Six New Testament Passages:
Select Commentary
November 10, 2022
G.D.O'Bradovich III
For God is not the author of confusion…
First Epistle to the Corinthians 14:33
First Epistle to the Corinthians 14:33
introduction
The following commentaries are courtesy of BibleHub.com, an invaluable source of reference materials. The formatting has been expanded to allow for easier reading. The majority of omissions are from references to examples of other Biblical passages or quotations of other commentators.
Since certain sections are quoted, the reader should refer to the original documents for a more complete understanding of the issues regarding interpretation and the challenges of translations.
Since certain sections are quoted, the reader should refer to the original documents for a more complete understanding of the issues regarding interpretation and the challenges of translations.
matthew 16:18 english
And I [Jesus, v.7] say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 16:18
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 16:18
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(18) Thou art Peter, and upon this rock...--[Until] we have endeavoured to realise what thoughts the words at the time actually conveyed to those who heard them, and... have grasped that meaning it will be our best preparation for determining what bearing they have upon the later controversies of ancient or modern times.
Not content to accept the mostly likely interpretation of the text, Elllicott proposes to “realize what thoughts the words at the time” conveyed to the Apostles.
And (1) it would seem clear that the connection between Peter and the rock (the words in the Greek differ in gender, πέτρος and πέτρα, but were identical in the Aramaic, which our Lord probably used) was meant to be brought into special prominence. [By] this confession of his faith, Peter had risen to the height of his new calling, and was worthy of his new name.
(2) [There] is the probability that in the Aramaic, in which our Lord spoke, there [1] would be no difference between the words in the two clauses; on the other, the possibility that He [2] may have used the Greek words, or that the Evangelist [3] may have intended to mark the distinction which he felt by the use of the two words, which undoubtedly differ in their meaning, πέτρος being a “stone” or fragment of rock, while πέτρα is the rock itself.
In section (1), the wording that our Lord “probably used” Aramaic changes in section (2) to “Aramaic, in which our Lord spoke”.
(3) On the assumption of a distinction there follows the question, What is the rock? [1] Peter’s faith (subjective)? [2] or the truth (objective) which he confessed? [3] or Christ Himself? Taking all the facts of the case, the balance seems to incline in favour of the last view.
(1.) Christ and not Peter is the Rock in 1Corinthians 10:4, the Foundation in 1Corinthians 3:11.
Ellicott refers to the Epistle to the Corinthians to show that Saint Paul teaches that Jesus is allegorically the foundation stone. Of course, this fact has no bearing on the passage from Saint Matthew.
(2.) The poetry of the Old Testament associated the idea of the Rock with the greatness and steadfastness of God, not with that of a man...
Ellicott quotes from the Old Testament to show that “greatness and steadfastness” is associated with God, yet Jesus states that Peter is the rock. However, there is no suggestion in this Gospel that Peter is God, although Peter may be the second God, as Jesus addresses him as Satan.
(3.) As with the words... “Destroy this temple” (John 2:19), so here, we may believe the meaning to have been indicated by significant look or gesture. The Rock on which the Church was to be built was Himself... Had Peter himself been meant... the simpler form, “Thou art Peter, and on thee will I build My Church,” would have been clearer and more natural. [The] collocation suggests an implied contrast: “Thou art the Rock-Apostle; and yet not the Rock on which the Church is to be built. It is enough for thee to have found the Rock, and to have built on the one Foundation.”
I will build my church.— It is significant that this is the first occurrence of the word Church (Ecclesia) in the New Testament, the only passage but one (Matthew 18:17) in which it is found in the whole cycle of our Lord’s recorded teaching. [It] came with the associations which it had in the Greek of the Old Testament, as used for the “assembly” or “congregation” of the Lord...; but... [as soon] as the word came in its Greek form before Greek readers, it would bring with it the associations of Greek politics. The Ecclesia was the assembly of free citizens... from which aliens and slaves were alike excluded. The mere use of the term was accordingly a momentous step in the education of the disciples.
Ellicott states that disciples, who were depicted in the Gospels as being continually confused by Christ’s teachings in their alleged native language of Aramaic, could appreciate the subtle political significance of the foreign Greek word Ecclesia as a “momentous step”.
They had been looking for a kingdom with the King... sitting on an earthly throne. They were told that it was to be realised in a society... like those which in earthly polities we call popular or democratic.
From their personal experiences in Judaism, an earthly kingdom ruled by a physical Messiah was the only possibility for the Apostles. A king who is elected would anticipate both the elections of the Holy Roman Emperor and the modern European monarchies, who reign but do not rule.
[The] word ecclesia did not lend itself so readily as the English equivalent does to the idea of building. The society and the fabric in which the members of the society meet were not... described by the same term. The similitude was bolder than it seems to us. The ecclesia was the “house of God”...; it was a “holy temple”... All gifts were bestowed for the work of “edifying” or building it up... Those who laboured… were as “wise architects or master builders”... But Christ... claims the work of building as His own. Whatever others may do, He is the supreme Master-builder. [He] is at once Priest and Victim, so under the aspect now presented... He is at once the Founder and the Foundation of the new society.
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.—The gates of Hades..., not of Gehenna, the place of torment. Hades as the shadow-world of the dead, the unseen counterpart of the visible grave, all-absorbing, all-destructive, into whose… gates [plural] all things human pass... is half-idealised, half-personified, as a power, or polity of death.
In Egyptian mythology, the West is the “all-absorbing” other world where “all things human” pass and, in the fullness of time, even the Gods will pass to the West, where Osiris reigns as the judge of the living and the dead.
The very phrase, “gates [plural] of the grave, or of Hades,” meets us in Hezekiah’s elegy… And as the gates of the Eastern city were the scene at once of kingly judgment... and of the council of the elders..., they became the natural symbol of the polity which ruled there. And so the promise declared that all the powers of Hades... should attack, but not overpower, the ecclesia of which Christ was the Founder.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
16:13-20 Peter, for himself and his brethren, said that they were assured of our Lord's being the promised Messiah, the Son of the living God. This showed that they believed Jesus to be more than man.
The title of Messiah can be given to anyone who either attempts to liberate or succedes in freeing Israel from foreigners and idolaters, such as the Maccabees, and it is not limited in Biblical usage to “the Son of the living God.” The appellation of the “Son of God” is not so remarkable as Henry suggests [Psalms 82:6]. In a general sense, anyone who is anointed is a Christ, such as those who are anointed in the Roman and Greek Churches in imitation of the Redeemer.
Henry suggests that the since Jesus’ followers believed he was the Messiah, then they also believed that Jesus was “more than man”.
Henry suggests that the since Jesus’ followers believed he was the Messiah, then they also believed that Jesus was “more than man”.
Our Lord declared Peter to be blessed, as the teaching of God made him differ from his unbelieving countrymen. Christ added that he had named him Peter, in allusion to his stability or firmness in professing the truth. The word translated rock, is not the same word as Peter, but is of a similar meaning. Nothing can be more wrong than to suppose that Christ meant the person of Peter was the rock. Without doubt Christ himself is the Rock, the tried foundation of the church...
If Jesus be not the Christ, those that own him are not of the church, but deceivers and deceived. Our Lord next declared the authority with which Peter would be invested. He spoke in the name of his brethren, and this related to them as well as to him. They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites.
Henry states that Peter is different from his “unbelieving countrymen”, yet Henry also states that Peter spoke “in the name of his brethren”. To speak for another suggests or implies an authority to do so, unless Saint Peter was impulsive, that is, acting before thinking [Matthew 16:22, Matthew 26:33, 35, 74; John 13:9, 37; John 18:10].
If the Apostles were “kept from error”, then it was due to knowing Jesus personally and following him for three years.
The “way” is a word that describes the sect of the Nazarenes:
[If] he [Saul] found any of this way… Acts 9:2
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord… Acts 18:25
[And] expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Acts 18:26
But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way… Acts 19:9
And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. Acts 19:23
And I persecuted this way unto the death… Acts 22:4
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy… Acts 24:14
And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way… Acts 24:22
If the Apostles were “kept from error”, then it was due to knowing Jesus personally and following him for three years.
The “way” is a word that describes the sect of the Nazarenes:
[If] he [Saul] found any of this way… Acts 9:2
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord… Acts 18:25
[And] expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Acts 18:26
But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way… Acts 19:9
And the same time there arose no small stir about that way. Acts 19:23
And I persecuted this way unto the death… Acts 22:4
But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy… Acts 24:14
And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way… Acts 24:22
In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. But all pretensions of any man, either to absolve or retain men's sins, are blasphemous and absurd.
According to Henry, Jesus’ words are “blasphemous and absurd”:
“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:23
It is clear that the Apostles had this authority from Christ and, as the Roman and Greek Churches teach, the successors to the Apostles also possess this power. Like the Apocrypha, it would be less troublesome to protestants if this passage were to be omitted in future editions of their Bible.
“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” John 20:23
It is clear that the Apostles had this authority from Christ and, as the Roman and Greek Churches teach, the successors to the Apostles also possess this power. Like the Apocrypha, it would be less troublesome to protestants if this passage were to be omitted in future editions of their Bible.
