to Christ in the place of being under law.

All he means by "to those under the law, as under law" is something like this: he would not eat pork if he were sitting at table with a Jew. Timothy was circumcised on some such principle... In dealing with Jews he adapted himself to them, but the moment the Jews made the law necessary, he stood against them. He would not give way about Titus, because they were making it necessary.

While he was tender toward the Jewish conscience, he stood against their doctrinal claims like a rock... The class referred to here includes not only those born Jews, but all of any nation who had learnt and accepted the teaching of Moses.

Among the Jews he raised no question about the law. His heart was set on their salvation; he would not turn aside for legal questions... Such was the only gain he sought — not their things, but them; and them for God, not to shape them after any opinions or prejudices of his own.

How often, when we meet unconverted people, do we slip into the current of their thoughts and find a subject in common with them! Some mourn over this; others defend it. The defence rests on a mistaken view of the apostle's words, "I have become all things to all people." It does not mean that he entered into the folly and nonsense of worldly men... It means that Paul denied himself among all classes of men so that he might "by all means save some."

How graciously He gained the confidence of the woman at the well!... Divine adaptability was His, which drew the tax collectors and sinners to the side of Him who was the Light of the world. Precious Saviour! And Paul got his adaptability from his Master. The way for us to gain it is not to set our minds to manufacture it by willpower. It is to be so occupied with the Lord Jesus Christ, so in communion with Him, that without noticing it we drink in more of His spirit and learn His ways.

The word is ἄνομος. It is translated 'without law' in 1 Cor. 9:21, and it describes those who ignore all law and do their own will.

The apostle describes how he became all things to all men. He says he became "to those under the law, as under the law." Then he adds a clause that the received text leaves out, though everyone competent to judge accepts it as genuine: "not being myself under law." The next verse implies the same thing, for he goes on, "To those without law, as without law (not being without law to God, but under the law to Christ)." "Under the law to Christ" is a very different phrase from the usual "under the law." It is, in fact, ennomos christo — translated by some as "enlawed to Christ," by others as "legitimately subject to Christ."

They are "under grace" (Rom. 6:14), and "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" sets them free from "the law of sin and death." So they are kept "under law to Christ," or "legitimately subject to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21), and made able to fulfil all the righteous requirements of the law (Rom. 8:4). This is not how they gain or keep a position before God. It is the fruit of the grace that has already set them in the place of richest favour.

When he approached the man without law, he did so on that basis. Only he was always careful to make clear that he himself was not a lawless man, but rightly subject to the Lord. Clearly, then, the apostle studied the people he approached, and their personal ways, so that he might avoid anything that would needlessly turn them against the Gospel he brought. He was nothing like the mistaken spirit that says, "God can save and take care of His own elect," and then almost hurls the Gospel at people's heads, without much care about the result.

Such is the flexibility of grace… It was not, as some shamefully misuse his words, an excuse for tampering with the world and sparing one's own flesh, which really means becoming Satan's prey. His was self-sacrifice in a faith that had only Christ for its object, and that brought every soul within reach into contact with His love.

Divine adaptability was His, and it drew the tax collectors and the sinners to the side of Him who was the Light of the world. Precious Saviour! And Paul got his adaptability from his Master. We do not gain it by setting our minds to manufacture it by willpower. We gain it by being taken up with the Lord Jesus Christ, and by being in communion with Him, until without noticing it we drink in more of His spirit and learn His ways.

Being free from all, he had made himself the servant of all, so that he might win as many as he could. Notice that this was in his service. It was not fitting in with the world to escape the offence of the cross. He stated that plainly (1 Corinthians 2:2). But in preaching it, he adapted himself to the religious capacity and to the ways of thinking of each group. He did this to gain access for the truth into their minds.

Sometimes people mourn over this; sometimes they defend it. The defence rests on a mistaken view of the apostle's words, "I have become all things to all people." This does not mean that he entered into the folly and nonsense of worldly men. By no means... It means that Paul denied himself among all classes of men, so that he might "by all means save some." His aim was to bring sinners to Christ, not to please himself.

It is clear then that the apostle studied the people he approached, and their particular ways. He wanted to avoid anything that would needlessly turn them against the message he brought. He was far removed from that mistaken spirit that says, "God can save and take care of His own elect." That spirit almost hurls the gospel at people's heads, with little care about the result.

He would not wound the scruples of the feeblest; indeed, to the weak he became weak, that he might gain the weak... He did not mean, as some shamefully misuse his words to claim, that we may tamper with the world and spare our own flesh. That is really to become the prey of Satan. His was self-sacrifice in a faith that had only Christ for its object. His aim was to bring every soul within reach into contact with His love.

How graciously He gained the confidence of the woman at the well! ...Divine adaptability was His. It drew the tax collectors and the sinners to the side of Him who was the Light of the world. Precious Saviour! And Paul got his adaptability from his Master. We do not gain it by setting our minds to manufacture it by willpower. We gain it by being so occupied with the Lord Jesus Christ, so in communion with Him, that without noticing it we drink in more of His spirit and learn His ways.

If we are to be successful in our testimony, our hearts must be in tune with the great compassionate heart of God. We must develop a yearning over the perishing, and it should be our prayer and labour that we may "by all means save some."

Even what Christ has sent me, I do not take, for His sake. I glory in this, that I have given up everything I had a right to, for the gospel's sake. It is a very strong expression. Better for me to die than to do anything that would hinder the gospel.

The Gospel, as Paul knew and preached it, is the doctrine of Christ. It is the complete setting forth of God, as He is now declared by the Spirit in His testimony to the Son. In its full sense, therefore, it includes all that the One who glorifies Jesus can reveal of Him... In its narrower and more common sense, it means God's message or command to people as such. It is His free and pressing invitation to all who will own that they are helpless sinners in His sight. They may receive His own righteousness in exchange for their sins, and confess Jesus and Him crucified as the ground of their hope of glory, giving up all trust in themselves.

Being "made all things to all men" was in no way giving up proper moral principles. It was sacrificing his own comfort and natural preferences to enter into the circumstances of others.

He did not do it, as some shamefully twist his words to say, to excuse playing along with the world and sparing one's own flesh. That really means becoming the prey of Satan. His was self-sacrifice, in a faith that had only Christ for its object, and in bringing every soul within his reach into contact with His love.

To Paul, then, the Gospel, in all its rich and full meaning, was everything. He lived for it, and by it he would stand or fall. He wanted to be a partaker not of it only, but with it also — to share in its ever-blessed fruits as it prospered, by the grace of God, in his own hands as a fellow worker with God. He also wanted his brothers and his children in the faith to be his partners in this joy.

Moreover, he acted this way for the sake of the glad tidings, which he speaks of as a person when he says, "that I may be fellow-partaker with them."

Preaching to others was not all. He might do that, and as far as he himself went, it might be wasted labour. He might lose everything — rejected in the end himself, if he was not himself a Christian. He was a Christian first of all, then a preacher, and a good preacher, because he was a Christian first.

The figure from these games would be most striking to the Corinthians, who were used to the games held at the Isthmus. Indeed the point is plain to anyone. Even in the games the competitors had to be temperate in all things, though their crown was a fading one and ours lasts forever.

Again, in a human race only one can win, only one receives the prize. In the heavenly race every runner, every one who strives, wins. Yes, sovereign grace says he shall surely win. Let us therefore so run that we may obtain. The word of God, the Cross, the Resurrection, the Coming, the promised Glory, are all pledges of our winning. But the runner who is most sure in his heart of winning is the one most aware of almighty and sovereign grace.

Here it is not a question of life or salvation, but simply of "running in a race," and "so running that we obtain" — not life, but "an incorruptible crown." The call to run assumes you already have life. No one would tell dead men to run a race... He does not give us life as sinners and then set us to run for it as saints. He does not leave us with the gloomy fear that we may lose the precious gift by failing in the race. That would be to "run uncertainly," as many are sadly trying to do. They claim to have entered the course, yet they do not know whether they have life or not.

The course run by a Christian is compared to races in which "one receives the prize," with the exhortation, "So run that you may obtain it." 1 Cor. 9:24-27. The prize Paul was stretching forward to win was that of being with and like the Lord in the glory. Phil. 3:14.

The crown the Apostle speaks of is not given for being a Christian, but for a faithful walk... It ought to be a solemn thought to our hearts: the Lord means to notice how people have stood as witnesses for Him, and what their walk was like. All will be in glory on the ground of free grace. But Christ watches to see if we run well, and He will give a reward if there has been faithfulness.

There are no "ifs" in the purpose of God, and no "ifs" in the accomplishment of His salvation. But there are "ifs" in the way He leads us, humbling us and testing us... There is no "if" as to my being in Christ: I know I am in Christ... but the moment He takes me as an actual living man down here, He says, "So run that you may obtain it."

The race, then, is the race of Christian life, and the contest is that of pleasing the Lord. Christ is its starting point, and Christ is also its goal. The race must be run with patience, by a faith that looks away from everything else and fixes its gaze on Him alone. Men did not compete at the Greek games with nooses round their necks. In the same way, the Christian is not called to save himself by his own effort from the wrath to come. As a sinner, he has already fled for refuge to the hope set before him... It is in his Saviour's name that he appears as a competitor, and by his Saviour's strength alone that he can hope to win.

This picture from the games would strike the Corinthians hard. They knew the games of the Isthmus well. Indeed the use is plain to anyone. Spiritually, the prize is not for one, but for all, if all run well. But even in the games the competitors had to be self-controlled in all things. And theirs was only a fading crown; ours is everlasting.

Here the Apostle uses a picture from the athletic games at the Corinthian Isthmus. We all know the strenuous training an athlete will put himself through. He will keep away from foods and drinks that would spoil his fitness. In other words he is self-restrained, for that is the meaning of the word "temperate" in our text.

No one should think that the Apostle fitted in with the world to escape reproach and spare the flesh. To clear away any such mistake, the Apostle shows in the closing verses that the path of service is one of self-denial. There is indeed a reward for service, and it is far better than the prize the world's games offer. There they run for a corruptible crown; the Christian runs for an incorruptible one. If winning an earthly crown needs a disciplined life, how much more must we be self-controlled in all things to win the incorruptible crown.

Paul was striving, and so he was self-controlled. That is why he can say, sure of gaining the mastery, "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly." If there is no uncertainty, why strive? The prize is sure to the one who strives, however feeble his striving may be; but the one who does not strive at all is a castaway. Again, in a human race only one can win, only one receives the prize. In the heavenly race every runner, everyone who strives, wins. Yes, sovereign grace says he shall surely win... But the one who is most assured in his heart of winning is the most deeply conscious of almighty and sovereign grace.

