The word skandali>zw means either to offend, or to cause to offend. That is, either to provoke, or to cause to sin. The English word is also used in both these senses. <401727>
Matthew 17:27, “That we may not offend them,” i.e.
provoke them. <400529>
Matthew 5:29, “If thy eye offend thee,” i.e. cause thee to sin; and <401806>
Matthew 18:6, “Whoso shall offend (i.e. cause to sin) one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a
mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” This last quoted passage shows how serious a matter our Lord considers it to lead even the weakest Christian into sin. It is still worse to lead him into error, for error is the mother of many sins. It shows also how great an evil sin is, and justifies the strong language of the apostle that he would never eat flesh rather man cause his brother to offend. It is morally obligatory, therefore, to abstain from indulging in things
indifferent, when the use of them is the occasion of sin to others. This is a principle the application of which must be left to every man’s conscience in the fear of God. No rule of conduct, founded on expediency, can be enforced by church discipline. It was right in Paul to refuse to eat flesh for
fear of causing others to offend; but he could not have been justly exposed to discipline, had he seen fit to eat it. He circumcised Timothy, and refused to circumcise Titus. Whenever a thing is right or wrong according to
circumstances, every man must have the right to judge of those circumstances.
CHAPTER 9.
The apostle illustrates the duty of foregoing the exercise of our rights for the good of others, by a reference to his giving up his undoubted right to be supported by the church, vs. 1-18. He shows that in other ways he accommodated himself to the opinions and prejudices of others, 19-23. He reminds his readers that nothing good or great could be attained without self-denial, vs. 24-27.
THE RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO AN ADEQUATE MAINTENANCE.
THE NECESSITY OF SELF-DENIAL. VS. 1-27.
Having in the preceding chapter urged on the strong the duty of foregoing the use of their rights for the sake of their weaker brethren, the apostle shows how he had acted on that principle. He was an apostle, and
therefore had all the rights of an apostle. His apostleship was abundantly clear, because he had seen the Lord Jesus and was his immediate
messenger; and his divine mission had been confirmed, at least among the Corinthians, beyond dispute. They were the seal of his apostleship, vs.
1-3. Being an apostle, he had the same right to be supported and to have his family supported, had he chosen to marry, as Peter or any other apostle, vs. 4-6. This right to adequate support he proves, First, from the principle which lies at the foundation of society, that the laborer is worthy of his reward, v. 7. Secondly, from the fact that this principle is recognized in the Old Testament, even in its application to brutes, vs. 8-10. Thirdly, from the principles of commutative justice, v. 11. Fourthly, from the fact that the Corinthians recognized this right in the case of other teachers, v.
12. Fifthly, from the universal recognition of the principle among all nations. Those who served the temple were supported from the temple, v.
13. Sixthly, from the express ordinance of Christ, who had ordained that those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel, v. 14. This undoubted right Paul had not availed himself of, and he was determined, especially at Corinth, not to avail himself of it in the future. By so doing he cut off occasion to question his motives, and gave himself a ground of confidence in resisting his opponents which he was determined not to relinquish, vs. 15-18. This was not, however, the only case in which he
abstained from the exercise of his rights for the good of others. He
accommodated himself to Jews and Gentiles in every thing indifferent, that he might gain the more, vs. 19-23. Such self-denial the heathen exercised to gain a corruptible crown — should not Christians do as much to gain a crown that is incorruptible? Without self-denial and effort the prize of their high calling could never be attained, vs. 24-27.
1. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? f10 have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
The order of the first two of these questions is reversed by most editors on satisfactory external and internal evidence. Am I not free? That is, am I not a Christian, invested with all the liberties wherewith Christ has made his people free? Am I not as free as any other believer to regulate my conduct according to my own convictions of what is right; free from any obligation to conform to the opinions or prejudices of other men? This, however, is a freedom which I have not availed myself of. Nay more, Am I not an apostle? Besides the rights which belong to all Christians, have I not all the prerogatives of an apostle? Am I not on a level with the chief of the apostles? Who of them can show a better title to the office? There were three kinds of evidence of the apostleship.
1. The immediate commission from Christ in the sight of witnesses, or