None can forgive sins but God only. And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful.
Henry interprets “this binding and loosing” in terms of Judaism and overthrows the clear meaning of the words of the Master, as no one would suggest that “binding and loosing” is to correctly be understood as “teaching what is lawful” and “teaching what is unlawful”, since the Law, and its prohibitions, is available to any literate person.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word "Peter," in Greek, means "a rock." It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42
And he [Andrew, v.40] brought him [Simon Peter, v.41] to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas”... John 1:42
Simon does not speak to Jesus, let alone professing any faith in Jesus, nor acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus simply makes a pun on Simon’s name.
Simon does not speak to Jesus, let alone professing any faith in Jesus, nor acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus simply makes a pun on Simon’s name.
Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter- a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: [Several sentences omitted] "I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion."
One wonders if the nature of Peter’s “distinguished support” includes denying being a follower of Christ, an act of such importance that is recorded in all canonical Gospels [Matthew 26:33–35, Mark 14:29–31, Luke 22:33–34, John 18:15–27].
And upon this rock... - Some have supposed that the word "rock" refers to Peter's confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church.
If the supposition that the arbitrary confession declaring that Jesus is the Christ is the foundation of his church, then Jesus misspoke, as he should have taken the future protestant communities into consideration and clearly stated, “I will build my churches.”
Barnes usage of “all believers” is problematic, as few, if any, of their beliefs of Christians are held in common.
Barnes usage of “all believers” is problematic, as few, if any, of their beliefs of Christians are held in common.
Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock... [It] has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon... myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations... seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.
This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome… applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for.
"Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles."
[Peter] first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to... Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage.
But Christ did not mean... to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed- a thing which could not have happened if Christ… meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church.
No one should be surprised that one book, the protestant Bible, omits many things that pertain to the teachings of Christianity.
Will build my church - This refers to the custom of building in Judea upon a rock or other very firm foundation.
Barnes states that erecting buildings on a firm foundation is typical of Judean architecture.
The word "church" literally means "those called out," and often means an assembly or congregation. It is applied to Christians as being "called out" from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers... also, a particular society of believers worshipping in one place...; sometimes, also, a society in a single house... In common language it means the church visible..., i. e., all who are real Christians, professors or not.
Barnes clarifies what is meant by the word “church”: it often means [1] an assembly, yet, it sometimes means [2] all believers, however, it also means [3] certain believers in one place, sometimes a [4] single house, [5] all who are visible, and [6] all who are invisible.
Therefore, “church” is an ambiguous term which must accurately interpreted, if possible, according to the context.
Barnes states that there are two types of “real Christians”, those who “affirm their faith” and those who do not.
Therefore, “church” is an ambiguous term which must accurately interpreted, if possible, according to the context.
Barnes states that there are two types of “real Christians”, those who “affirm their faith” and those who do not.
And the gates of hell...- In the gates by which they [ancient cities] were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. The word "gates,"... is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes.
Barnes offers two neutral definitions for gate, “counsels” and “designs”, and two maleficent meanings, “machinations” and “evil purposes”.
"Hell" means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits; and the meaning of the passage is, that... the enemies of the church would not be able to overcome it...
Along with God and Church, Hell is also a word has not one definition, but many.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
18. And I say also unto thee— that is, "As thou hast borne such testimony to Me, even so in return do I to thee."
That thou art Peter— At his first calling, this new name was announced to him as an honor afterwards to be conferred on him (John 1:43).
and upon this rock— As "Peter" and "Rock" are one word in the dialect familiarly spoken by our Lord--the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldaic, which was the mother tongue of the country—this exalted play upon the word can be fully seen only in languages which have one word for both. [In] the Greek it is imperfectly represented. In French,... it is perfect, Pierre—pierre.
I will build my Church— not on the man Simon Bar-jona; but on him as the heavenly-taught confessor of a faith. "My Church," says our Lord…
and the gates of hell— "of Hades," or, the unseen world; meaning, the gates of Death: in other words, "It shall never perish." Some explain it of "the assaults of the powers of darkness"...
Matthew Poole's Commentary
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter: Christ gave him this name, John 1:42, when his brother Andrew first brought him to Christ. [When] he [Jesus] told him [Peter], that Satan had desired to winnow him [Peter, not Jesus] like wheat, but he [Jesus, not Peter] had prayed that his [Peter’s, not Jesus’] faith might not fail...
Poole plays the pronoun game.
And upon this rock I will build my church. Here is a question amongst interpreters, what, or whom, our Saviour here meaneth by this rock.
1. Some think that he meaneth himself, as he saith, John 2:19, Destroy this temple (meaning his own body). God is often called a Rock... and it is certain Christ is the foundation of the church... But this sense seemeth a little hard, that our Saviour… telling him he [Peter] was a stone, or a rock, should with the same breath pass to himself, and not say, [“]Upon myself[“], but [“]upon this rock I will build my church.[“]
2. The generality of protestant writers… say Peter’s confession... is the rock... [The] doctrine contained in his confession is the foundation of the gospel; the whole Christian church is built upon it.
3. Others think, in regard that our Saviour directeth his speech not to all the apostles, but to Peter, and doth not say, [“]Blessed are you [English 3rd person plural][“], but, [“]Blessed art thou [English 2nd person singular], Simon Bar-jona[“], that here is something promised to Peter in special; but they do not think this is any priority... more than the rest had, but that Christ would make a more eminent and special use of him, in the building of his church, than of the rest; and… God did make a more eminent use of Peter in raising his gospel church, both amongst the Jews… and the Gentiles... But yet this soundeth a little harshly, to interpret [“]upon this rock[“], by [“]this rock[“]. [I] incline to interpret it in the second sense:
But though Christ be the foundation in one sense, the apostles are so called in another sense... not the apostles’ persons, but the doctrine which they preached. They, by their doctrine which they preached... laid the foundation of the Christian church... In which sense soever it be taken, it makes nothing for the papists’ superiority or jurisdiction of St. Peter, or his successors. By church is here plainly meant the whole body of believers, who all agree in this one faith. [Christ] calls it his church, not Peter’s, and saith, [“]I will build[“], not, [“]thou shalt build[“].
The standard for all who “agree in this one faith” is either so low that few can be excluded, or nonexistent, so that all are included.
[The] power of the devil and all his instruments shall never prevail against it [the church]... neither to extinguish true faith in the heart of any particular believer, nor to root the gospel out of the world.
The gates is here put for the persons that sit in the gates. Neither doth hell signify here the place of the damned; adhv no where... signifies so, but either death, or the graves, or the state of the dead: yet the devil is also understood here, as he that hath the power of death...
Poole clarifies what is meant by the term Hell: [1] possibly “the place of the damned”, [2] death, [3] the grave, [4] the state of the dead, [5] the devil, and [6] his power of death.
[Our] Lord would build the Christian church... but to the end of the world he would have a church, a number of people called out by his apostles, and those who should succeed in their ministry, who should uphold this great truth. [This] is a plain promise for the continuance of the gospel church to the end of the world.
As Poole does not explain what a “gospel church” is, the reader cannot know.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And I say also unto thee... Either besides what he had already said concerning his happiness; or, as the father had revealed something great and valuable,... or inasmuch as he had freely said and declared who... he was, in like manner he also would say what Peter was, thou art Peter: intimating, that he was rightly called Peter, or Cephas, by him, when he first became a follower of him, Matthew 4:18,
And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. Matthew 4:18
Gill makes an error, as Simon is not called Peter when he “first became a follower of “Christ”, but later in Matthew 16:18.
However, in the fourth Gospel, Simon and Andrew are not fishing, as Simon is brought to Jesus:
And he [Andrew] brought him [Simon] to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas… John 1:42
Gill makes an error, as Simon is not called Peter when he “first became a follower of “Christ”, but later in Matthew 16:18.
However, in the fourth Gospel, Simon and Andrew are not fishing, as Simon is brought to Jesus:
And he [Andrew] brought him [Simon] to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas… John 1:42
[The] words signify the same thing, a rock, or stone; because of his firmness and solidity, and because he… built on the rock Christ...
And upon this rock will I build my church: by the church, is meant... an assembly...not of any sort; not a disorderly, tumultuous assembly,... nor does it design the faithful of a family, which is sometimes the import of it; nor a particular congregated church, but the elect of God,
Gill explains that the church is not “an assembly” or a particular church, but the “elect of God” “whose names are written in heaven”. Therefore, any certain knowledge of who are the elect is beyond human comprehension.
[The] general assembly and church of the first born, whose names are written in heaven... and these are the only persons which make up the true and invisible church of Christ in the issue...
Gill overcomes the problem of multiple protestant churches making contradictory claims and divisive confessions by stating that the “true” church is an “invisible” church, a claim that, of course, cannot be verified.
[And] are only fit to be members of the visible church; and all such ought to be in a Gospel church state, and partake of the privileges of it…
One wonders what privileges or “special rights, advantages, or immunities” are provided by “Gospel” churches.