All ran, but only one received the prize. So let each one lay aside every weight and sin, and run to win — not for a fading crown of laurel, pine, or parsley, but an incorruptible one. This is not a contest where those who are not converted have to strive in the hope of gaining salvation. It is a race the Christian has to run as a matter of experience.

In the New Testament the word usually translated "crown" is stephanos. It is more a symbol of victory than of royalty... It covers both the perishable crown won by victors in the ancient contests and the imperishable crown of the Christian, 1 Cor. 9:25. This latter is further described as a "crown of righteousness," "crown of life," "crown of glory," 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Rev. 2:10. These may refer to the same crown, seen in different aspects.

We are viewed as athletes competing in the games, whether running or fighting. So we should be marked by zeal, directness of purpose, and a self-controlled, self-denying life in all things. The athlete, whether in the Greek games of two thousand years ago or in the contests today, is careful not to let his body get the mastery of him. The very opposite. He masters his body, brings it under a very strict regime, and even punishes it with constant exercise. And all this to win a crown that quickly fades.

He did not run with uncertain steps, like someone who did not see the true end, or who did not pursue it seriously as a known thing. He knew well what he was pursuing, and he pursued it in a real way, plainly, according to its nature. Everyone could judge by his walk. He did not play at it like a man who beats the air — an easy show of skill.

He did not fight as "one who beat the air," that is, as if an imaginary enemy was in front of him. But he knew the terrible foe he carried about inside himself: the "flesh." For that flesh, the Son of God had to endure the judgment of God in infinite suffering. So with all his energy he kept his body under and led it captive.

Paul was striving, and so he was self-controlled. So he can say, with absolute certainty of winning, "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly." If there is no uncertainty, why strive? The prize is sure to the one who strives, however feeble his striving may be. But the one who does not strive at all is a castaway. Again, in a human race only one can win, only one receives the prize. In the heavenly race every runner, everyone who strives, wins.

The moment we are not conscious of God's presence, self comes up — our own will is there. But if we are in earnest, running to win, we are glad to have every hindrance to our running removed. Test your heart by this. Do you think a man running a race he cared to win would weigh himself down by keeping even gold on him? I judge everything by one object. Christ is my object, so I judge everything by Him. If something hinders me in running after Christ — in taking hold of Him — let it go.

Paul was perfectly well assured about himself; but he says that if he had been merely preaching, he would have been falsely assured. But if he was not merely beating the air, he was rightly assured.

The athlete is careful not to let his body master him. That was true in the Greek games of two thousand years ago. It is true in the contests today. The very opposite happens: he masters his body. He brings it under a very strict routine. He even buffets it with continual exercise. And all this to win a crown that quickly fades. Let us aim at the same things, only of a spiritual sort, so that in due season we may receive a crown that never fades.

In the New Testament the word is adokimos, "disapproved." It describes the wicked. It also describes those who enter the race and fail to reach the goal… It is translated "castaway" in 1 Corinthians 9:27. This seems to show that a man may preach the gospel to others and then be disapproved himself, failing to reach the goal through lack of self-discipline.

It means disapproved on trial, which may be absolute or relative… It seems to me very plain what the apostle means. He means a disapproval of the person, in the strictest and fullest way. This is not a mere condemnation of his service, but stands in contrast with it. He supposes that a man might preach to others with no flaw or drawback named. The work is all right — but the person is disapproved.

I believe the expression applies not to his future but to his present service. It applies not to his heavenly home but to his earthly path. It applies not to his eternal privileges but to his present responsibilities… The body is a good servant but a bad master. If a man does not keep it down, it will completely disqualify him as a servant of Christ from his high and holy work. A person may be a child of God and yet be "disapproved" as a servant of Christ.

What Paul means is that he is not only a believer but is living like a believer, or he might be cast away like other people. I have not the slightest doubt that God will keep His people. They shall never perish… The point is that you must compete lawfully and by the rules. Now the rule of Christ is, you must live as well as talk, or else be afraid of the consequences. "For if you live according to the flesh you will die."

Notice the tact of the apostle. When he has something unflattering to say, he prefers to say it about himself. When he has something pleasing to say, he loves to say it about others. So here he says, "Lest I myself become a castaway," not "you." He meant their profit, no doubt. He wanted the words to search their own consciences. If even Paul trained himself to keep a conscience free of offence, if Paul kept his body in subjection, how much more did these men need it?

Let us beware of preaching without practice, for the apostle warns us that it is possible to preach and yet be a castaway… Preaching to others is not everything. First we must be a Christian, and then a preacher, if called by the Lord.

In our English version the first word of the chapter is "Moreover." But the word is really just "For." That shows that what follows is a direct illustration of the point he is making. The great mass of Israel had the outward forms of their holy religion. Yet they missed its living power completely, because they had no faith.

Notice first the expression "our fathers." It is not used here, as it often is, for God's true and chosen people. It describes the whole nation. Not all who come from Israel are truly Israel, yet all who bore that name were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. The LORD's power in dividing the Red Sea gave the people, who had despaired before, the confidence to follow Moses to the other side. True faith in God Himself kept Joshua and Caleb for the promised land. This faith of the eyes in Israel is a picture of "faith upon evidences," or "rational conviction." It is often found in people who, sadly, show no sign of true life toward God.

The apostle goes on to say, "now these things were our types." That gives us God's own warrant to read Israel's baptism "in the sea and in the cloud" as a picture. Nothing could be more meaningful or practical. They began their wilderness journey as a people baptized in this way. In the picture, they were a people dead to Egypt and all that belonged to it. The cloud and the sea were to them what the cross and grave of Christ are to us. The cloud kept them safe from their enemies. The sea separated them from Egypt. In the same way, the cross shields us from all that could be against us, and we stand at heaven's side of the empty tomb of Jesus.

1 Cor. 10 tells us how the children of Israel "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." It was as if the wall of water on each side, and the cloud resting on the water, made a dark tunnel for them to pass through. What a deliverance! No more Pharaoh, no more Egypt. On the other side of the Red Sea they were under the leadership of Moses, with supplies from heaven: water from the struck rock to drink, and the daily manna for food.

Israel stands here as a warning to those who professed Christ. Did the Corinthians boast of their privileges and gifts? He shows them how little safety such institutions as baptism and the Lord's supper give to those who rest in them. ... The danger was not only for preachers, but for all who professed the name — not some of them, but all. Look at the ancient people of God. In the same way, they trusted not in God but in His acts and in the rites He had given them, their own special favours. And this was so from the beginning, not only in later days of cold and dead formality. The heart of unbelief is so ready to depart from the living God.

He does not say that we can share in the death of Christ and perish. He says that it is possible to share in the symbols of His death and perish. In this way he exposes the trap that most of the Christian world has fallen into: a sacramental system where salvation depends on taking part in baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Take up what Scripture teaches about baptism, and I think you will find that it nearly always, if not always, means being brought into a place. "They were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." That is, they were brought right into relationship with Moses as their leader. The cloud and the sea marked that connection. It stood in contrast with their earlier slavery to Pharaoh.

At that point they definitely committed themselves to the authority and leadership of Moses; just as in Christian baptism, which is in the Name of the Lord Jesus, we are definitely committed to His authority and leadership.

The Greek preposition means "unto" (or "to") as often as "into." Which sense it carries depends on the context, or on the nature of the case. Water baptism is plainly in view in 1 Corinthians 10:2, as a warning to the baptized at Corinth. It is impossible to think that the Israelites were baptized into Moses… Baptism is the symbol of profession. Reality depends on faith, which might, or might not, be true of the person baptized. To say "into" therefore goes beyond God's word. It implies that the rite itself gives life, and Scripture gives no warrant for that.

They began their wilderness journey as a people baptized in this way… In other words, in picture they were a people dead to Egypt and to everything that belonged to it. The cloud and the sea were to them what the cross and grave of Christ are to us. The cloud kept them safe from their enemies. The sea separated them from Egypt. In the same way the cross shields us from all that could be against us, and we stand at heaven's side of the empty tomb of Jesus.

They were under the shelter of the blood. But they did not get out of Egypt until they had crossed the Red Sea. That crossing pictures the death of Christ and the destruction of all enemies. They are safe, but not saved. The blood shelters them from judgment. Yet they must pass through the waters of death before they appear as a delivered people.

The force of "baptism" in the New Testament does not depend on the manner at all. When Israel were "baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," they were not immersed in either. To read immersion into the passage would turn its solemn meaning into absolute folly. In that wonderful way they were broken off from their past in Egypt and taken into Moses' school.

Israel stand here as a warning to those who professed Christ. Did the Corinthians boast of their privileges and gifts? This passage shows how little security such institutions as baptism and the Lord's supper give to those who rest in them… To presume on the Lord's institutions is fatal, whether the one that begins the Christian path or the one repeated after it… To my mind the aim is to guard those who were baptized, and who joined in the Lord's supper, from the illusion that all was therefore right and safe. The warning stands so that they may not sin grievously and perish miserably.

Thirdly, Paul writes, they ate spiritual food. This stresses two things: the manna came from a supernatural source (Psalm 78:25), and it carries a spiritual meaning. As the Lord Jesus explains in John chapter 6, He is the Bread of Life, and only those who feed on Him have life (John 6:31-32).

The manna, I need not say, is Christ, the bread of God from heaven, to be our food. It is Christ come down, Christ in all the circumstances of an earthly life, to sustain the life of His people... So here we do not have a Christ in glory, but a Christ humbled. In His blessed person there is everything needed to support and nourish us on our wilderness journey.

The subject of 1 Corinthians 10 is privilege, and the responsibility that comes with it for everyone who shares in it, whoever they are. So the words "all ate the same spiritual food" and "all drank the same spiritual drink" say something about the food and the drink. They say nothing about the people who took them, except that they did take them... Yet in the end many of them proved to be unworthy partakers, and we are to take warning from them.

As a question of interpretation, it is clear that when Paul says they all ate the same spiritual food, he is speaking of the fathers, not of the Corinthians or other Christians. His point of warning and instruction is that God took no pleasure in most of them, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. So in these verses he speaks only of Israel. He is in no way saying that their manna and water were the same as our signs of Christ's death, or what men call the sacraments... They held the title of God's people, and they shared in sacred privileges — the very privileges Paul plainly likens to the two institutions so familiar to us in the Christian world. Yet none of this saved the mass of them from being overthrown by God's judgments in the wilderness.

Now he warns those who profess faith that it is possible to be baptised, to share in the Lord's Supper, and yet be lost. He does not say that we can have part in the death of Christ and perish. He says it is possible to have part in the symbols of His death and perish. So he exposes the trap that most of the Christian world has fallen into: a sacramental system that makes salvation depend on having part in baptism and the Lord's Supper.

