CHAP. VIII.] I WILL EAT NO FLESH. 127 13 Wherefore *if meat make my brother to Rom. xiv. 21. 2 Cor. xi. 29. identified Himself with the persecuted saints, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?" and now through the mouth of His Apostle He identifies Himself with the weak. "When ye make the weak to sin through your want of consideration and sympathy, ye sin against their and your Head. Ye sin against Christ.” 13. "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while," &c. Now, since some weak brethren were made to offend by seeing others eat of things sacrificed to idols, does this mean that St. Paul at the time he wrote this verse was abstaining, and would hereafter abstain, from animal food? We cannot believe such a thing. The assertion is hyperbolical, and yet must not be dismissed as meaning nothing. It means that if St. Paul certainly knew that some weak brother was so influenced by his example, that as long as St. Paul abstained he would abstain, and so keep a clear conscience and not otherwise, then St. Paul would touch meat no more till his death. But it seems to me quite clear that this recommendation of abstinence from animal food depends on times and places. At that time, and in such a city as Corinth, the greater part of the animal sold in the shambles or set before guests at feasts, was that which had been offered to idols, and so the weak brother would constantly be in danger of sinning; but in a city where there were few or no such social conditions as those at Corinth, the Apostle would, we are sure, have given no such recommendation; for to do so would be to tell his converts that they must, of set purpose, reject a gift of God. This verse has been used to recommend, or rather to enforce, total abstinence from wine, because so many abuse such a gift of God. Now, if any Christian determines to abstain from wine or such like liquors, which, taken in excess, are intoxicating, for the sake of his weaker brethren, he does a good thing; but, as he values his soul, he must take heed of two things, first, not to pronounce a most certain gift of God an evil thing in itself, for wine is as distinctly a gift of God as animal food is, and so to be received temperately with thanksgiving; and, secondly, he must take heed not to use or countenance the abusive and violent language which abstainers as a rule hurl against those who do not abstain; for if, instead of reprobating such language, he 128 AM I NOT AN APOSTLE? [I. COR. offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. encourages it by his presence and silence, he will assuredly offend God and provoke Him to withdraw His grace from one who, though he might begin with good intentions, goes on to act so presumptuously. a Acts ix. 15. 17. & xviii. 9. c ch. iii. 6. & AM CHAP. IX. Ma I not an apostle? am I not free? have ye my work in the Lord? с 1. "Am I not an Apostle? am I not free ?" So D., E., F., G., K., L., most Cursives, d, e, f, g, &c.; but x, A., B., P., some eight or nine Cursives, Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm., Eth., &c., invert, "Am I not free? am I not an apostle ?" 1. "Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen," &c. It is very difficult to make out the connection between this and what has immediately preceded. Many commentators make the assertion of freedom the connecting link, as if he had said, I am asking you to give up your freedom, or to exercise it not arbitrarily, but looking to the spiritual condition of your weaker brethren. I do the same. I am free, as the other Apostles are, to forbear manual labour for my own support, but I choose rather to labour, so that I may not be chargeable to you, but may minister the word of God to you without payment. In accordance with this, some of the best MSS., as the reader will see by the critical note, put the words, "Am I not free?" before "Am I not an Apostle?" I cannot help thinking, however, that the Apostle here alludes to something in the letter of the Corinthians which reflected upon him as being not a true Apostle. He did not put forward the claims which the other Apostles did, for support for themselves and their wives; and this was attributed to his consciousness that he had no right to CHAP. IX.] THE SEAL OF MINE APOSTLESHIP. 129 d 2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in d 2 Cor. iii. 2. the Lord. 3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, е 4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? & xii. 12. e ver. 14. 1 Thes. ii. 6. 2 5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, Thes. iii. 9. 4. "Power." Properly, "authority." make such claims, not being an Apostle with the same authority which Cephas and others had. This seems alluded to in the words, "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this." "Am I not an Apostle . . . . have not I seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" His opponents urged against his Apostolate the fact that whereas all the first elected Apostles had been companions of the Lord during nearly all His ministry, it was not so with St. Paul. In answer to this, he asks, Have I not seen the Lord? Did not the sight of the Lord as He appeared to me on the way to Damascus, and His subsequent appearances and revelations, fully make up for the companionship with Him in the days of His Flesh with which the rest of the Apostles were favoured? "Are not ye my work in the Lord ?" 2. "If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you," &c. The fact that through his preaching they had been turned from darkness to light, ought to be a sufficient witness to them that he was truly sent by Christ as His Apostle. As seals attest the genuineness of a document, so their conversion attested the genuineness of his Apostolical commission. 