[Christ] is the… chief master builder. This act of building seems to have a special regard to the conversion of God's elect... By the rock on which Christ builds his church, is meant, not the person of Peter... but upon this rock, referring to something distinct from him: for though his name signifies a rock, or stone, and there may be some allusion to it... but not because he was the foundation on which any others... were built: Moreover, what is said to Peter... is not said to him personally and separately from the rest of the apostles, but is designed for them... as appears by comparing them with Matthew 18:18.
Peter had no preeminence over the rest of the apostles, which he neither assumed, nor was it granted; nor would it ever have been connived at by Christ... and though Peter… had some particular favours bestowed on him by Christ; as to be at the raising of Jairus's daughter, and at the transfiguration of Christ on the mount, and with him in the garden; and he appeared to him alone after his resurrection,
Connive: “secretly allow (something considered immoral, illegal, wrong, or harmful) to occur.”
Gill states that Peter had no preeminence over the Apostles and while this may be true, yet it should be noted that Peter is always mentioned first in the list of the Apostles [ Matthew 10:1–4, Mark 3:13–19. Luke 6:12–16].
Gill commits an error. After his resurrection, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene, not to Peter nor to Simon Peter [Luke 24:12, John 20:6-7, John 20:11-18].
Gill states that Peter had no preeminence over the Apostles and while this may be true, yet it should be noted that Peter is always mentioned first in the list of the Apostles [ Matthew 10:1–4, Mark 3:13–19. Luke 6:12–16].
Gill commits an error. After his resurrection, Jesus first appeared to Mary Magdalene, not to Peter nor to Simon Peter [Luke 24:12, John 20:6-7, John 20:11-18].
[And] before he was seen by the rest of the disciples; yet in some things he was inferior to them, being left to deny his Lord and master, they did not; and upon another account is called Satan by Christ, which they never were; not to mention other infirmities of his, which show he is not the rock...
Gill mentions two actions, Peter’s denial of Jesus and Jesus’ addressing Peter as Satan, and suggests that these incidents overturn the clear meaning of Jesus’ words of stating that Peter is the rock. Instead of denying Jesus’ meaning, Gill should accept what are three stated facts: Peter’s denial, Peter addressed as Satan, and Peter being the rock. If these seem contradictory, then the Gentle Reader should review their premises to resolve the contradiction.
Peter, as an apostle, had no successor in his office...
Gill denies that the bishops of the Roman and Greek churches are successors to the Apostles. The only conclusion possible from Gill’s opinion is that both ancient churches are lying concerning their early history and the authority of their bishops.
[Nor] was he bishop of Rome; nor has the pope of Rome either his office, or his doctrine: but… by the rock, is meant, either the confession of faith made by Peter; not the act, nor form, but the matter of it, it containing the prime articles of Christianity, and which are as immoveable as a rock; or rather Christ himself, who points... to himself, and whom Peter had made such a glorious confession of...
The Jews speak of the gates of hell: sometimes of the gate of hell, in the singular number (p); and sometimes... in the plural number.
They say (q), that..."hell has three gates", one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem.''
They talk (r) of "an angel that is appointed, "over the gates of hell", whose name is Samriel; who has three keys in his hands, and opens three doors.''
And elsewhere (s) they say, that "he that is appointed over hell his name is Dumah... and he stands, "at the gate of hell"; and all those that keep the holy covenant in this world, he has no power to bring them in.''
The number of gates of Hell is disputed.
Our Lord may allude to these notions... that all the infernal principalities and powers... will never be able to extirpate his Gospel,... to demolish his church in general, or ruin anyone particular soul that is built upon him. [The] gates of "Hades", or hell, sometimes seem to design no other than [1] the gates of death, and [2] the grave, and persons going into [3] the state of death;... then the sense is, that neither death, nor the grave, shall... prevail over the people of God... but they shall be raised... and live gloriously with him for ever.
The meaning of “Hades” or hell can have three possible meanings: the “gates of death”, “the grave”, or “the state of death”.
[Though] it is true of him [Peter], that Satan... did not prevail against him nor could death… deter him from holding... the doctrine of Christ; and though death, and the grave, have now power over him, yet they shall not always detain him...
Gill denies that Saint Peter is in heaven, that he has been “saved”, as “death”, the “grave”, and “Hell” will “not always detain him”.
[But] rather, it designs the doctrine Peter made a confession of; which, though it may be opposed by... the secret fraud of heretics, it may be brought into contempt by the scandalous lives of professors... yet truth itself always lives... These words do not ascertain the continuance of anyone particular congregated church, but secures the church universal...
Gill claims that the universal invisible church will continue, but no “particular” church will continue. While the claim of invisible churches cannot be verified, the existing ancient churches, Roman and Greek, claim continuance since Christ.
[And] the perseverance of everyone of God's elect; and assure that death… shall not always have the dominion over the saints, but that they shall be rescued from them. Once more, this "it" may refer to Christ… [who has] the keys of hell and death, to open the gates... and let his people out when he thinks fit.
Gill seems to deny that the Saints, or anyone of the faithful, are in Heaven, as Christ’s “people” have not been “let out” of Hell.
(p) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 39. 1. Succa, fol. 32. 2. Bava Bathra, fol. 84. 1.(
(q) T. Bab. Erubin, fol. 19. 1. Menasseh ben Israel, Nishmat Chayim, fol, 33. 1, 2.(
(r) Zohar in Gen. fol. 47. 4.
(s) Ib. fol. 7. 1.
Geneva Study Bible
{5} And I say also unto thee, That thou art {l} Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the {m} gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
(5) That is true faith, which confesses Christ, the virtue of which is invincible.
(l) Christ spoke in the Syrian tongue, and therefore did not use this discourse to distinguish between Petros, which signifies Peter, and Petra, which signifies a rock, but in both places used the word Cephas: but his meaning is what is written in Greek, in which the different word endings distinguish between Peter, who is a piece of the building, and Christ the Petra, that is, the rock and foundation: or else he named him Peter because of the confession of his faith, which is the Church's as well as his, as the old fathers witness, for so says Theophylact [AD 1050-1107]. That confession which you have made, shall be the foundation of the believers.
(m) The enemies of the Church are compared to a strong kingdom, and therefore by gates are meant cities which are made strong with wise preparation and fortifications, and this is the meaning: whatever Satan can do by cunning or strength. So does Paul, calling them strongholds...
The Geneva Study Bible claims that “gates” mean cities with fortifications.
matthew 16:18 Greek
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 16:18. But I again say to thee. The point of the comparison in κἀγώ is, that Peter having made a certain declaration in reference to Jesus, Jesus… does the same in reference to Peter.
πέτρος] as an appellative: thou art a rock, Aram. כֵּיפָא. The form ὁ πέτρος [455] is… common among classical writers, and that not merely in the sense of a stone... but also as meaning a rock… Jesus declares Peter to be a rock on account of that strong and stedfast faith in himself to which, under the influence of a special revelation from God, he had just given expression.
According to John 1:43, however, Jesus conferred the name Cephas upon him at their very first interview...; but our passage is not to be understood as simply recording the giving of the name, or the giving of it for the second time.
This section of the Bible is not to be subjected to a literal interpretation.
It is rather intended to be taken as a record of the declaration made by Jesus... that Simon was… all that the name conferred upon him implied. Consequently our passage is in no way inconsistent with that of John..., which could only have been the case if the words used had been σὺ κληθήσῃ Πέτρος.
καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ] The emphasis is on ΤΑΎΤῌ, which points to Peter… and to be understood thus: on no other than on this rock,—hence the feminine form in this instance, because it is not so much a question of the name as of the thing which it indicates, i.e. of that rocky element in the apostle’s character which furnished so solid a foundation for the superstructure of the church that was to be built upon it.
οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν] will I build for myself... the church. The ἐκκλησία… is used in the New Testament to denote the community of believers… [which] is represented as a building, of which Christ here speaks of Himself as the architect, and of Peter as the foundation…
But the term ἘΚΚΛ. was in such current use in its theocratic sense, that it is not necessary to suppose… that it has been borrowed from a later order of things and put into Jesus’ mouth… Besides, there can be no doubt whatever that the primacy among the apostles is here assigned to Peter,… as Christ singles him out as that one in particular whose apostolic labours will... be the means of securing,... the permanence and stability of the church which Jesus is about to found...
[We] also mention the precedence given to this disciple in the catalogues of the apostles, and... the New Testament uniformly represents him as being... superior to all the others...
This primacy must be impartially conceded, though without involving those inferences which Romanists have founded upon it; for Peter’s successors are not... thought of by Jesus...
The claim that Myer knows what Christ was thinking cannot be taken seriously.
[Neither] can the popes claim to be his successors, nor was Peter himself ever bishop of Rome, nor had he any more to do with the founding the church at Rome than the Apostle Paul...
Meyer is confident that Peter was never the bishop of Rome.