This passage is not a warning against having a thing and in any way perishing, but against having the signs of the thing and then perishing.

The manna was so pure and delicate that it could not bear contact with earth. It fell upon the dew (see Numbers 11:9) and had to be gathered before the sun was up. Each one, therefore, had to rise early and seek his daily portion. So it is with the people of God now. The heavenly manna must be gathered fresh every morning. Yesterday's manna will not do for today, nor today's for tomorrow. We must feed upon Christ every day, with fresh energy of the Spirit, or else we shall cease to grow.

They are probably called "spiritual food" and "spiritual drink" because God gave them both. They were the direct gift of His grace, and in no sense natural products. But there is another reason: what they picture. The food speaks of Christ meeting the needs of His people on their journey. The drink speaks of life in the power of the Holy Spirit, and without that the journey could not be made.

The words "and the Rock was Christ" work the same way — that is, the rock represented Christ. The rock was struck before the water flowed out. In the same way, Christ was struck on the cross before the Holy Spirit was given.

Some explain the rod as a symbol of God's power. So when it strikes, it shows His judicial power at work. In this striking of the rock, then, we see the stroke of His judgment falling on Christ at the cross. The struck rock is a crucified Christ. And it was the people's sin, remember, that led to the striking of the rock. It is a vivid illustration of the truth that "He was pierced for our transgressions; He was crushed for our iniquities."

Paul treats the rock of Israel's history as one rock, though many years passed between the two episodes, and it pictured Christ. Christ did not need to be struck twice. Once was enough, and rivers of life-giving water flowed to us.

Wherever they went, the overflowing streams followed them. I do not think the rock moved, but that what came from the rock followed them. Behind, in their track, that shining river came right along. Morning by morning down came the bread, and day by day the water followed them.

Whatever they needed, it was there — a drink, water for cooking, for washing, for all kinds of uses. It kept flowing, ready for every call and every camp. And there was no other resource in the wilderness. No other stream fed that river, and it never ran dry.

It was Christ who followed, as the Rock, His redeemed people in the wilderness, and whom they tempted by their unbelief. It was the holy Person whom we know as the Christ of God, who was there with them in Egypt and through all their wanderings. It was God, God the Son, who was there with them — not shutting out the presence of the Father and the Spirit, but giving prominence here to the Eternal Son.

The sense is not that they were in the very same condition as we are, or had the same sacraments as we have. It is that they all shared the same spiritual food and drink, and yet God had no pleasure in most of them. They held the title of God's people, and they shared in sacred privileges — the very ones Paul here likens to the two practices so familiar to us. That did not save most of them. God's judgments still struck them down in the wilderness.

When the apostle speaks of all eating the same spiritual food, he clearly means the fathers, not the Corinthians or other Christians. The point of his warning is this: God took no pleasure in most of them, for they were overthrown in the wilderness... He speaks here only of Israel. He does not say that their manna and water were the same thing as our signs of Christ's death. They held title as God's people. They shared in sacred privileges, which plainly match the two institutions so familiar to us in Christendom. None of this saved the mass from being overthrown by divine judgments in the wilderness.

Only two of that whole generation came out of Egypt as grown men and lived to enter Canaan. That is a serious warning about what may come from testing Christian profession this way. It is a warning for us all. We have no right to say, "Well, but we are true Christians, and so we need not trouble about these things."

By faith God's people please Him, and by faith and patience they obtain His promise. But Israel, as a nation, did not have faith in God. So when God brought them into the wilderness, their hearts turned back from Canaan to Egypt. They knew God only through their natural senses. The fire and the cloud gave constant witness, yet they failed to see that He was truly with them in that desert place. Because of unbelief they could not enter into His rest.

When we look back at Israel's story, we must remember this: their destruction was the natural and just result of the change they had freely made at Sinai, from grace to law. Up to that time they had complained and provoked God, yet not a hair of their heads had perished. It is the law that works wrath.

The great mass of Israel had the outward forms of their holy religion. They had no faith, so they missed its vital power. They did not keep their bodies under control. They gave themselves up to their lusts and perished miserably. Seen this way, they were types of people firmly settled in the profession of the Christian religion. Such people are still not true believers, and they perish.

This passage is not a warning about having the real thing and then perishing. It warns about having the signs of the thing and then perishing. It speaks to saints, and to all those who call on the name of the Lord Jesus, however bad they might be at Corinth. It would be very dangerous to say that people stand outside these warnings and dangers just because they are so bad.

When the test came, they fell short: they did not finish the race. Where the reality is missing, it will show in the end. If that was true in Israel, it is true today... This is the first of five negatives. It deals with the state of heart at the root of all the evils that follow. The positive antidote is of course keeping "first love" toward the Person of Christ.

What "happened" to Israel is "written down for our instruction." So their failures become warning beacons for us. They are also pictures of the kinds of error that we, as redeemed people, can fall into.

The Apostle has already warned preachers that a man can preach and still be disqualified himself. Now he warns those who profess faith that a person can be baptized, share in the Lord's Supper, and still be lost. He does not say that we can have part in the death of Christ and perish. He says it is possible to have part in the symbols of His death and perish. So he exposes the trap that most of the Christian world has fallen into: a system of sacraments where salvation depends on sharing in baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Lust heads the list, because, as the Apostle James tells us, "desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin" (James 1:15). Lust leads to idolatry, because what we crave becomes an idol between the soul and God. Then the idol ties us into an unholy alliance with the world. That alliance destroys all sense of God's presence with His people, and it leads to murmuring or rebellion against the ways of God.

This is the first of five negatives, and deals with the state of heart that is at the root of all the following evils. The positive antidote is, of course, to keep "first love" for the Person of Christ.

There is, first, a general warning against "evil things." And if we ask, what are these evil things? The Spirit's answer is this: whatever faith does not seek and find in Christ… Faith is the root of godliness. It waits on the living God for its blessings, and is content with what He gives. But Israel craved the meat pots of Egypt, because their souls were "dried up" instead of fed by the food God provided. In the same way, some people profess Christ and yet think that godliness is a way to worldly gain.

One of the first lessons given about the saints is that "bad company ruins good morals." We are all prone to complain about God's dealings with us. But craving Egypt's food is the sure result of mixing with the world. The children of Israel followed the example of the mixed multitude (Num. 11:4); and no Christian mixes with the world without going down to their level and sharing in their desires.

This warning is for all of us. We have no right to say, "Well, we are true Christians, so we need not trouble about these things." As principles, these things matter enormously for us to grasp. There are evil things we may crave, just as they craved. If God keeps the extreme result from us, that is His mercy. But when we ignore the warnings, our lives may be, alas, how greatly spoiled and disfigured, and made quite other than He would have them, by our carelessness!

Aaron announced, "Tomorrow is a feast to Jehovah." How subtle sin is! ... He himself had no idolatrous object in what he did, and idolatry was not the intention of the people either. Aaron's announcement, "Tomorrow is a feast to Jehovah," did no good. The calf, and not Jehovah, had the worship of their hearts.

The real character of what followed comes out in Exodus 32:6: the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Paul quotes this in 1 Corinthians 10:7 as proof that they were idolaters, and a later verse shows how such idolatry at once sinks into loose living and indecency.

The warning before this one is general. Then Paul names one by one the things that were dangerous to the Corinthians. "Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, 'The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.'" First came a giving in to bodily appetite. Then came the excitement of pleasure. That brought the result you see in the verse quoted — the judgment. Were the Corinthians not in danger?

Only some were idolaters, but "the people" were drawn along after their example. The sin became national when Aaron, acting as Jehovah's priest, recognized the calf. Look at the true character of this idolatry, and its essence is not a formal rejection of the living God. It is putting human inventions in the place of the one mediator God chose. The people who had been "baptized unto Moses" now asked for other "gods who should go before them." They had lost Moses, because Moses was with God. Their hearts had too little faith to follow him there, though it was for their sakes that he was hidden from their eyes.

We know that the Spirit of God does not warn us against things we are not in danger of. He would not say to us, "Do not be idolaters," if we were not capable of being such. Idolatry takes various shapes. So it is not a question of the shape of the thing, but of the thing itself; not the outward form, but the root or principle of it. We read that "covetousness is idolatry," and that a covetous man is an idolater. That is, a man who wants more than God has given him is an idolater. He is guilty of the very sin Israel committed when they made the golden calf and worshipped it. ... Whatever commands the heart is the heart's idol, whether money, pleasure, power or anything else.

"Do not be idolaters as some of them were." It is a standing warning, not a temporary one. Let us give it its proper place in our souls. There is only one safeguard: the soul taken up with Him "who is the image of the invisible God." Does the person of Christ have its rightful place in our hearts? Has He no rival there? ... Even service that looks like it is done for Him may draw our souls away from Him.

This scheme failed because God guarded His people. So, on the advice of the wicked prophet, other ways of harming Israel were tried. The people were led "to join themselves" to Baal-Peor and to share in the sensual rites of the gods of Moab. Thousands of them died from the plague that followed. This was a dark page in Israel's history, and Scripture warns about it often.

The order in which these evils are stated is clearly moral and not historical. Lust heads the list, for, as the Apostle James tells us, "when desire has conceived it gives birth to sin" (James 1:15). It leads to idolatry, because whatever we lust after becomes an idol between the soul and God. Then, through the idol, an unholy alliance is formed with the world. That alliance destroys all sense of God's presence with His people. It leads on to murmuring or rebellion against the ways of God.

Our warning is not the events as pictures for us, but the judgments that came from them.

An unlawful union with the world follows. The message to Pergamum in Revelation 2:13 puts this in striking words. The church had shaken hands with the world, so to speak: "I know where you dwell, where Satan's throne is." The church, "betrothed to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ" (2 Corinthians 11:2), had given herself to another.

In the history, twenty-four thousand are said to have died in the plague. But there it is not said "in one day," as it is here, where we hear of a thousand less. To me such a difference implies the greatest accuracy.

The Apostle, in searching words, goes on to apply these warnings to professing Christians. He warns us against the natural self-confidence of the flesh: "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." We have taken part in the Lord's Supper. Let us not think that this makes us safe from falling into the grossest sins. But, we are reminded, God is our resource... God never allows us to be tempted without making a way of escape, though, sadly, we may neglect the way.

It shocks those who tremble at God's word, and the pure in heart who see Him by faith, to watch the sinful liberties too often excused as "play." So it is play — but remember, "the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play." The saints need to watch against the flesh in the very things their own spiritual judgment and conscience condemn.

