Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - 1 Corinthians 8:1 - 8:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1Co_8:1-3. Now follows the caveat inserted parenthetically with a view to γνῶσιν ἔχομεν .
The article turns the abstract γνῶσις into a noun appellative.
The knowledge (in and by itself, namely) puffeth up (1Co_4:6, 1Co_5:2); but the love (to the brethren; comp Rom_14:14-15) edifieth (1Co_10:23), furthers the progress of the church (viewed as οἰκοδομὴ Θεοῦ , see 1Co_3:9) towards Christian perfection. It is, indeed, the necessary ἡγεμονικόν to the effectively sympathetic and humble application of the knowledge. Comp chap. 13, especially 1Co_8:4.—1Co_8:2-3 explain the preceding statement, both from the wrong nature of the supposed knowledge and from the preciousness of love to God.
Since the γνῶσις in and by itself, divorced from love, is never a real knowledge, but only such as a man fancies himself to have (1Co_3:18), Paul characterizes here what he before designated by ἡ γνῶσις as a δοκεῖν εἰδέναι τι ; and since the love to the brethren does not essentially differ from the love to God, but is simply its expression in the fellowship of believers, he now characterizes the former as ἀγαπᾶν τὸν Θεόν . One can hardly mistake the impress of deep and pregnant meaning in this whole passage, so like the manner of John, especially in his Epistles.
τί ] anything whatever, any object of the γνῶσις . Pott and Flatt interpret: something wonderful; but this does not correspond so well with the sententious character of the verse.
οὐδέπω κ . τ . λ [1311]] he knows nothing at all as yet in such a way as to bring it under the name of knowledge, as that must by moral necessity be constituted from the Christian standpoint. The conceit of knowledge is onesided, superficial, partial, false, unpractical, in its character. In order to the γνῶναι καθὼς δεῖ we must of necessity have love, which regulates the knowledge morally, gives it proper depth, and makes it practically salutary. Comp 1Co_13:2. As regards the repetition of the negative (Luk_23:53; Joh_19:41; Act_8:16), comp Schömann, a[1314] Is. p. 469; Stallbaum, a[1315] Plat. Crat. p. 398 E).—1Co_8:3. ΟὟΤΟς ] with emphasis: he, to the exclusion of the other who prides himself on his knowledge.
ἔγνωσται ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ ] This is rationalized by Billroth in his usual fashion into: “God recognises Himself in him;” but it means simply: this man is known by Him. The statement is a pregnant one. Instead of making it logically complete by saying: “it holds good of such a man not merely that he knows in the true sense, but also that he is known of God,” the apostle states simply the latter and greater truth, which of itself implies the former. The ἔγνωσται ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ shows the importance and preciousness of the love spoken of, in accordance with its holiness; for if God knows a man, that implies a relation between God and him of no indifferent or ineffective kind, but an activity of God, which passes over to the man, so that he as the object of the divine knowledge experiences also the efficacy of the disposition in and with which God knows him, of His love, gracious care, etc. The idea, therefore, is that of the effective divine knowledge, which becomes part of the inner experience of the man, and which is the causa salutis,[1316] so that God in thus knowing the man carries out that saving fellowship with him, which was purposed in His own counsel, Psa_1:6; Gal_4:9; 2Ti_2:19. Comp Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 258 ff. See also on 1Co_13:12. Other interpreters supply the thought ut suum discipulum (Erasmus) or inter filios (Calvin), and the like. Comp Usteri, Lehrbegriff, p. 283. But that is to insert a meaning not in the text. Others, again, take it as approbatus est (Piscator, Clericus, Gataker, Grotius, Wolf, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Vater, al[1319], following Fathers in Suicer, Thes. I. p. 762). But this is as much against linguistic usage (see on Rom_7:15) as Augustine’s edoctus est (so, too, Beza, Pareus, Er. Schmid, and others, including Nösselt, Rosenmüller, Heydenreich, Pott, Flatt), so that the passive would correspond to a Hophal. Olshausen’s mysterious fancy is contrary to the whole context, which demands the simple conception of knowing; he finds in γινώσκειν (as in éãò , see on Mat_1:25) the bridal (?) relation of the soul to God.
[1311] . τ . λ . καὶ τὰ λοιπά .
[1314] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1315] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1316] Comp. Constit. ap. v. 16. 3 : μὴ γιγνώσκοντες Θεὸν διὰ τοῦ κηρύγματος πιστεύσαντες ἔγνωτε αὐτόν , μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγνώσθητε ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ διὰ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ σωτῆρος κ . λυτρωτοῦ τῶν ἐλπιζόντων ἐπʼ αὐτόν .
[1319] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.