The explanation frequently had recourse to in anti-popish controversies, to the effect that the rock does not mean Peter himself, but his stedfast faith and the confession he made of it [456]..., is incorrect, because the demonstrative expression: ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ, coming immediately after the ΣῪ ΕἾ ΠΈΤΡΟς, can only point to the apostle himself, as does also the καὶ δώσω, etc., which follows, it being understood... that it was in consideration of Peter’s faith that the Lord declared him to be a foundation of rock. It is this circumstance also that underlies the reference to the apostle’s faith on the part of the Fathers (Ambrose: “non de carne Petri, sed de fide;” [Not of Peter’s flesh, but of faith, (personal translation)]...).
Because the protestant Bible is claimed to be inerrant, having no contradictions, Peter’s faith includes denying being Jesus’ disciple when it is advantageous to do so. With no sense of irony, modern protestants proclaim faith, while their behavior is as though they have no knowledge of Jesus.
The expression: πύλαι ᾅδου (which does not require the article... is to be explained by the circumstance that because Hades is a place from which there is no possibility of getting out again... it is represented under the figure of a palace with strong gates…
In Myers theology, “there is no possibility of getting out” of Hades. One wonders if this statement is a subtle denial of Christianity, as all who are in Hades will be called forth at the Final Judgment.
Sometime Hades is a city with gates and, at other times, it is a palace with gates.
Sometime Hades is a city with gates and, at other times, it is a palace with gates.
οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς] [The] gates of Hades will not he able to resist [my church]... indicating… the great strength and stability of the edifice of the church, even when confronted with... Hades, the gates of which... will yet not prove to be stronger than the building of the church;... at the second coming,... the souls of the dead may come forth from the subterranean world to participate in the resurrection and the glory of the kingdom... when death (who takes away the souls of men to imprison them in Hades), the last enemy, has been destroyed…
While there is “no possibility of getting out” of Hades, meaning that it is impossible, Meyer declares that the dead will “come forth” to “participate in the resurrection”. Therefore, impossibility and possibility are synonymous.
Meyer [AD 1847-1929] also denies that any Christians are in Heaven, as they have yet to be released from Hell and to participate in the resurrection. This position takes into account the reasons for the future resurrection, the Final Judgment, and entrance into Heaven. However, current protestants that we know personally claim their deceased loved ones are in Heaven. It is obvious that the historical view that there are no Christians in Heaven until after the Resurrection has changed to the current version where all Christians go to Heaven at their death.
Of course, if protestants are in Heaven, then they have no need of a Second Coming, a resurrection, or a Last Judgment. It seems that evangelicals, while professing these doctrines with words, also deny them by other words. As Saint James writes, a dual minded man is unstable in all his ways [James 1:8].
Meyer [AD 1847-1929] also denies that any Christians are in Heaven, as they have yet to be released from Hell and to participate in the resurrection. This position takes into account the reasons for the future resurrection, the Final Judgment, and entrance into Heaven. However, current protestants that we know personally claim their deceased loved ones are in Heaven. It is obvious that the historical view that there are no Christians in Heaven until after the Resurrection has changed to the current version where all Christians go to Heaven at their death.
Of course, if protestants are in Heaven, then they have no need of a Second Coming, a resurrection, or a Last Judgment. It seems that evangelicals, while professing these doctrines with words, also deny them by other words. As Saint James writes, a dual minded man is unstable in all his ways [James 1:8].
So far the victory of the church over Hades is, of course, affirmed…
Of course, it is uncertain how Meyer can “state” this victory of the church over Hades “as a fact”.
This victory presupposes faith on the part of the καταχθονίοι (Php 2:10), and consequently the previous descensus Christi ad inferos [“the descent of Christ to Hell”, personal translation].
καταχθονίοι refers to those who dwell in the world below.
If we adopt the no less grammatical interpretation of: to overpower, to subdue..., a most incongruous idea emerges in reference to the gates, and that whether we understand the victory as one over the devil... or over death…; for the gates of Hades would thus be represented as the attacking side, which would hardly be appropriate, and we would have to suppose what, on the other hand, would be foreign to the sense, that all the monsters of hell would rush out through the opened gates…
The point of the comparison lies simply in the strength that distinguishes such solid gates as those of Hades, and not also in the Oriental use of the gates as a place of meeting for deliberation…, as though the hostile designs of hell were what was meant. Notwithstanding the progressive nature of the discourse and the immediate subject, Wetstein and Clericus refer αὐτῆς to Peter (ταύτῃ τ. πέτρᾳ), and suppose the meaning to be: “eum in discrimen vitae venturum, nec tamen eo absterritum iri,” [“He will come to the crisis of his life, and yet he will not be deterred by it.”; Google Translate] etc.
Notice, besides, the grandeur of the expression: “grandes res etiam grandia verba postulant,” [“Great things also require great words.”; Google Translate]...
[455] Among the later poets ἡ πέτρος is likewise to be met with.—The name Πέτρος is also to be found in Greek writers of a, later age..; more frequently in the form Πετραῖος…
[456] Comp. Luther’s gloss: “All Christians are Peters on account of the confession here made by Peter, which confession is the rock on which he and all Peters are built.” Melanchthon... understands it in the sense of the verum ministerium.
All the faithful are anointed and are Christs.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 16:18. κἀγὼ: emphatic, something very important about to be said to Peter and about him.--
πέτρος, τέτρᾳ... Both are appellatives to be translated “thou art a rock and on this rock,” the two being represented by the same word in Aramaean (כֵיפָא). Elsewhere in the Gospels Πέτρος is a proper name, and πέτρα only is used in the sense of rock...
What follows is in form a promise to Peter as reward of his faith. It is a case of extremes meeting. Christ did not fight to death against one form of spiritual despotism to put another... in its room. Personal in form, the sense of this famous logion can be expressed in abstract terms without reference to Peter’s personality. And that sense, if Christ really spoke the word, must be simple, elementary, suitable to the initial stage; withal religious and ethical rather than ecclesiastical.
The editor instills some doubt into the mind of the reader by writing “if Christ really spoke the word…”.
The more ecclesiastical we make it, the more we play into the hands of those who maintain that the passage is an interpolation. I find in it three ideas:
(1) The ἐκκλησύα is to consist of men confessing Jesus to be the Christ. This is the import of ἐπὶ τ. τ. π. οἰκοδομήσω μου τ. ἐκ. Peter... is the foundation, and the building is to be of a piece with the foundation. Observe the emphatic position of μου. The ἐκκλησία is Christ’s; confessing Him as Christ in Peter’s sense and spirit = being Christian.
(2) The new society is to be = the kingdom realised on earth.
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21
This is the import of Matthew 16:19, clause 1. The keys are the symbol of this identity. They are the keys of the gate without, not of the doors within. Peter is the gate-keeper, not the οἰκονόμος with a bunch of keys that open all doors in his hands...--
κλειδούχου ἔργον τὸ εἰσάγειν, Euthy. Observe it is not the keys of the church but of the kingdom. The meaning is: Peter-like faith in Jesus as the Christ admits into the Kingdom of Heaven. A society of men so believing = the kingdom realised.
[Behold], the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21
(3) In the new society the righteousness of the kingdom will find approximate embodiment. This is the import of Matthew 16:19, second clause. Binding and loosing, in Rabbinical dialect, meant forbidding and permitting to be done. The judgment of the new society as to conduct would be in accordance with the truth of things, therefore valid in heaven. That is what Jesus meant to say.
The commentator clarifies “what Jesus meant to say”, not what he said.
Note the perfect participles δεδεμένον, λελυμένον = shall be a thing bound or loosed once for all. The truth of all three statements is conditional on the Christ spirit continuing to rule in the new society. Only on that condition is the statement about the πύλαι ᾅδου, Matthew 16:18, clause 2, valid. What precisely the verbal meaning of the statement is—whether that the gates of Hades shall not prevail in conflict against it... or merely that the gates, etc., shall not be stronger than it, without thought of a conflict (Weiss), is of minor moment; the point is that it is not an absolute promise.
The editor states that it is possible that Hell may prevail against the church, as “it is not an absolute promise”, creating additional doubt in the mind of the diligent reader.
The ἐκκλησία will be strong, enduring, only so long as the faith in the Father and in Christ the Son, and the spirit of the Father and the Son, reign in it. When the Christ spirit is weak the Church will be weak, and neither creeds nor governments, nor keys, nor ecclesiastical dignities will be of much help to her.
The “Christ spirit” not explained and it is not certain how one is to determine if it is weak or strong. The editor speaks wholly of an earthy Church strong in faith and omits mentioning the heavenly Church.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
18. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church] There is a play on the words “Peter” and “rock” which is lost in the E. V. It may be seen in a French rendering, “Tu es Pierre et sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Eglise.”
On these words mainly rest the enormous pretensions of the Roman pontiff. It is therefore important
(1) To remember that it is to Peter with the great confession on his lips that the words are spoken. The Godhead of Christ is the keystone of the Church, and Peter is for the moment the representative of the belief in that truth among men.
If the Godhead of Christ is “the central principle or part of a policy, system, etc., on which all else depends” of the Church, then the protestant Bible is not necessary for the Church, as evidenced by the existence of the Roman and Orthodox churches before the creation of the protestant Bible.
(2) To take the words in reference:
(a) to other passages of Scripture. ... Ephesians 2:20... 2 Corinthians 3:11.