Let me remark in passing. When we are walking in His ways, it is sin not to have confidence in the Lord. It is sin not to be quite sure that He will help us, whatever the need may be. The record counts it as sin in the children of Israel that they tempted the Lord when they said, "Is the Lord among us, or not?" ... Whenever there is real need in the wilderness, it is sin to doubt whether God will help us or not. In the middle of the sandy desert we should be as sure of water as if we could see rivers running through the land. If we are not, we are tempting God.

Next, we are told not to tempt Christ. Israel did this by despising the manna as poor, unsatisfying food (Num. 21:5). But the manna is a picture of Christ in His humiliation, as the lowly Son of Man. They played into Satan's hands by doing his tempting work, and serpents destroyed them — the serpent being the symbol of satanic deceit.

It was Christ who followed, as the Rock, His redeemed people in the wilderness, and whom they tempted by their unbelief (1 Cor. 10:4, 9). It was the holy Person whom we know as the Christ of God, who was there with them in Egypt and during all their wanderings.

Another reading here, also very well supported, is "the Lord" instead of "Christ." But there is no need to adopt it. Christ is for us the Lord, the one Lord, and there is no other. We can plainly commit Israel's sin in this very way. We can refuse the light food that Israel asked about — "What is it?" — though it held so much for them.

The Lord allowed the enemy's power to show itself in the serpents that killed them. The same power of the enemy will still show itself against us when we turn away from Christ to the world. It is there that his power is found. He is the prince of this world.

They lusted after evil things, and this led them into idolatry. If I allow my heart to go after any evil thing, that thing will control me. Then comes fornication. If any evil thing controls my heart, it will lead me into sinful ties, and so I lose the presence and support of Christ. The result is that I shall be in danger of putting Christ to the test — of tempting Christ, as they did when they said, "Is the Lord among us or not?" ... If I lose the presence and support of Christ I shall find the way hard and shall murmur.

It cannot help reminding us of times that are certainly near, if they have not come already. The Israelites, right at the borders of the land, turned away in complaint from the bread that had kept them alive until that hour. In the same way, people who have long claimed to live on God's gospel will turn right away from it ... On such people the serpent, which seemed dead at the start of their course, will come again with deadly and destructive power at the end.

The order in which these evils are stated is evidently moral and not historical. Lust heads the list, for, as the Apostle James tells us, "desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin" (James 1:15). It leads to idolatry, for that which we lust after becomes an idol between the soul and God. Then, through the idol, comes an unholy alliance with the world. That alliance destroys all sense of God's presence with His people. And it leads to murmuring or rebellion against the ways God uses to chasten men for their evil ways.

The solemn moment came when all the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and Aaron. "And they said to one another, 'Let us choose a leader and go back to Egypt.'" Here was the complete giving up of the Lord and His servants. And this came at the very moment when those faithful men, men of a different spirit, were urging them to go up and take the land. They despised the pleasant land. They proposed to choose a leader and return to the land of slavery once more — and they were destroyed by the Destroyer.

We generally find out where we are by a murmuring spirit. Nothing is easier than for a murmuring spirit to get into the heart of a believer, or a whole assembly... The murmuring was really against God, and not against the servants of God. Examine any murmuring honestly. It is not against the circumstances, and not against fellow believers. It is always the outcome of downright unbelief towards God. That is the point.

The last of the five warnings here is no less serious — do not grumble. Such murmuring was a dreadful evil. It judged God as untrustworthy, when He had assured them He would enable them to conquer the land. Let the believer remember that all mere complaint is in its essence against God. Is He not caring rightly for His people and all their interests? Notice that here it is not the serpents destroying, but the destroyer. God Himself sent it. It was His own judgment.

Don't murmur, Christian, for it is a most unchristian, a most ungodly thing to do. Nothing dishonours God more, nothing does greater damage to the soul. It was the chief of all the sins Israel committed in the wilderness. It meant they did not believe their God was fit to be trusted. It did not change His merciful care for them, but it aroused His just anger against them.

These children of Israel were so discouraged that they said there was no bread and no water. God rained bread down from the sky, and still they said they had none. The wilderness is indeed a very dry place. Yet here was the stream from the struck rock that followed them wherever they went, stubborn and rebellious as they were. God's goodness never abandoned them for a single moment. Yet they grumbled and murmured. Why do people murmur? Because they are not content. And when people are not content with God's best, it shows they are in a very sad condition.

No rule matters more for reading these Old Testament Scriptures with understanding and profit. The facts happened to them. But God cast them in ordered pictures, or forms of truth, to warn us who live at such a critical point in the world's history. They contain therefore far more than moral lessons, however weighty.

There cannot be a more important canon for our intelligent and profitable reading of these Old Testament oracles. The facts happened to them. But God cast them into a system of figures, or forms of truth, to warn us who live at such a critical point in the world's history. They contain therefore far more than moral lessons, however weighty. They do show man's heart, and they reveal God's mind and affections. But they also carry the larger and deeper lesson of events that illustrate immense principles.

When we use Old Testament facts as figures or types, we must hold our imagination in check. We can never insist on such readings as doctrine. But one passage helps the mind here: 1 Corinthians 10:11, where the word "ensamples" means types or figures. This gives the principle. Then we must only look to the Holy Spirit and divine guidance to use them soberly and rightly.

It is not the "ends of the world" but the ends of the dispensations that are past. Those were the ages of testing, in which man was under trial: in innocence, without law, under law, under law tempered by mercy, and under kings, priests and prophets. Every one of them proves the same thing. Man's sinful state could not be cured or mended. So God had to step in with grace reigning through righteousness, if man was to be blessed.

Since these ages have ended, the types of a past dispensation have begun to speak as never before. This matches what the apostle says elsewhere (2 Cor. 3:16): the veil that was over the Old Testament is now done away in Christ.

The ends of the age have come upon us, as the apostle says. But we who live in them do not now receive the same outward displays of God's will as Israel of old had. Things happened to them, but words are written for us — from what happened to them we get admonitions.

The order in which these evils are listed is moral, not historical. Lust heads the list, because, as the Apostle James tells us, when lust has conceived it brings forth sin (James 1:15). It leads to idolatry, for that which we lust after becomes an idol between the soul and God. Then the idol draws us into an unholy alliance with the world. That alliance destroys all sense of God's presence with His people. It leads on to murmuring or rebellion against the ways of God.

What a wonderful place to stand in, with instruction of this kind from every past generation! How important that we should heed its warning, and how guilty we will be if we ignore it! "Therefore," says the apostle, "let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." That, surely, is a great part of the admonition… All self-confidence is confidence in the flesh. All true confidence is confidence in God alone. That is how we find the ability to stand. We stand indeed, but we stand as He holds us up.

The apostle applies this principle to people who might enjoy privileges such as those of God's house, and who rest in a false security in its outward forms, without having any part in the divine nature. He uses what happened to Israel in the desert as types written for our admonition, and warns against resting in a mere outward profession.

Verse 11 insists that all these things happened to Israel for types. They did not happen by chance, and they are not just handy lessons someone picked up later. God's own wisdom designed that history. He shaped it so that we would have these specific types to learn from. While they may not have been written to us, yet they are written specifically for us.

Did the Corinthians boast of their privileges and endowments? Here they are shown how little security practices like baptism and the Lord's supper give to those who rest in them. It was not only preachers who were in danger, but everyone who professed faith — not some, but all. Look at the ancient people of God. They too trusted not in God but in His acts and ordinances, in their own special favours... To presume on institutions of the Lord, whether at the start or ongoing, is fatal.

See the connection between "think" and "stand." If we think we stand, there is no security whatsoever. On the contrary we are very likely to fall. Our security depends not on our thinking but on faith: "and you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear" (Rom. 11:20). ... The believer need not fall if he takes heed.

The true believer is marked by confidence in God. The simpler and more absolute that confidence, the better. It is just as true that he has no confidence in himself. The deeper his self-distrust, the better. It is when we think that we stand that we are in danger of a fall. It is quite another thing when a believer has confidence that "God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4).

We are not to think of ourselves as incapable of falling. Peter's history, and the history of thousands of God's people, show what happens when self-confidence comes in. "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Sooner than we dream, Satan will use our very confidence to trip us into our fall. How many of us — indeed, can any of us — be sure to stand a single hour without falling?

The day that a believer falls is the day that he ceases to fear to fall. So long as the fear is in the heart, the feet will be kept by God.

"Thinks he stands" has nothing to do with being "in Christ and Christ in us." For those, there is no condemnation. Nor will you find in the New Testament any word of a man being in Christ, or made alive, and lost. But this phrase does not necessarily involve final ruin. Any of us may fall if we are not watchful. We are already on the way to falling if we do not watch and pray so that we do not enter into temptation.

The Apostle warns us against the natural self-confidence of the flesh. Let us not think that, because we have taken part in the Supper, we are safe from falling into the grossest sins. But, we are reminded, God is our resource. The temptations that come upon us are common to man. God never allows us to be tempted without making a way of escape, though we may neglect that way. "Therefore," says the Apostle, "flee from idolatry."

The true believer trusts God, and the simpler and more complete that trust the better. Just as truly, he has no confidence in himself, and the deeper his self-distrust the better. It is when we think that we stand that we are in danger of a fall.

He is speaking, of course, of a soul in the true condition of conscious helplessness before Him. If we are self-confident, we will find even the smallest temptation too strong for us. But if we are in a right condition — which should be normal for the Christian — God will not let temptation grow too strong for us.

No temptation had come to them beyond what is common to man. Christ was tried beyond it while He lived on earth. He was tested at the start of His service as well as at the end. He was tried in all things as we are, apart from sin — and also beyond what belongs to man, tempted for forty days in the wilderness. We can only overcome in our little trials the way He overcame in His great ones. We depend on God and obey His word, and the Spirit arms that word with power against Satan.

When God puts His children in the school of the cross, He deals with them gently. He does not leave them without a promise: "God is faithful, and He will not let you be tempted beyond your ability." He will not lay a giant's burden on a child's back. He will not stretch the strings of the instrument too far, in case they break. If God sees it good to strike with one hand, He will support with the other. Either He will make the faith stronger, or make the yoke lighter.

"Way of escape" might make us expect a way out of the temptation altogether. It is not that. It is that God always sees to it that there is a way through, by which we may come out unharmed at the other side. Temptation may be like a long dark tunnel, but the light of day is always visible at the far end.

Notice, God does not promise a way of escape from the trial. He promises a way of escape in the trial, for the sorely tried mind and heart. Through this ministry of grace we can bear the trial to the glory of God.

We can never excuse sin in the least and say, "The flesh is in us, and we could not help it." The Christian's principle is this. We should never find the flesh at work anywhere but in the presence of God. There it is always in the presence of grace and of holiness too. This is the true power of our walk.