3. "Mine answer to them that do examine me is this." This, apparently, refers to what had gone before. This is my answer to them that question my Apostleship-your own existence as a Church of Christ. But Chrysostom and others take it as referring to what comes after. 4. "Have we not power to eat," &c. Have we not power to demand maintenance of those to whom we preach the Gospel? 5. "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other," &c. He had proved his Apostleship: now he proceeds to claim the full rights of an Apostle, in the maintenance of himself and of those whom he might bring with him. K 130 OTHER APOSTLES. [I. COR. Or, woman. a || wife, as well as other apostles, and as 'the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? f Matt. xiii. 55. Mark vi. 3. Luke vi. 15. Gal. i. 19. g Matt. viii. 14. "A sister, a wife." It is by no means certain that the women (see margin) which other Apostles led about, were their wives. Theodoret interprets it of women like those who followed the Lord and His disciples, and ministered unto them (Luke viii. 2, 3, xxiii. 55). Still the reference to Cephas, of whom it is certain that he was a married man, seems to make it probable that some other Apostles took their wives with them.' The example of Cephas is, of course, sufficient for all controversial purposes. "And as the brethren of the Lord." Assuming these to have been James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon, the only "brethren of the Lord" mentioned in the New Testament, I have shown, in an excursus at the end of my volume of Notes on St. Mark, that they could not have been the Lord's uterine brothers, for they are all said to be the children of another Mary, the one who stood by the Lord when He was crucified. And Cephas?" The single intimation in Scripture, except this, that he was a married man, is in the account of the Evangelist that the Lord healed his mother-in-law (Mark i. 30). 6. "Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?" It is difficult to say why he should mention Barnabas. 1 Bishop Wordsworth, who almost invariably takes the anti-Romanist line, has the following note:-"Though it is true that St. Paul does not say that they all used their power, yet his argument would have little force, if, for the most part, this power was not used as well as possessed by them. In distinguishing himself and Barnabas as working with their own hands for their livelihood, he leads us to suppose that the other Apostles not only had the power not to work, but that they used the power which they had. So here but we never hear of the Apostles travelling through the world with wives and children. If it had been so, St. Paul could hardly have said to ordinary Christians, that it was better for them to remain unmarried on account of the present necessity (vii. 26). And it was never supposed by Christian antiquity that all the Apostles were married. Tertullian (De Monogam.' c. 8) says, 'Petrum solum invenio maritum inter Apostolos,' which is also St. Jerome's opinion (Adv. Jovinian,' 1). And although other accounts vary from this (see in Euseb.' iii. 30), yet the ancient writers, who had this passage of Scripture before their eyes, never imagined St. Paul to suggest here that the Apostles generally were married, and carried their wives with them in their missionary tours. Tertullian says that St. Paul does not say, 'Uxores ab apostolis circumductas, sed simpliciter mulieres.' Eusebius, in the place referred to, cites Clement of Alexandria as saying that some of the Apostles were married, but only mentions two, Peter and Philip." ... CHAP. IX.] DOTH GOD TAKE CARE FOR OXEN? 131 6 Or I only and Barnabas, "have not we power to forbear working? k 7 Who 'goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who 'feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? h 2 Thess. iii. 8, 9. 12 Cor. x. 4. & vi. 12. 2 & iv. 7. 1 Tim. i. 18. Tim. ii. 3. k Deut. xx. 6. Prov, xxvii, 7, 8. 8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the 18. ch. iii. 6, law the same also? m 1 John xxi. 15. 1 Pet. v. 2. m Deut. xxv. 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, " Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth 4. 1 Tim. v. out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? 18. 9. "Doth God take care for oxen ?" Revisers, "Is it for the oxen [alone] that God careth when he commanded this ?" The most probable explanation is that Barnabas, being associated with St. Paul in a missionary journey in which they were probably supported by the church at Antioch, and "took nothing of the Gentiles," continued in the same course of abstinence, and this was known to Paul, and here alluded to by him. 7. "Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard," &c. St. Paul now draws the confirmation of his argument from the analogy of common life. The soldier receives wages or maintenance for his service in the field; the planter of the vineyard lives by the profit he gets from it; the tender of cattle or flocks lives on the milk by being nourished by it, or by its sale. Edwards notices that all these three vocations are types of the Christian ministry. The Apostle or Missionary first goes as the soldier of Christ to wage war on the world, then he plants the Church, and then he tends it as being the flock of Christ. 8. "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?" Am I now relying on human reasoning or the analogy of common life? or have I not Scripture on my side? .... 9, 10. "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle care for oxen? partaker of his hope." This citation from the law which St. Paul so energetically declares to have passed away as a means of justification, is of very great im portance. The law is and must ever abide as the rule of life; and |