(b) To history; Peter is not an infallible repository of truth. He is rebuked by Paul for Judaizing. Nor does he hold a chief place among the Apostles afterwards. It is James, not Peter, who presides at the Council at Jerusalem.
(c) To reason: for even if Peter had precedence over the other Apostles, and if he was Bishop of Rome, which is not historically certain, there is no proof that he had a right of conferring such precedence on his successors.
In the list of Apostles in the protestant Bible, Peter is the first mentioned, that is, he had precedence over the other Apostles. What is reasonable and what is true in ecclesiastical history may not coincide.
The irony of asking for requesting proof in the context of either history or the Bible will not be addressed. For history, the most that can be asked is for reliable evidence of events, so that a reasonable chronology can be constructed.
When the Roman Church is not in schism, the Greek Church recognizes the primary of the Papacy, but not its claim to Supremacy. Church Councils mention this primacy among the five Patriarchal cities, of which Antioch is one. The See of Antioch claims descent from Saint Peter and, of course, the Bible mentions that the first Christians were in Antioch [Acts 11:26].
The irony of asking for requesting proof in the context of either history or the Bible will not be addressed. For history, the most that can be asked is for reliable evidence of events, so that a reasonable chronology can be constructed.
When the Roman Church is not in schism, the Greek Church recognizes the primary of the Papacy, but not its claim to Supremacy. Church Councils mention this primacy among the five Patriarchal cities, of which Antioch is one. The See of Antioch claims descent from Saint Peter and, of course, the Bible mentions that the first Christians were in Antioch [Acts 11:26].
my church] The word ecclesia (Church) occurs twice in Matthew and not elsewhere in the Gospels. [Ecclesia] in a Christian sense may be defined as the congregation of the faithful throughout the world…
The use of the word by Christ implied at least two things:
(1) that He was founding an organized society, not merely preaching a doctrine:
(2) That the Jewish ecclesia was the point of departure for the Christian ecclesia and in part its prototype. It is one among many links in this gospel between Jewish and Christian thought. The Greek word (ἐκκλησία) has passed into the language of the Latin nations... The derivation of the Teutonic Church is very doubtful.
Our research suggests that the word “church” [Old English, cir(i)ce] is possibly derived from the word “circle”, as many aspects of Greek churches were rings of stone, that is, round or circular, with domes.
the gates of hell] Lit. “the gates of Hades.” The Greek Hades is the same as the Hebrew Sheol, the abode of departed spirits, in which were two divisions Gehenna and Paradise. “The gates of Hades” are generally interpreted to mean the power of the unseen world, especially the power of death…shall not prevail against it] The gates of Hades prevail over all things human, but the Church shall never die.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 16:18. Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, thou art Peter) This corresponds... to the words, Thou art the Christ.[740]--
ΠΈΤΡΟς, ΠΈΤΡΑ, Peter—rock) πέτρος elsewhere signifies a stone; but in the case of Simon, a rock. It was not fitting that such a man should be called Πέτρα, with a feminine termination; on the other hand, St Matthew would gladly have written ἘΠῚ ΤΟΎΤῼ Τῷ ΠΈΤΡῼ, if the idiom would have allowed it; wherefore these two, ΠΈΤΡΑ and ΠΈΤΡΟς, stand for one name and thing, as both words are expressed in Syriac by the one noun, Kepha. Peter is here used as a proper name; for it is not said, Thou shalt be, but, Thou art; and yet the appellative is at the same time openly declared to denote a rock. The Church of Christ is certainly [741]… built on the apostles, inasmuch as they were the first believers, and the rest have been added through their labours; in which matter a certain especial prerogative was conspicuous in the case of Peter, without damage to the equality of apostolic authority...
What Bengal understands as “fitting” does not take into account the genders as assigned in the Greek language.
While the “Church of Christ is certainly built on” the Apostles, it must be equally certain that the church was not sustained for many centuries before the Reformation, nor is the church maintained, by their successors, the bishops.
While the “Church of Christ is certainly built on” the Apostles, it must be equally certain that the church was not sustained for many centuries before the Reformation, nor is the church maintained, by their successors, the bishops.
He moreover was especially commanded... to feed the sheep and lambs of the Lord. Nor can we imagine that this illustrious surname, elsewhere commonly attributed to Christ Himself... could without the most important meaning have been bestowed on Peter, who in the list of the apostles is… always put in the first place…
Saint Andrew is “The First Called”, as he, along with the unnamed disciple who authored the fourth Gospel, first followed Christ [John 1:40].
οἰκοδομήσω, I will build) He does not say, on this rock I WILL FOUND; for Peter, nevertheless, is not the foundation.
Μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, My Church) A magnificent expression concerning Jesus, not occurring elsewhere in the Gospels.--
πύλαι ᾅδου, the gates of hell) The word πύλαι (gates) occurs here without the article. Heaven is in the next verse put in opposition to τῷ ᾅδη, hell, which occurs here... The gates of hell (as elsewhere, the gates of death) are named also in Isaiah 38:10; Wis 16:13.
Hell, ᾅδης, is exceedingly strong… The defences of hell, and the fortifications of the world, corresponding to them, are here intended; as, for instance... Rome, where Erasmus Schmidt [AD 1570-1637] [745] thinks that the mouth of hell is...
A large quotation from Schmidt suggesting that the entrance to Hell is in Rome, which is oddly reminiscent of the Jewish belief that a gate of Hades is in Jerusalem, is omitted. This nonsensical excursion is reminiscent of the segues found in the alleged writings of the Church Fathers.
[740] Christ addresses His own, and Christ’s own address Him most becomingly throughout the whole of Scripture.—V. g.
[741] Ephesians 2:20.—E. B.
[742] And the same apostle, in this very passage, was superior to the rest of the disciples in the fact of his knowledge and his confession, seeing that it is probable that none of them would have answered at that time with so great alacrity as did Peter.—V. g.
[743] Whether Peter was for any time at Rome... is a matter full of doubt. Grant even that he was: he was so certainly in no other way save as an Apostle; and the Church planted there was blessed with its own ordinary ministers. It was, therefore, to the place of these latter, not to his place, that the Bishops of subsequent ages succeeded, who afterwards degenerated into Lords and Popes.—V. g.
[745] ERASMUS SCHMIDT was a learned Philologist, born in Misnia in 1560. He became eminent for his skill in Greek and in Mathematics, of both of which he was Professor at Wittenberg, where he died in 1637.—(I. B.)
“Even to heaven.”—ED.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 18. - And I say also (I also say) unto thee. As thou hast said unto me, "Thou art the Christ," so I say... Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church.
I[The] distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known- the former meaning "a rock," the latter "a piece of rock," or "a stone." But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia [“a pun”] here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha.
When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42). Upon this passage chiefly the claims of the Roman Church, which...[has been] the subject of acrimonious controversy, are founded. It is hence assumed that the Christian Church is founded upon Peter and his successors, and that these successors are the Bishops of Rome. The latter assertion may be left to the decision of history, which fails to prove that Peter was ever at Rome, or that he transmitted his supposed supremacy to the episcopate of that city.
One wonders if the protestants have misgivings about the Patriarch of Constantinople claiming to be the successor of Saint Andrew or the Patriarch of Alexander claiming to the successor of Saint Mark.
History “fails to prove that” any event happened.
French Romanists consider it a providential coincidence that they can translate the passage, "Je te disque, Tu es Pierre; et sur cette pierre je batirai," etc.; but persons outside the papal communion are not satisfied to hang their faith on a play of words.
Yet, those outside the “papal communion” are content to hang their faith on poor translations and questionable exegeses.
The apostolic Fathers seem to have mentioned the passage in none of their writings; and they could scarcely have failed to refer to it had they been aware of the tremendous issues dependent thereon. It was embodied in no Catholic Creed, and never made an article of the Christian faith. We may remark also that of the evangelists St. Matthew alone records the promise to Peter; Mark and Luke give his confession… and omit that which is considered to concern his privileges.
The commentator interprets the absence of claims to Peter’s authority by the apostolic Fathers as significant, yet, those who have studied the alleged writings of the Church Fathers are not surprised by this intentional omission.
The absence of explicit statements in any creed may suggest that it was accepted and, therefore, no controversies resulted. Creeds, such as the Nicene Creed, are the result of differences of opinion that are condemned by the church. Of course, the primacy, but not the supremacy, of the bishop of Rome was recognized by the historical church, as Rome was the capital of the Empire.
[In] their view, the chief aim of the passage was not Peter, but Christ; not Peter's preeminence, but Christ's nature and office. [To] deny all allusion to Peter in the "rock" is quite contrary to... the language and to New Testament usage, and would not have been so pressed in modern times except for polemical purposes. Three views have been held on the interpretation of this passage.
(1) That Christ himself is the Rock on which the Church should be built.
(2) That Peter's confession of Jesus Christ as Son of God, or God incarnate, is the Rock.
(3) That St. Peter is the rock.