First, no one has to yield to temptation, for God is faithful and will always make a way to escape. Writers have often pointed out that the way of escape may be through death. No one can be forced to give way to temptation, since he can always choose to die rather than yield — "In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood."

The Apostle, in searching words, applies these warnings to professing Christians. He warns us against the natural self-confidence of the flesh: "Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall." We have taken part in the Supper. Let us not think that this makes us safe from falling into the worst sins. But we are reminded that God is our resource. The temptations that come on us are common to man. God never allows a temptation without also making a way of escape, though, sadly, we may neglect that way. "Therefore," says the Apostle, "flee from idolatry." Avoid all that would stir up lust, come between the soul and God, and lead to an outward fall.

Chapter 8 asserted the believer's liberty about meats offered to idols. This verse balances the matter by stressing the enormous evil of the idols themselves. We are not simply to avoid idolatry; we are to flee from it, as something utterly hateful.

There are certain things we are to flee from. "Flee youthful passions" (2 Timothy 2:22). "Flee from idolatry" (1 Corinthians 10:14). "Flee from sexual immorality" (1 Corinthians 6:18). "O man of God, flee these things" (1 Timothy 6:11). But, as far as I know, we are never told to flee from the devil. On the contrary we read: "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you" (James 4:7).

To count idolatry impossible for a Christian is to trifle. This the Corinthians were doing. They knew, they said, that the idol was nothing. So it meant nothing to them to eat meat offered to heathen idols. They could even go a step further and sit and eat in the heathen temples. The apostle, on the contrary, holds to the principle that you can share in an evil you do not commit yourself, above all in sacred things. The true wisdom in such cases is to keep completely clear. It is a misuse of knowledge to take part, or even appear to take part, in what is religiously false.

The same thing was true in principle of the idol sacrifices of the Gentile world. The idols they revered represented demons; and these demons were only subordinate officers of Satan. By their sacrifices they entered into the communion of demons. Now such a communion as this the child of God is to flee at all costs.

An idol, though itself a nothing, is a visible expression of the deadliest of evils. Idolatry, the habit of false worship, is the chief snare of the tempter, and we must shun it. Real refuge from its power is found only in the service of the living God. So, to guard his brothers against this ever-present danger, he turns at once to the chief distinctive act of Christian worship. As they consider their position and holiness as partakers of Christ, they may shrink with readier horror from any fellowship with the way of darkness.

It has been asked whether "flee from idolatry" applies to us now. It certainly does; the last warning in 1 John 5:21 is "Keep yourselves from idols." An idol is anything that takes the place of God in the heart... It is because He loves us so much that the Lord is jealous; He cannot bear to see our hearts divided. We share in the Lord's table all through the week; the Supper on the Lord's day is its outward expression. It means we are identified with all the value of Christ's sacrifice before God, and we should refuse everything that is not according to Him.

Scripture never addresses men as "wise" in the sense of having philosophic minds. The New Testament has two words translated "wise," and their meanings are quite different. The word phronimois in 1 Cor. 10:15 has the force of "sensible," "sane" or "having common sense." It stands in contrast to "foolish," a word the apostle used freely at the start of the letter. I make no claim to speak as a prophet, but merely as a man of common sense to people of common sense.

Up to this point in the letter the Apostle had addressed the Corinthians on the ground of their responsibility. So he assumed that some among them might not be real. At verse 15 he shifts his viewpoint a little and addresses them as "wise men." Not every true Christian could be described that way, we fear, and certainly no unconverted person could be. He speaks to the true members of the body of Christ. They have His Spirit, so they can judge what he is now going to put before them.

To count idolatry impossible for a Christian is to trifle. This the Corinthians were doing. They said they knew the idol was nothing, so eating meat offered to idols meant nothing to them — and they would even sit and eat in the heathen temples. The apostle holds the opposite principle: you share in an evil by joining in it, even when you would not do it yourself, and especially in sacred things. The true wisdom in such cases is to keep wholly aloof. It is a misuse of knowledge to take part in what is religiously false, or even to look as though you take part in it... At once the apostle makes them the judges. He puts them in the presence of the central and permanent institution of church fellowship. Where was their practical understanding now?

There is, perhaps, a touch of irony in these words. If so, it soon fades as he moves into the subject of the verses that follow. Here he is calling on his fellow believers to use that power of spiritual judgment which really does exist in every genuine believer. In some at Corinth it was weakened and held back by the tangle of natural vanity and self-conceit. He asks them to decide for themselves how far any tampering with idolatry could fit with true spiritual worship.

The more the Lord has given them special gift, the less they need to fence themselves round with the claim of authority. That authority lies, after all, in the word they bring. It must find its confirmation in the conscience and heart of those who listen to it... The more sure they were that the truth they held was indeed from God, the more freely they could take the ground of one of these apostles: "I speak as to wise men" — sensible men, as we say — "judge what I say." The outcry against the mind, so often raised by assumed spirituality, goes completely against God. He has made us altogether for Himself... Mind is not a product of the fall, though the fall has darkened and weakened it.

Judging things, or judging teaching, is not forbidden but encouraged — as we see, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 2:15 and 10:15. Judging persons is forbidden... As soon as we start judging others, we become blind to our own faults. The most profitable form of judgment for each of us is self-judgment.

The apostle is dealing with the question of idolatry. The Jews shared in the altar; the Gentiles drank the cup of demons. What we Christians share in is communion with the sacrifice of Christ. We are identified with that sacrifice, and we cannot be identified with the cup of demons too.

Here we are to understand blessing rising to God from His people. The phrase that follows, "which we bless", shows that the Spirit of God means blessing given by the worshippers, and not blessing given to them. The words also match the Jews' cup of blessing, which clearly meant blessing rising to God. The Passover service in the apostles' time included a Cup of Blessing. It was called that because those who took the cup said the words, "Blessed are You, Jehovah our God".

For us the cup is a "cup of blessing", a symbol of the blood of Christ. It reminds us of His death, when at the Cross He shed the blood that cleanses from all sin. For Him it was a cup of judgment. But the cup that brought judgment to Him secures blessing for us. For this cup we can bless, or give thanks. Blessing the cup here carries no thought of one person consecrating the bread and the wine, as corrupt Christendom imagines.

That is the cup for which we give thanks at the Lord's Supper. The cup comes first because we can only get right with God on the ground of redemption by blood. That is why the Spirit stresses the fact of death here, by putting the cup before the loaf.

The first appeal rests on the blood of Christ. That blood is the answer of divine grace to the deepest need of a soul that stands guilty before God and covered with defilement. Was this to be treated lightly? … Here he does not say "the blood" or "the body of the Lord". We find that in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it is Christ, because the matter is one of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority.

There are two expressions of fellowship here — fellowship with and fellowship of. We usually speak of fellowship with one another, more in the sense of 1 John 1:7. But here it is not communion with, but communion of. The words "communion" (verse 16), "partakers" (verse 18) and "fellowship" all stand for the same root word in the original, which gives the idea of sharing in common. … The fellowship, or communion, of the blood of Christ is the sharing in common with all God's children in all the value of His wonderful death.

There is no need, however, for fanciful ideas about the bread. Let us be clear that the material is bread, and that it stays bread. He said, "This is My body," using a figure of speech, as He often did. … When He said "This is My body," He gave the loaf a special meaning as His memorial.

Israel by natural descent ate of the altar, and by eating they identified themselves with it. In the same way, if you share the table of the Lord, you have a common part in it with others. Eating is not itself identity with the body, but the sign of it. You cannot share in Christ and in demons at the same time. This is a moral "cannot".

The bread which we break was nothing less than fellowship with the body of Christ. At the same time it set forth the close unity of His saints on earth. What could be more inconsistent than to own this truth in the breaking of bread, and then to disown it by feasting in idol temples?

The blood of Christ awakens the gravest thoughts in the Christian. The body of Christ speaks of the closest unity possible, since we, the many, are one loaf, one body, and we all partake of the one loaf. The bread does not become the body of Christ, nor is the body joined to it. It is the loaf that we break, and it is the one loaf of which we all partake. It stands for the one body of Christ; and if the loaf is that body, then we, the many, are that one loaf too.

Read that verse with care. It states that we, who partake of the cup and the loaf as we should, are one bread — or loaf — that is, one body. The sign of that fact is that we all partake of the one loaf. The loaf is the symbol of the holy body of our Lord, given up in death as a sacrifice for us all, and of that alone.

It has been said that we do not have the unity of the church shown in the one loaf, but only in our partaking of that one loaf (Christ). But when we remember that there were twelve loaves on the table in the tabernacle, and that these symbolised Israel's national unity presented before God in Christ, we can hardly fail to connect the unity of the church in Christ with what is represented in the one loaf.

At its simplest, the word communion means a common participation. Here it is the saints, as members of the one body, sharing together at the Lord's Table in what the blood and the body of Christ set forth. Eating or drinking implies identification with the thing eaten or drunk. So the apostle says, "Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" That is, by eating what they had placed on the altar as a sacrifice, they became identified with the sacrifices.

In partaking of the "one bread", we set forth our identification with the one body. Christ is the Head of that body, and all believers are members of it. The "one bread" does not only mean that those who partake at any given time are one. It does not only mean that believers in one place are one. It sets forth the unity of the whole body, which includes every true believer.

So in partaking of the one loaf, the Christian who is taught by God owns his union with all true believers across the whole earth. Their ignorance, weakness, or Christ-dishonouring divisions do not change that. But even so, he can only have fellowship with those who seek to walk in obedience to the word, and apart from evident evil. The Holy Spirit of God would certainly never seek to keep outward unity at the cost of inward holiness.

1 Corinthians 10:18 gives us the right to find help in the Old Testament on this very question. There Paul writes, "Observe Israel after the flesh" — that is, Israel in their condition by nature. What was true for them we can carry over to ourselves in a spiritual sense. In this way, the illustrations in the Old Testament help us to understand the New Testament better.

I think many of the Lord's people read this verse without thinking of what it refers to. It no doubt refers to the peace offering. Unless we understand that offering, we cannot understand 1 Corinthians 10:18.

Aaron and his sons in general received part, the offering priest in particular received part, and the larger portion stayed with the offerer, his family and his friends. One victim thus brought Jehovah, the priestly body, the true Priest, and the faithful at large into a remarkable fellowship. That is what marks out the peace offering… By eating of these they had fellowship with the altar. This was their communion, and it made communion with the heathen and their idols morally impossible, for behind those idols were demons.

To eat at an altar or table is expressive of communion and fellowship with that altar or table as well as with those at that altar. To sit at a table and eat denotes identification with that table and with what it stands for.