(1) The first explanation is supported by passages where in Christ speaks of himself in the third person, e.g. "Destroy this temple;" "If any man eat of this bread; Whoso falleth on this stone," etc. Almighty God is continually called "a Rock" in the Old Testament… so that it might be deemed natural and intelligible for Christ to call himself "this Rock," in accordance, with the words of St. Paul... "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid (κεῖται), which is Jesus Christ." But then the reference to Peter becomes unmeaning: "Thou art Peter, and upon myself I will build my Church." [St. Augustine] writes, "It was not said to him, 'Thou art a rock (petra),' but, 'Thou art Peter,' and the Rock was Christ" ('Retract.,' 1:21). In saying, "Thou art Peter," Christ, if he made any gesture at all, would have touched or turned to that apostle. Immediately after this to have directed attention to himself would have been most unnatural and contradictory. We may safely surrender the interpretation which regards Christ himself as the Rock.
A contradiction is the result of a premise at variance with reality.
(2) The explanation which finds the rock in Peter's great confession has been widely adopted by commentators ancient and modern. [St. Chrysostom:] "Upon this rock, that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby he signifies that many were now on the point of believing... and makes him a shepherd." To the same purport might be quoted Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory Nyss., Cyril, and others.
We omit a large quote from Bishop Wordsworth.
[The] opinion that Christ means himself by "this rock" is untenable, so we consider that Peter's confession is equally debarred from being the foundation intended. Who does not see that the Church is to be built… [on] men inspired by God to teach the great truth? A confession implies a confessor; it was the person who made the confession that is meant, not the mere statement itself... [Elsewhere] the Church is said to have been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets…" James and Cephas who were reputed to be pillars"... In Revelation... the foundationstones... are "the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Hence we gather that the rock is a person.
(3) [We] come to the explanation of the difficulty which naturally is deduced from the language if considered without regard to prejudice or the pernicious use to which it has been put. Looking at the matter in a straightforward way, we come to the conclusion that Christ is wishing to reward Peter for his outspoken profession of faith; and his commendation is… intelligible to his hearers. "Thou hast said to me, 'Thou art the Son of God;' I say to thee, 'Thou art Peter,' a rock man, 'and on thee,' as a rock, 'I will build my Church.'
It is objected that, if Peter was a builder, he could not be the rock on which the building was raised. The expression... is metaphorical. [Christ] builds on Peter; Peter builds on Christ. There was no promise of present supremacy; there was no promise of the privilege being handed down to successors. The other apostles had no conception of any superiority being now conferred on Peter. It was not long after this that… James and John claimed the highest places in the heavenly kingdom; Paul resisted Peter to the face... [The] president of the first council was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem. It is plain that neither Peter himself nor his fellow apostles understood or acknowledged his supremacy; and that he transmitted, or was intended to transmit, such authority to successors, is... unknown to primitive Christianity, and which was gradually erected, to serve ambitious designs, on forged decretals and spurious writings.
One forged decree is the the Donation of Constantine which Constantine “gave” central Italy to the Papacy and Papal rule continued until AD 1870. We interpret “spurious writings” as the writings assigned by modern tradition to the Church Fathers.
It seems that “primitive Christianity” may be identical with the “gospel church”.
[No] one need be afraid of the obvious and straightforward interpretation of Christ's words, or suppose that papal claims are necessarily supported thereby. I will build my Church (μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν). My Church, not thine. The word translated "church" (ἐκκλησία), is found here for the first time in the New Testament. [In] classical Greek [ekklesia] denotes the regular legislative assembly of a people. Hence the word Ecclesia has been that which designated the Christian society, and has been handed down and recognized in all ages and in all countries. The gates of hell (ᾅδου) shall not prevail against it. Hades... is the region of the dead, a gloomy and desolate place, according to Jewish tradition, situated in the centre of the earth, a citadel with walls and gates, which admitted the souls of men… There are two ways of explaining these words, though they both come to much the same idea.
Not only is Christian society that is “handed down” by tradition, but is “recognized in all ages and in all countries” This tradition is the union of Church and State that, until modern times, was Orthodoxy in eastern Europe and Roman Catholicism in western Europe.
The gates of Hades represent the entrance thereto; and the Lord affirms that death shall have no power over the members of the Church... even if for a time they seem to succumb… The other interpretation is derived from the fact that in Oriental cities the gate is the scene of deliberation and counsel. Hence "the gates" here may represent the evil designs planned by the powers of hell to overthrow the Church… Hades being taken... as the realm of Satan. Neither malignant spirits nor their allies, such as... heresy, shall be able to wreck the eternal building which Christ was founding. [We] may say that Christ herein promises that neither the power of death nor the power of the devil shall prevail against it (κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς), shall overpower it… The pronoun refers doubtless to Church, not rock, the verb being more applicable to the former than the latter, and the pronoun being nearer in position to ἐκκλησίαν. To see here an assurance of the infallibility of the pope… is to force the words of Scripture... in order to support a modern figment…
Vincent's Word Studies
Thou art Peter (οὺ εἶ Πέτρος) Christ responds to Peter's emphatic thou with another, equally emphatic. Peter says, "Thou art the Christ." Christ replies, "Thou art Peter." Πέτρος (Peter) is used as a proper name, but without losing its meaning as a common noun. The name was bestowed on Simon at his first interview with Jesus (John 1:42) under the form of its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas. In this passage attention is called... to its meaning.
On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέρᾳ) The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above). The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself…
The reference of πέτρα to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent... the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here... as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation... but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. [Peter] calls Christ a living stone, and... addresses the church as living stones.
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers πέτρα to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it,... since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors- living men.
'Behold, I [God] have found a rock to build on it, and to found the world,' whence, also, Abraham is called a rock, as it is said' 'Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn.' [Later] Christian legend represented the apostle as sitting at the gate of heaven, [while] Jewish legend represents Abraham as sitting at the gate of Gehenna, so as to prevent all who had the seal of circumcision from falling into its abyss".
“Ne absobeat eis Tartarus. Ne cadant in obscurum.” Domine Jesus Christe, Requiem
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church, to the Jewish portion of which he was a foundation-stone.
Church (ἐκκλησίαν)ἐκ out, καλέω, to call or summon. This is the first occurrence of this word in the New Testament. In New Testament, of the congregation of Israel (Acts 7:38); but for this there is more commonly employed συναγωγή, of which synagogue is a transcription; σύν, together, ἄγω, to bring (Acts 13:43). In Christ's words to Peter the word ἐκκλησία acquires special emphasis from the opposition implied in it to the synagogue. The Christian community in the midst of Israel would be designated as ἐκκλησία, without being confounded with the συναγωγή, the Jewish community.
In the nascent religion, ekklesia was used to distinguish members from the Jews of the synagogue.
Nevertheless συναγωγή is applied to a Christian assembly in James 2:2, while ἐπισυναγωγή (gathering or assembling together) is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:1… Both in Hebrew and in New Testament usage ἐκκλησία implies more than a collective or national unity; rather a community based on a special religious idea and established in a special way.
Vincent presumes that James’ “Christian assembly” is sufficiently different from the synagogue. With regard to James’ emphasis on works and Paul’s teaching of faith in Christ, while writing that the Law is a curse, this presumption is not a certainty.
Gates of hell (πύλαι ᾅδου) Hades was originally the name of the god who presided over the realm of the dead- [later] Pluto or Dis [“The rich one”]. Hence the phrase, house of Hades. It is derived from ἀ, not, and ; ἰδεῖν, to see; and signifies… the invisible land, the realm of shadow. It is the place to which all who depart this life descend, without reference to their moral character.
By this word the Septuagint translated the Hebrew Sheol, which has a similar general meaning. The classical Hades embraced both good and bad men, though divided into Elysium, the abode of the virtuous, and Tartarus, the abode of the wicked. In these particulars it corresponds substantially with Sheol; both the godly and the wicked being represented as gathered into the latter. Hades and Sheol were alike conceived as a definite place, lower than the world. The passage of both good and bad into it was regarded as a descent. The Hebrew conception is that of a place of darkness; a cheerless home of a dull, joyless, shadowy life. Vagueness is its characteristic. The pagan poets gave the popular mind definite pictures of Tartarus and Elysium… and of black abysses where offenders underwent… tortures.
Vagueness characterizes from than the subject of Hades.
[To] the Pagan, Hades was the final home of its tenants, while Sheol was a temporary condition. Prophecy declared that the dead should arise... when Sheol itself should be destroyed and its inmates brought forth, some to everlasting life, and others to shame and contempt... God was the God of the dead as well as of the living; present in… Sheol as well as in heaven (Psalm 16:10; Psalm 139:8).
The opposite of “everlasting life” is not “shame and contempt”.
Libera me, Domine, de morte aeterna
this is not finished. could not format, but all info/commentary is complete
matthew 24:5 english
For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 24:5
The Gospel according to Saint Matthew 24:5
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(5) Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ.—Better, the Christ.
Since the definite article, ὁ, is present, ὁ Χριστός, the English translation of “the Christ” is the more accurate translation.
No direct fulfilments of this prediction are recorded, either in the New Testament, or by Josephus, or other historians.