You may protest, "But we do not want to worship Zeus, we do not want to worship any heathen idols. We are simply there to eat some meat. Inwardly, our hearts belong to the Lord Jesus, and He will forgive us these outward things." No. Whoever shares outwardly in sacrifices to idols is in inward communion with the "altar."

In Malachi 1:7 we read, "You offer polluted bread upon My altar… in that you say, The table of the Lord is contemptible." The altar and the table, as we see here, are the same. Ezekiel 41:22 supports this as well… Once we see it, we understand the meaning of 1 Corinthians 10:18 better… That verse is the key to the passage, and Paul uses it as an illustration. We might say "partakers of the table" instead of "partakers of the altar."

The richer and vital parts of the sacrifice were His. The rest was the portion of His priests and worshippers. This was a precious picture of the more perfect fellowship the one Spirit now sets up between the Father and true worshippers in the one acceptable offering of Christ. The outward ordinance put the Israelite in communion with the altar, not necessarily with God, who is known by faith only. So now too, a natural man can outwardly take the food that really feeds only those who are themselves "of God."

"We have an altar, of which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat." The Jews might taunt Christians as a people without a country, without a nationality, without an altar. Yet Christians had all these, and much more… Israel indeed were partakers of the altar (1 Corinthians 10:18), and we Christians eat what has been sacrificed there. But the food we feed on — the sin-offering whose blood was carried inside the sanctuary — was just what God withheld from those who served the tabernacle.

Does this contradict the apostle's earlier reasoning, and that of the prophets of old, that the idol was a mere nothing? Not at all. These products of man's devising have no existence, and their images neither see nor hear. But demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears, and claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves.

He had already, along with all who have knowledge, treated both idols and their offerings with contempt. He does not now take back his words. But he will also let us know what sort of power animates and secretly sustains these empty vanities. Human souls and bodies were defiled by bowing down to something which was not God — something that in itself was nothing in the world. But "nothing" cannot move men's souls. There is a power at work, and it operates everywhere.

The idols and their sacrifices may be completely powerless. But demons hiding behind them shut the true God out of souls and take for themselves the honour due to Him alone. This is the effect of heathen worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They no more planned to revere demons — fallen and evil spirits — than the unconverted today mean to serve Satan. But they did, and they still do, all the same. The truth puts things in their real light, which man's reasoning, imagination, or indifference leaves in the shade.

One might say that an idol is nothing anyway, and so there is no significance in any outward identification with it. But this is not correct reasoning. True, the idol is nothing, and meat offered to idols is not actually changed by this. But behind the idol in every case is an evil spirit, and the Gentiles, in their idol worship, were sacrificing to demons. Can the believer have any part in this? It is not a question of whether his own conscience is defiled, or his own soul affected, but of his outwardly showing fellowship with an idol. He is outwardly compromising the honour of his Lord.

Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. They are centred, in that order, in the Table of the Lord, the altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one is expressed by the act of eating. In this passage Israel's altar is not the question. It comes in only as an illustration, and is left there. The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to share in both. "You cannot," says the apostle, twice over in verse 21.

Christian liberty is indeed always free; but let God's people beware. That wicked one will certainly touch them if they place themselves carelessly within his reach. To take part in an idol feast would be something morally incompatible with a true and intelligent share in the Lord's table.

Does this contradict what the apostle said earlier, and the prophets before him — that the idol was nothing at all? Not at all. Even if the things man makes have no existence, and their images cannot see or hear, demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears. They claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves. So the emptiness of idols is no reason to eat meat sacrificed to them. For "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God." (See Deuteronomy 32:17.)

You forget that when they sacrifice to idols, they are really sacrificing to demons. The demons are the ones who stir up this idol worship. The idol may indeed be nothing at all. But the demons behind it were very real. In leading men to worship idols they were leading men to worship demons, and so seizing the homage due to God alone.

In doing so they were identifying themselves and having fellowship with the demons who used the idol to seize God's place! They could not say, "our hearts are not in it, there is no spiritual connection with the idol." No! By the act of eating and drinking what had been offered to the idol, they expressed identification and fellowship with it and with the demon!

This is the effect of pagan worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They meant to honour demons no more than unconverted people today mean to serve Satan. But they did it, and they still do.

Verse 5 shows that in some way the visible calf was to represent the unseen Lord — so they thought. Now it is a fact that among pagan peoples the visible idol does represent an unseen power, as 1 Corinthians 10:20 shows. The idol is nothing, but the power it represents is that of a demon. So if any power stood behind the golden calf, it was of a satanic kind and not of God.

Communion with demons, answers the apostle, is the result... But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons. If he tampers with demons, has he not in effect abandoned the Lord? ... If fellowship takes some in, it shuts others out... Love cannot help being jealous of wandering affections. It would not be love if it did not resent unfaithfulness. And is He so powerless that we can despise Him and get away with it?

Satan is the real promoter of it all. He knows how to lead a poor, unthinking pagan to be satisfied with an imaginary charm. He leads the Greeks and Romans to enjoy their grand statues, and the Brahmins and Hindus to take pride in their superior and refined mysticism... Add to this another kind of idolatry that Christians are sometimes drawn into: letting anything but Christ have the first place in the heart. For God is revealed in Him. He "is the image of the invisible God" — "He is the true God." "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21.

Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol was nothing in the world, and that there was no God but one. Yet they thought that if they saw that clearly, they could sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong... Granted that the idol was nothing, yet behind it were demons, and by sitting at the idol's festival they would be having communion with demons.

The cup is the fellowship of the blood of Christ. The bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ. Every believer is bound to be faithful to this fellowship. It marks off the whole company from everything He died to — from sin and from the world. In connection with sin and the world, the god of this world spreads his table.

He does not say you ought not to "partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons," but "you cannot." The heart cannot take in the Lord's rich provision, and so be filled and moved by His love, and at the same time be ruled by some evil thing it wants for itself. That is quite impossible.

Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. Each has its centre — the Table of the Lord, the Altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one shows itself in the act of eating... The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to be a participator in both. "You cannot," says the Apostle, twice in verse 21.

He does not say here "the blood" or the "body of the Lord." That comes in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it is Christ, because it becomes a question of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority... But he does not forget His authority. It is not simply the love of Christ, but His full authority as the Lord. The apostle sets two mighty powers against each other. On one side are demons, a power stronger than man, struggling with him here below. On the other is the Lord who shed His blood for them — the Lord of all, who will judge the living and the dead.

To call the tables of national churches or sects tables of demons is a simple absurdity, in defiance of the plain language of Scripture. What "demons" means is clearly stated in Scripture: nothing but the gods of the heathen... The apostle speaks of communion with demons (in idol temples) and heathen sacrifices, and nothing else. To apply this to wrong church principles, where the Lord is owned as the only object, is trifling with Scripture and nonsense in itself.

We have seen that this was something that some of the Corinthians were doing. But they could not do it without consequence. It was a provocation to the Lord... If they kept up such gross inconsistency, the Lord Himself would take up the matter.

Suppose someone ignores this "cannot." He has eaten at the Lord's table, and he is bold enough to eat at the table of demons too. What then? Then he provokes the Lord to jealousy for the sake of His Name and glory. The Lord will not give His glory to another. The offender will come into sharp collision with the Lord Himself. He will taste the bitterness of the Lord's discipline, and it may even lead to death. Under that discipline he will soon discover that he is not stronger than the Lord. He will face the hard road of repentance, which is the only way that leads to recovery.

But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons. If he meddles with demons, has he not in effect abandoned the Lord? Demons may be glad to seize and harm someone who claims the name of Christ. The Lord refuses His fellowship to anyone who worships idols. If fellowship takes some in, it must shut others out… Love cannot help being jealous when affection wanders. It would not be love if it did not resent unfaithfulness.

The law of jealousy deals with a man who is jealous of his wife, because he doubts that she still loves him. We must remember that his jealousy concerns something he has a rightful claim to: his wife's affection. It was the same with Israel: their affection was to be towards God, but in this respect they had failed.

"Demons" refers to the idols' temples themselves, because they made their offerings to demons and not to God. It is monstrous to apply the word to any group that professes Christianity… Suppose someone tried to eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons. That would be saying, "I can eat with a demon, and I can eat with you." This would provoke the Lord to jealousy, as verse 22 says.

And they are asked a question that searches the conscience: "Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?" Is He not right to be jealous when we give demons honour that belongs to Him? Or, "Are we stronger than He?" Do we think we are strong enough to mix the two without danger, when God Himself is completely separate from them?

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul warns us not to wound the consciences of fellow believers, and so sin against Christ (verse 12). In 1 Corinthians 9 he warns us to keep the body under control, in case we preach to others and are ourselves rejected (verse 27). In 1 Corinthians 10 the warning is to take care that we do not provoke the Lord to jealousy (verse 22). It is a solemn thing to ignore the consciences of fellow believers. It may be a fatal thing to provoke the Lord to jealousy. Some at Corinth found this out. In 1 Corinthians 11 we read that the Lord, provoked to jealousy, acts for His own glory, and many died as a result.

In the mercy of God, we are in little danger from "the fellowship of demons." But let us not dismiss this truth from our minds for that reason, because its principle applies much more widely. If we eat at the Lord's table, we must keep watch, in case we also share in things that do not fit with it and its holiness. If we share in the communion of the blood and body of Christ, we shall find it great enough to shut out every other communion.

"All things are lawful to me" does not, for a moment, change eternal moral standards. It refers to restrictions that were only ceremonial... In those things there was the fullest and most complete freedom. Yet even here some things might not be profitable, and the apostle refuses to let lawful things gain power over him. This matters for our own guidance. What we loosely allow ourselves, inside the range of things entirely lawful, may still have a sorrowful effect on us.

Paul makes the statement twice over: "All things are lawful." That is, he sets us in a place of liberty. Yet he reminds us that not everything is "expedient" (that is, "profitable") or "edifying". He also reminds us to weigh not only what is good for ourselves, but what is good for others. The two-fold test he mentions has a thousand uses... Again and again situations arise where we must ask not only, Is it lawful? but also, Is there profit in it? and, Does it build up? ... If we ordered our lives by that standard, we would cut out a good many doubtful and unprofitable things.

As he began, so he closes... This enlarges the principle he laid down in chapter 6. It is not simply lawful "to me," and the question here is not about letting anything master us. There, indifference about meats exposed some to impurity; here, to idolatry. The apostle urges more than staying clear of evil; he urges positive edification. Love alone secures this, because it does not look at its own interests and seeks the good of others.

The first of these verses makes a concession, the second states a rule... To think of others rather than ourselves is the true rule of conduct in the Church of God... In this sense our acts are never neutral; they must bring good or evil to others. If our walk does not build others up, it will surely damage our fellow believers.

We may well thank God for the liberty this passage gives. It would have been an unbearable burden to the early Christians if they had to track down the history of every bit of meat they bought in the market, or ate in the house of someone they knew. For us today, life is very complicated and artificial, so it would be ten times worse.

I do not mind what I eat... Now suppose we are sitting at a table with a person who has just come out of idolatry. He says, "That meat was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, so for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all ordinary meat.

Was it only a question of what was "lawful"? No legal attitude of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" is meant here at all, because that sort of thing is contrary to Christianity... Paul looked for the positive character of things — things that are profitable or fitting, and that could bring true edification, the building up of souls... And let us avoid the subtle idea that we are kind and unselfish when we mingle with others in wrong associations. This is neither faithfulness to God, nor real kindness to others.

"All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." The first of these verses makes a concession, the second states a rule. Not all things build people up. But, as he goes on to say, to think of others rather than ourselves is the true rule of conduct in the Church of God. In this sense our acts are never neutral. Good or evil must come from them to others. If our way of life does not build others up, it will surely damage our fellow believers.

"Let no one seek his own [advantage], but his neighbour's [literally, that of the other]." ... In chapter 6, a careless attitude to food exposed some to impurity; here it exposes them to idolatry. Paul urges more than staying clear of evil; he urges positive building up. Love alone secures this, because it does not look at its own things but seeks the good of others.

Again and again situations arise where we have to ask not only, Is it lawful? but also, Is there profit in it? and, Does it build up? And further, we have to consider the profit and the building up of all. If we ordered our lives by that standard, we would cut out a good many doubtful and unprofitable things.

"Let no one seek his own good" — the very thing we are so ready to seek. "But the good of his neighbor" — the very last thing we feel inclined to do.

God calls us to give up more than our rough edges, prejudices and preferences. He calls us to give up our personal rights too, for the profit of others. This is the Christian's daily business. As God enables him to do it, he walks in the footsteps of Jesus.

One thing struck me deeply when the Lord first opened my eyes. I never found Christ doing a single thing for Himself... An unbroken stream of blessed, perfect, unfailing love flowed from Him... and it was always others, not Himself, who were comforted. The world's whole principle is self, doing well for itself. What is the world's honour? Self. What its wealth? Self. What is advancement in the world? Self.

Paul urges a principle of great value here: "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." If I truly seek the blessing of others, that will give me a truer view of my own conduct. But selfishness will always leave me open to Satan's influence. And let us refuse the subtle suggestion that we are kind and unselfish when we join others in wrong associations. That is neither faithfulness to God, nor real kindness to others.

As the heart grows in grace, it thinks more about others. The higher a man climbs a hill, the wider his view. His eye is not shut in by his own garden wall. The self-centred nature thinks of no one but itself. Grace lifts the soul, and the more grace a man has, the more it enables him to look away from himself to the condition of his fellow believers.

The pagan world was so full of idols that most of the meat sold in their markets came from animals killed at idol sacrifices and ceremonies. Suppose the Christian bought his food in the "shambles," or markets. Suppose he was eating in the house of someone who did not believe, and so had no feelings about these things. What was he to do?

All who love God should love their brothers too, and so seek to remove every occasion of stumbling from their path. Even so, the Christian is to use the liberty of Christ freely in ordinary daily life. The Christian is not to go out of his way to find difficulties. He should ask no questions for conscience' sake. Let him take the world as he finds it. Let him use its things with thanks to Him whose they truly are, remembering and holding fast that the earth and its fullness are the Lord's. The evil ends to which men may turn His gifts cannot cancel His saints' right to freely enjoy whatever He has made.

In Eden man was placed under restriction; outside it he suffered loss. But now, in connection with the altar, Noah received a larger grant than anyone had enjoyed before: "And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." Not one single article of food is withheld... At Sinai, when Israel undertook to stand on their own responsibility before God, restrictions in food appear... But as soon as the great sacrifice had been offered up, we learn that all such restrictions fall away. We read the words — "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market"; "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself"; "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer" (1 Cor. 10:25; Rom. 14:14; 1 Tim. 4:4). For when God deals with man on the ground of sacrifice, nothing that is good for man is withheld.

We may well thank God for the liberty which is ordained in this passage. It would have been an intolerable burden to the early Christians if they had been responsible to track down the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets, or ate in the house of some acquaintance. For us today, living in conditions that are highly complicated and artificial, it would be ten times worse. It is clearly God's will for His people that they accept the conditions in which their lot is cast, and pursue a simple path through, without inquisitively looking for sources of trouble, whether the question is meat or anything else.

In the markets, or at the feasts, we need ask no questions, since we can take food as the Lord's and His provision. If, however, someone points out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, then the Christian should refrain from eating. He holds back for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it. He also holds back to stop an unbeliever charging that believers eat food offered to the very idols they condemn.

In this connection Paul makes the statement twice over, "All things are lawful." That is, he sets us in a place of liberty. Yet he reminds us that by no means everything is either "expedient" (that is, "profitable") or "edifying". He also reminds us to consider not only what is good for ourselves, but what is good for others... Again and again situations arise about which we have to ask not only, Is it lawful? but also, Is there profit in it? and, Does it build up?

The pagan world was so full of idols that most of the animals sold for meat in their markets had been killed as part of idol sacrifices and ceremonies. Suppose a Christian bought his food in those markets. Suppose he was eating in the house of someone who did not believe, and so had no feelings about these things. What was he to do?

He is talking about a common custom. An animal was offered in an idol's temple, and then its meat was sold for food in the usual way. To me it is all common meat.

The Christian is free to use the liberty of Christ in ordinary daily life. He is not to go out of his way to find difficulties. He should ask no questions for conscience' sake. Let him take the world as he finds it, and use its things in thankfulness to Him whose they really are, remembering and holding to the truth that the earth and its fulness are the Lord's. And the evil uses people make of His gifts cannot cancel His people's right to freely enjoy whatever He has made.

We may well thank God for the freedom this passage gives. It would have been an unbearable burden to the early Christians to trace the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets, or ate in someone's house. Life today is far more complicated and artificial, so it would be ten times worse.

The Lord's claims on us rest on His rights and titles, and they reach out to "the whole earth and the fulness thereof." It is all the Lord's. He claims it not by creation right (though that is true too) but like Boaz, who not only won his Ruth but bought the inheritance as well. We believers own the Lord's title to it all by resurrection. He will make that title good in power when He comes a second time. Ever since Adam was driven out of Eden, man in his natural state is a trespasser in this creation, or at least an intruder, and is there only because God allows it. But we are redeemed. We own our risen Lord's right and title to the inheritance He bought, so we ask no one's leave to walk through the length and breadth of it.

Even animals the law counted unclean for Israel are fit for us to eat. They are sanctified by the word of God and by the prayer of thanks that the person eating offers. If a person does not thank God for his food, he has no proper right to eat at all. For every creature is the property of God, and in receiving it we ought to recognise His rights first of all.

If my eating would give another the impression that I believed the food was a demon's, and not the Lord's, then I should not eat. So whether eating in the first case, or not eating in the other, the basis of truth for both is identical.

In such a case it is good to deny yourself. Do not let your liberty be judged by another conscience, or be spoken against for the very thing you give thanks for. Love must respect what troubles the conscience of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the understanding and liberty of Christ.

It clearly means this: God is pleased to leave many things in the church without any rule at all. He leaves believers to be tested and exercised by them. As they are exercised they grow, and become "of full age... their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:14). Should I eat, or should I not eat? Or again, that feast spoken of in 1 Cor. 10:27; should I go, or should I not go? How easy it would have been to give this command: "Never go to any feast where there is the smallest chance the host will serve you meat offered to idols." But God never gave that command.

For thelo see more fully John 6:67, "Do you want to go away as well?" — not simply the act, but the will to do it; "is it your will or disposition?" "Are you also disposed to go away?"... 1 Cor. 10:27, "and you are disposed to go."

The claims of the Lord upon us, founded on His rights and titles, reach out to "the whole earth and the fullness thereof."... Since Adam was driven out of Eden, natural man is a trespasser, or at least an intruder, in this creation. He is here only because God allows it. But we are redeemed. We own our risen Lord's right and title to the inheritance He bought back, so we ask no one's permission to walk through its whole length and breadth — even though in fact we do not own a foot of ground to stand on.

The principle of God's creation holds good for everything on sale in the market. It holds good just as much for what might be on an unbeliever's table, if one should go there. In either case one may eat without special inquiry.

The Christian who wants to stay on friendly terms with his unbelieving neighbours has the fullest liberty to do so. But he is plainly warned that in going he exposes himself to danger by his own choice. A good motive or a bad one might lead him to accept an unbeliever's courtesies, and his motive is the measure of his risk. In such company he must still act as his calling requires. He is a Christian, and a saint of God, wherever he is found.

Yet people take advantage of the word of God that says, "If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go." Take care how you go, and for what. If you go self-confident, you will only dishonour Christ. If you go to please yourself, this is poor ground. To please other people is little better.

True separation for the Christian does not mean keeping away from sinners, the way the Pharisees did. Like his Master, the Christian will be found in the company of sinners. He is not there to share his life with them, or to be defiled by joining their sinful pursuits. He is there to tell them the gospel of God and to try to win them to the Lord. If one of the unbelievers invites us to a feast, and we are disposed to go (1 Cor. 10:27), it will surely be with the aim of setting Christ and His things before the one who invited us. Only someone who is truly separate from sinners would have the moral power to speak of Christ in the presence of sinners.

It is different, not just in an idol temple but even in a private home, where someone says, "This has been offered in sacrifice." He clearly has a conscience about it, though otherwise one might have perfect liberty. It is good in such a case to deny oneself, and not expose one's liberty to be judged by another... One must in love respect the scruples of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the intelligence and liberty of Christ.

The pagan world was so full of idols that most animals sold as meat in the markets had been killed in idol sacrifices and ceremonies. Suppose a Christian bought his food in those markets. Suppose he was eating in the house of someone who did not believe, and so had no feelings about these things. What was he to do?

We may well thank God for the liberty this passage gives. Think of the burden on the early Christians if they had to trace the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets or ate in someone's house. It would have been unbearable. Our conditions today are far more complicated and artificial, so for us it would be ten times worse. God's will for His people is plain. They are to accept the conditions they live in and take a simple path through them, without prying for sources of trouble — whether the question is meat or anything else.

Paul is talking about a common custom. People sold the meat as ordinary food after the animal had been offered in the idol's temple. But suppose we are sitting at a table with someone who has just left idol worship. He says, "That meat was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, so for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all common meat.