We are uncertain as to the reasons that Ellicott states that there are no “direct fulfilments of this prediction are recorded”. With tens of thousands of protestant churches, any appeals to the New Testament, Josephus, or other historians are unnecessary, as it is a certainty that many people have been deceived by hearing the many opinions regarding Jesus “the Christ”.
The “many antichrists... of 1John 2:18, may point to such phenomena [“excited fanaticism” of the first century]; possibly, also, the prophecy of 2Thessalonians 2:4. Theudas ([named.by Josephus]), or “the Egyptian” of Acts 21:38, may possibly have mingled Messianic claims with their pretensions, but there is no evidence of it.
The “many antichrists... of 1John 2:18, may point to such phenomena [“excited fanaticism” of the first century]; possibly, also, the prophecy of 2Thessalonians 2:4. Theudas ([named.by Josephus]), or “the Egyptian” of Acts 21:38, may possibly have mingled Messianic claims with their pretensions, but there is no evidence of it.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
24:4-28 The prophecy first respects events near at hand, the destruction of Jerusalem... and the setting up of Christ's kingdom in the world; but it also looks to the general judgment… What Christ [said] tended more to promote caution... than to give a distinct idea of the events.
Our Saviour cautions his disciples to stand on their guard against false teachers.
Since the Apostles have been taught by the Redeemer himself and witnessed his Ascension, it is unlikely that they would accept “false teachers”, especially if they claimed to be the Christ. If these teachers were to teach doctrines that Christ did not mention, let alone expound, then the Apostles would know these prophets were, in fact, false teachers.
And he foretells wars and great commotions among nations. From the time that the Jews rejected Christ…, the sword never departed from them.
Henry expects the incredulous reader to believe that the Jews lived in peace from the giving of the Law until they “rejected Christ”.
When we looked forward to the eternity of misery that is before the obstinate refusers of Christ and his gospel…
With myriads of understandings of Christ and his Gospel, it likely that all but a handful of Christians are “obstinate refusers”.
Christ foretells the ruin coming upon the people of the Jews… [We] must take what God sends, yet we may pray against sufferings; and it is very trying to a good man, to be taken by any work of necessity from the solemn service and worship of God on the sabbath day.
If suffering is an aspect of God’s plan and one prays to God for him to either ease or remove the suffering, then the desire of the petitioner is against God’s plan.
From the context, we cannot discern if the “sabbath day” is Saturday, the Sabbath of Israel, or Sunday, the eighth day of the week. The first day of the week in the Russian language is “Resurrection Day”.
From the context, we cannot discern if the “sabbath day” is Saturday, the Sabbath of Israel, or Sunday, the eighth day of the week. The first day of the week in the Russian language is “Resurrection Day”.
[For] the elect's sake these days shall be made shorter than their enemies designed, who would have cut all off, if God, who used these foes to serve his own purpose… When a people, by their sin, make themselves as loathsome carcasses, nothing can be expected but that God should send enemies to destroy them. It is very applicable to the day of judgment, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in that day... Let us give diligence to make our calling and election sure; then may we know that no enemy or deceiver shall ever prevail against us.
Henry instills in the reader the fear of being destroyed by God.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Take heed...- Jesus, in reply to their question, first gives them a caution to beware of deception. They were to be constantly on their guard, because many would arise to deceive the people.
Many shall come in my name- Not in the name or by the authority of Jesus, or claiming to be His followers, and to be sent by him, but in the name of the Messiah, or claiming to be the Messiah.
Barnes writes that others will come “in the name or by the authority of Jesus” and deceive many. While a few individuals have, no doubt, claimed to be the Christ, Jesus states that “many”, πολλοὶ, will come and say Jesus is the Christ and deceive many.
I am Christ -I am the Messiah.
In simple English, “I am the anointed one.”
The Messiah was expected at that time... Many would… [claim] to being the Messiah, and, as He was universally expected, multitudes would easily be led to believe in them.
The Messiah was “universally expected” by the Jewish people because of their suffering under Roman ruler. Of course, the arrival of the Messiah is expected today by the Jews.
There is abundant evidence that this was fully accomplished. Josephus informs us that there were many who pretended to divine inspiration; who deceived the people, leading out numbers of them into the desert.
"The land," says He "was overrun with magicians, seducers, and impostors, who drew the people... to see the signs and miracles which they promised to show by the power of God."
[Dositheus] affirmed that He was Christ; Simon Magus, who said He appeared among the Jews as the Son of God; and Theudas, who persuaded many...
The names of 24 false Messiahs are recorded as having appeared between the time of the Emperor Adrian [Hadrian d. AD 138] and the year 1682.
The list of 24 false Messiahs could not be located.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
CHAPTER 24
Mt 24:1-51. Christ's Prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, and Warnings Suggested by It to Prepare for His Second Coming. the destruction of Jerusalem will reveal the identity of the son of man.
As Jesus predicted, Jerusalem was destroyed and, as Titus Vespasian was the Roman general, so the identity of the son of man has been revealed. While the identification of Titus with the son of man conflicts with long held opinions, it can be the only conclusion drawn from Jesus’ statements and the history of the war recorded by Josephus.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Mark hath the same, Mark 13:6 Luke saith, Luke 21:8, Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near: go ye not after them.
Poole understands the text that many will come and say they are Christ, not that many will be deceived by false teachers saying that “Jesus is the Christ”.
[While] the Jews were in expectation of a Messiah as a temporal prince or deliverer,... for every one who could get a party together... gave out himself to be the Christ. Of this number are said to have been Theudas, and Judas of Galilee... Amongst these some also reckon the Egyptian mentioned Acts 21:38, and Simon Magus, who gave out himself to be some great one, and the people accounted him the great power of God.
Pool notes that the people account Simon Magus as “the great power of God”. Of course, people account Jesus as the Christ, the only son of God. It is not clear how the people could have an incorrect conviction of Simon Magus, but a true opinion of Jesus.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For many shall come in my name... by his orders, or with delegated powers... from him; but should assume the name of the Messiah, which was peculiarly his,... and take upon them his office, and... saying, [“]I am Christ[“], and shall deceive many.
One wonders how “delegated powers” from Jesus might manifest.
Gill interprets the “many” coming in Jesus’ name as “many teachers” who arrive with powers and authority delegated from Christ, yet, confusingly, they also take the name of Christ.
Old Testament Kings were anointed, just as Jesus was anointed [Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50; John 12:1–8]. All are correctly described as Messiahs.
Gill understands this passage as the “many'' will claim the dignity that belongs to Jesus by saying they are the Christ and deceive many, not by saying that “Jesus is the Christ” and teaching falsehoods.
Gill interprets the “many” coming in Jesus’ name as “many teachers” who arrive with powers and authority delegated from Christ, yet, confusingly, they also take the name of Christ.
Old Testament Kings were anointed, just as Jesus was anointed [Matthew 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; Luke 7:36–50; John 12:1–8]. All are correctly described as Messiahs.
Gill understands this passage as the “many'' will claim the dignity that belongs to Jesus by saying they are the Christ and deceive many, not by saying that “Jesus is the Christ” and teaching falsehoods.
[There] was a general expectation among the Jews of a Messiah… of one that should arise and deliver them from the Roman yoke, which was the common idea tacked to that word...
We do not doubt at that time a common idea among the Jews was the Messiah would deliver them from Roman governance, just as in former times there was the expectation that the Messiah would free them from the Macedonians and the Babylonians.
Of this sort was Theudas... when Cuspius Fadus [in office, AD 44–46] was governor of Judea; who persuaded a great number to follow him to the river Jordan… [As] the historian [Josephus] observes (c), "he deceived many"...
Theudas deceives many by claiming to be able to manifest miracles, not by claiming to be the Christ, the anointed one.
[The] Egyptian, mentioned in Acts 21:38 who... persuaded thirty thousand men to follow him... but he being vanquished by Felix [procurator of Judea, AD 52–60]... and besides, there were many more magicians and impostors, that pretended to signs and wonders, and promised the people deliverance from their evils...
The Egyptian in the book of Acts does not claim to be the Christ, nor does he claim miraculous powers, as he is simply a political revolutionary. It must be noted that the Jews were so frustrated by the Roman occupation that they set aside their xenophobia and allowed an Egyptian to lead them.
The “signs and wonders” are designated by Gill as pretensions, although they could be real “signs and wonder”, as God will allow false teachers to have such authority to test Israel [Deuteronomy 13].
The “signs and wonders” are designated by Gill as pretensions, although they could be real “signs and wonder”, as God will allow false teachers to have such authority to test Israel [Deuteronomy 13].
There were others... who called themselves by the name of the Messiah. [We] may reckon Simon Magus, who gave out that he was some great one... that he was the word of God, and the Son of God (e), which were known names of the Messiah;
Simon Magus may have borrowed “known names” of the Messiah, yet there is no indication in Scripture that he claimed to be the Christ. The title of “son of God” was not limited to the Messiah, whether Jesus or the Kings of Israel, as all are sons of God [Psalm 82:6].
[Dositheus] the Samaritan, asserted himself to be Christ (f); and... no man could be saved, unless he was baptized in his name (g); these are instances before the destruction of Jerusalem, and confirm the prophecy here delivered.