But suppose his host, or anyone at the table, tells him this food was sacrificed to an idol. At once a question arises: will he recognise the idol? The man who spoke certainly has this in view, so the believer is not to eat. This is proper care for that man's conscience. Scripture says again, "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." If my eating would make another think I believed the food belonged to a demon and not to the Lord, then I should not eat.

If anyone points out to him that the food is an idol offering, he is to refuse it, as a testimony to the truth. For the idol is a lie. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. In such a case the conscience that matters is not the believer's but the idolater's. The Christian is to disown that false worship openly. The hope is to convince the man of his true state before the God who made both him and the worthless things he worships.

If, however, someone points out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, the Christian should not eat. He holds back for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it. He also holds back so that no unbeliever can charge Christians with eating meat offered to the very idols they condemn.

In such a case it is good to deny yourself. Do not let another conscience judge your liberty, or leave people speaking evil of the very thing you give thanks for. In love we must respect the scruples of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the understanding and liberty of Christ.

Q. In verse 23 both the "for me's" are left out; and "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," in verse 28? — A. Yes; it is of little consequence. Perhaps the connection runs clearer; you get it in verse 26.

It is different when someone says, "This is offered to holy purposes" — and not only in an idol temple, but even in a private house. He plainly has a conscience about it, though otherwise one might have perfect liberty. In such a case it is good to deny oneself. Better that than to expose one's liberty to another's judgment, or to bring on evil speaking about the very thing for which I give thanks. In love one must respect the scruple of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the understanding and liberty of Christ.

If, however, someone points out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, the Christian should not eat it. He holds back for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it. He also holds back so that no unbeliever can charge that believers eat meat offered to the very idols they condemn.

We may well thank God for the liberty He ordains in this passage. Think what a crushing burden it would have been for the early Christians to trace the history of every bit of meat they bought at the market, or ate in someone's house. Our own conditions are far more complicated and artificial, so for us it would be ten times worse. God's will for His people is plain. They are to accept the conditions their lot is cast in, and take a simple path through them, without prying about for sources of trouble — whether the question is meat or anything else.

If I have liberty, let me express it in such a way that the other man's conscience will not judge it. For if my eating would stumble him, then let me use my liberty not to eat, and his conscience will not judge my liberty. Suppose I eat with thanksgiving to God. Why should I do it in a way that gives another person cause to speak evil of me — and about the very thing for which I give thanks?

A believer should not put himself so easily in a place of danger. There he may dull his own conscience by taking part in evil — sharing with sinners on their own terms. Or he may cause offence, by acting in a way that cuts across the habits and prejudices of the people he has chosen to join. His unbelieving host will judge him either way: for inconsistency if he goes along with it, for stubborn bigotry if he refuses.

In all things we are to seek the glory of God, just as the next verse adds that we are to avoid giving offence to man. Taking this passage as a whole, we may note five valuable points. They guide us on whether any course is according to the will of God or not. What is according to His will (1) is lawful, (2) is useful or profitable, (3) builds up oneself or others, (4) is to the glory of God, (5) trips no one up. People often ask, "How may I get guidance?" Well, here is guidance of a very sure and definite sort. Are we always so willing to be guided when we get the guidance?

We may well thank God for the liberty that is set out in this passage. It would have been an unbearable burden to the early Christians if they had to trace the history of every piece of meat. That means every piece they bought in the markets, or ate in the house of someone they knew. For us today, life is far more complicated and artificial, so it would be ten times worse. God's will for His people is plain. They are to accept the conditions they are in, and take a simple path through them. They are not to go hunting for sources of trouble, whether the question is meat or anything else.

Scripture says that everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. The common idea is that we must pray over each meal before we can properly eat it. But the opposite is true: the Christian's new position makes it holy. "All things are yours… the world or life or death or the present or the future — all are yours." The action Scripture asks from us is not prayer but thanksgiving… So the Christian's meal-table becomes an altar of praise.

In such a case it is good to deny oneself. Better not to let another judge one's liberty, or to bring evil speaking on oneself for the thing for which I give thanks. In love, one must respect the conscience of the weakest believer, while holding on to the understanding and liberty of Christ.

If I have liberty, let me express it in such a way that the other man's conscience will not judge it. For if my eating would make him stumble, then let me use my liberty not to eat, and his conscience will not judge my liberty. If I partake with thanksgiving to God, why act in a way that gives another cause to speak evil of me? And that over the very thing for which I give thanks!

A believer should not put himself carelessly in a place of danger. He may dull his own conscience by going along with evil — sharing with sinners on their own terms. Or he may cause offence, by acting against the habits and prejudices of the people he has chosen to join. His unbelieving host will judge him either way: for inconsistency if he goes along with it, for stubborn bigotry if he refuses.

Taking this passage as a whole, we may notice five valuable points. They guide us as to whether any course is according to the will of God, or not. What is according to His will (1) is lawful, (2) is useful or profitable, (3) builds up oneself or others, (4) is to the glory of God, (5) gives no occasion of stumbling to anyone. People often ask, How may I get guidance? Well, here is guidance of a very sure and definite kind. Are we always so willing to be guided when we get the guidance?

The apostle then lays down the still larger and golden rule of Christian conduct: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." … If someone does everything for God's glory, he is not chasing his own pleasure. He gives it up. So he puts no stumbling block in front of anyone — Jews, Gentiles, or God's assembly. Love alone walks that way, seeking God's glory and man's good.

Let us connect the most ordinary things with Christ's will and glory. Nothing is closer to mere animal life than eating and drinking. Yet the word of God would have us take up even these things for the highest purpose. And no way is so simple and sure as the faith that looks upward and receives them in His name.

In the letters, "You shall" and "You shall not" are strikingly absent. Instead of a list of clean and unclean foods, we find a general principle. The believer applies it to each case as it comes up. "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Because the Christian has the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) and has received "not the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (2 Tim. 1:7), he can judge by the word whether a thing is for God's glory, and act on what he sees.

"Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" checks two things at once. It checks heavy indulgence in luxuries. It also checks a monk-like refusal of "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."

The question the true believer has to ask about everything that comes before him is simply, "Can I do this to the glory of God? Can I connect the Name of Christ with it?" If not, he must not touch it.

So do not do anything with a doubtful mind. "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Look to the Lord for guidance in this. See whether you can do it to His glory, and if not, lay it aside.

You may get two men doing exactly the same thing, only with different motives. With the Christian, Christ is his only motive, or ought to be. He may have a thousand things to do, the common duties of life. But he can serve Christ in them. There I get a motive strong enough. … The common things of life do not make a person unspiritual. I must attend to them, and do them well. But if my motive in doing them is Christ, it is a mistake to think they harm my spiritual life.

You will not have spiritual discernment or power of motive unless the heart is kept near to Christ.

The Greek word first meant "to strike against." The picture is of walking: our foot might strike a stone or some other obstacle, and we stumble. The command here may mean either that we do not stumble ourselves, or that we do not make others stumble. I like to think it has both meanings... Here we are to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of any of these people, and they take in the whole world.

If you do everything for God's glory, you are not trying to please self; you give self up. Then you put no stumbling block in front of people, whether Jews or Gentiles, and none in front of God's assembly. Love alone walks like this, seeking God's glory and man's good... This was the apostle's constant way. He was the most uncompromising of the apostles, yet no one matched him in giving way graciously, where he could do so consistently with Christ.

The Church of God is a completely new thing. When I say "new," I mean new compared with everything that came before it. Before Christ died and rose, and before the Holy Spirit came down, there were only two classes of people in the world — Jews and Gentiles. But since the Holy Spirit came down... we have three things existing together in the world.

Remember this threefold distinction, and act on it. By nature, the Jew is not as far from the Gentile as the Church of God is from both. The first two make up the sum total of mankind, considered as dwellers on earth. The last group holds only those who have passed through death into life, by faith in the crucified and risen Son of God.

If we behave in an unfitting way, we are giving offence to the assembly of God... If the Corinthians simply went on living as they always had, they would offend the assembly of God. Their lives would not match the position God had given them. So do not think we are to be on our best behaviour only when the assembly meets. We are always in the house of God, and right behaviour is always asked of us... Paul bases everything he says on this truth: they were the assembly, the called-out ones, of God, and he wants behaviour that matches the blessing.

At first sight, what Paul says in the last verse of 1 Corinthians 10 might look like a contradiction of this. But read the whole chapter, and the chapter before it, and his point becomes clear. Christians should show the greatest possible care and consideration for their weaker brothers, and indeed for all people... Here, on the other hand, it is a question of the truth of the gospel. We must resist at all costs any tendency to change it, or water it down to please people. There cannot be a moment's compromise here.

All three groups are God's creatures, and my own comfort and pleasure matter less than the real good of their souls... He would not compromise the truth of God for anyone, but he would give up his own personal advantage for the sake of any, if it might bring them to God.

Paul was the example in this self-sacrificing attitude of pleasing all men in all things. This does not mean pleasing men by submitting to their control, or by simply seeking human approval — Galatians 1:10 fully refutes that. It means seeking the purest good of their souls, so that they may be saved. He would not compromise the truth of God for anyone. But he would give up his own personal advantage for anyone, if it might bring them to God.

And how did he seek to "please all"? Not, we may be sure, by associating with their evils, but by following Christ in all His lowly grace.

So, if a person does everything for God's glory, he does not seek to gratify self but gives it up. In this way he puts no stumbling-block before people, whether Jews or Gentiles, and none before God's assembly. Love alone walks like this, seeking God's glory and man's good... This was the apostle's habit. He was the most uncompromising of all the apostles, yet no one matched him in gracious concession, wherever he could make it in a way consistent with Christ.

Verse 32 classifies mankind under three heads. Notice how distinctly "the church of God" stands out from both Jew and Gentile. The Old Testament classified men under two heads, Israel and the Gentiles. The Church, a body called out from both Jews and Gentiles, only appears in the New Testament. We have been called out from the mass of mankind in this way. Even so, we are to consider people, seeking their highest good — even their salvation. This was Paul's way, just as it was the way of Christ. And we are to be imitators of Paul. Treat verse 1 of chapter 11 as the last verse of chapter 10.

The apostle used his freedom to seek not his own profit, but that of others, that "they may be saved" (v. 33). He pleased all in all things to that end. Salvation and not stumbling was his object.

Taking this passage as a whole, we may notice five valuable points. They guide us as to whether a course of action is according to the will of God or not. What is according to His will (1) is lawful, (2) is expedient or profitable, (3) builds up oneself or others, (4) is to the glory of God, (5) gives no occasion of stumbling to any. People often ask, How can I get guidance? Well, here is guidance of a very sure and definite sort. Are we always so willing to be guided when we get the guidance?