Baptism was an aspect of John the Baptist's ministry, as John baptized, but Jesus did not baptize [John 4:2].
(c) Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 2.(
(d) Joseph. Antiq. l. 20. c. 6.
(e) Jerom in loc. Iren. adv. Haeres. l. 1. c. 20.
(f) Origen contr. Cels. l. 1. p. 44.
(g) Tertull. de prescript. Haeret. c. 46.
matthew 24:5 greek
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Expositor's Greek Testament
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 24:5. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἐλεύσονται, etc., the first omen the advent of pseudo-Messiahs. Ruin of Jerusalem and the nation will come through revolt against Rome, and the deepest cause of revolt will be the Messianic hope as popularly understood.
[Josephus] testifies that this [“Messianic fanaticism”] was the chief incentive to war against Rome... The aim of the popular Messianic hope was independence, and all leaders... came in the name of “Christs,” whether they formally assumed that name or not.
Jesus was the Christ, as the Gospel provide various accounts of his anointing [Matthew 26:6–13, Mark 14:3–9, Luke 7:36–50, John 12:1–8].
It is doubtful if any did before the destruction of Jerusalem, but that does not falsify Christ’s prediction... It is not a vaticinium ex eventu ["after the event"]; yet strictly true, if we understand by one coming in the name of Christ a leader of the fight for liberty...
πολλοὺς πλανήσουσιν. The political Christs… deceived the bulk of the people. Jesus wished His followers to hold entirely aloof from the movement. To warn them against sympathising with it was by no means superfluous (vide Luke 24:21, Acts 1:6).
In the Jewish worldview, there is no distinction between the political and the religious, so it could be stated that “the religious Christs deceived the bulk of the people”.
The commentator has the mind of Christ and knows that he wanted his disciples to be aloof from the movement to free Israel from its pagan oppressor.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Luke 22:38
The commentator has the mind of Christ and knows that he wanted his disciples to be aloof from the movement to free Israel from its pagan oppressor.
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34
And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
Luke 22:38
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
5. saying, I am Christ] Rather, the Christ, the Messiah.
The Cambridge Bible emphasizes the importance of the definite article, “the Christ”, “the Messiah”. In plain English, “the Christ” or “the Messiah” is “the anointed”.
The appearance of false Messiahs shall be the first sign. St John bears witness to the fulfilment of this sign: “Even now are there many antichrists, whereby we know that it is the last time,” 1 John 2:18.
False Messiahs and synonymous with “antichrists”.
From our perspective in the first decades of the second millennium, the “last time”, which may be identical to the “last days”, has consisted of many centuries.
From our perspective in the first decades of the second millennium, the “last time”, which may be identical to the “last days”, has consisted of many centuries.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 24:5. Πολλοὶ γὰρ, κ.τ.λ., for many, etc.) In the beginning will come false Christs; in the middle, false prophets, Matthew 24:11; in the end, both (22, 24).A twofold climax.[1031]--
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί Μου, in My name) They will not only say that they have been sent by Me, but that they are He who I am.--
λέγοντες, ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Χριστός, saying, I am Christ) Joachim Camerarius [AD 1500-1574] says, “Theophylact [AD 1050-1107] has recorded that… Dositheus… gave out that he was the prophet foretold by Moses; that Simon the Samaritan... called himself the Great Power of God, i.e. ἡ Δύναμις Μεγαλή:
Bengel claims that “The great Power of God” is identical to the Christ [ἡ Δύναμις Μεγαλή versus ὁ Χριστός].
[The] prediction seems also applicable to Theudas,[1032] and “the certain Egyptian,”[1033] and another pretender mentioned by Josephus… all claiming the character of prophet, though being in reality seditious impostors. And, in later times, Manes [AD 216–274] even dared to call himself Christ...
All “claiming the character of prophet, though being in reality” seditious wolves in sheep’s clothing.
The only character of a prophet is the claim that they are speaking in God’s name, which requires no evidence. Of course, Jesus’ crime was displayed in three language, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, so passersby would know that the Jews had a King in Herod and a rival claim would be punished by crucifixion.
The only character of a prophet is the claim that they are speaking in God’s name, which requires no evidence. Of course, Jesus’ crime was displayed in three language, Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, so passersby would know that the Jews had a King in Herod and a rival claim would be punished by crucifixion.
[1031] i.e. The presence of the two classes together will be a greater evil than that of either of them alone.—(I. B.)
[1032] See Acts 5:36.—(I. B.)
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 5. -Many shall come in my Name (ἐπί τῷ ὀνόματί μου), resting on my Name, grounding their pretensions thereon. Saying, I am Christ (the Christ).
Only a wretched idiot would accept the idea that one comes in the name of Christ and that this same teacher would claim to be the Christ, the person they are proclaiming. The more plausible scenario is that one comes in the name of Christ and deceives many by saying that “Jesus is the Christ” and attaches false teachings to Jesus.
They who really desired to follow Christ should be tried by the temptation to see in other persons the Messiah. The warning could scarcely have been needed by the apostles themselves; it must have been meant primarily for their converts and the early Christians.
Those wishing to follow Christ should be tempted to by identifying the traits of the Messiah in others.
It is not clear why the warning would be primarily for early Christianity.
It is not clear why the warning would be primarily for early Christianity.
[Though] we have no account in apostolic Church history of any such pretenders, yet in the age succeeding our Lord's death we read of many impostors who asserted themselves to be inspired prophets, if not the Messiah, and led astray many credulous persons... There were doubtless many false Messiahs... and critics have enumerated twenty-nine such.
The pretensions of these persons were not generally admitted, and their adherents were commonly few and uninfluential.
The “few and uninfluential” followers cannot be identical to the “many” deceived that Jesus predicts.
[The] warning may include such deceivers as Simon Magus and those many false teachers who… without assuming the name of Christ,… [undermined] the faith.
Simon Magus, the Father of All Heresies, is said to undermine the faith without assuming the name of Christ.
As Jesus predicted, many “false teachers”, who did not assume “the name of Christ”, yet they declare will Jesus as the Christ and will deceive many.
As Jesus predicted, many “false teachers”, who did not assume “the name of Christ”, yet they declare will Jesus as the Christ and will deceive many.
St. John speaks of there being "many antichrists" in his day (1 John 2:18), and St. Paul had occasion to warn his converts against "heretical seducers"…
The “heretical seducers” want to bring the faithful into submission to the Law and to worship angels [Colossians 2:18].
[This] prophecy has been fulfilled in the heretics who, professing to come in the Name of Christ and to enunciate his doctrine… [and] have taught lies. These shall abound in the latter days, and shall be a sign of the approaching end.
Vincent's Word Studies
In my name (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου) Lit., on my name, i.e., on the strength of; resting their claims on the name Messiah.
john 20:23 english
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them;
and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
The Gospel according to Saint John 20:23
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/20-23.htm
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(23) Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them...— Comp. for the “power of the keys,”… [This] power is here immediately connected with the representative character of the disciples as apostles sent by Christ, as He was Himself sent by the Father... and that its validity is dependent upon their reception of the Holy Ghost... by whom Christ Himself is present in them… [Men]... love darkness rather than light.
Ellicott explains why there are so many heresies: people prefer many beautiful lies than the terrible truth.
God has promised forgiveness wherever there is repentance; He has not promised repentance wherever there is sin.
Strong’s G3340 μετανοέω metanoéō, from G3326 and G3539; to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (morally, feel compunction):—repent. Translated as: repent (34). G3340 occurs once in the Pauline Epistles [2 Corinthians 12:21].
Strong’s G3338 μεταμέλλομαι metaméllomai, from G3326 and the middle voice of G3199; to care afterwards, i.e. regret:—repent (self).Translated as: repent (5), and repent (one's) self (1). G3338 occurs once in the Pauline Epistles [2 Corinthians 7:8]
Strong’s G3199 μέλω mélō, a primary verb; to be of interest to, i.e. to concern...:—(take) care. Translated as: care (9), and take care (1). G3199 occurs twice in the Pauline Epistles [1 Corinthians 7:21, 9:9]
We note that all usage of words that Saint Paul writes that can be understood as meaning “to reconsider” or “to think differently” are only found in the letters to the Corinthian church. We speculate that the Corinthians presented unique challenges that led Saint Paul to use the terminology of changing one’s mind.
It results from every declaration of forgiveness made in the name of the Father through Jesus Christ, that hearts which in penitence accept it receive remission of their sins, and that the hardness of the hearts which wilfully reject it is by their rejection increased, and the very words by which their sins would be remitted become the words by which they are retained.
On individual words in this verse it is important to note that in the better text the tense of that rendered “are remitted” is a strict present, while that rendered “are retained” is in the perfect-present. The difference is not easy to preserve in English, but the thought seems to be,
“Whose soever sins ye remit—a change in their condition is taking place—their sins are being remitted by God; whose soever ye retain—their condition remains unchanged—they have been, and are retained.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
20:19-25 This was the first day of the week, and this day... was evidently set apart as the Christian sabbath, in remembrance of Christ's resurrection. The disciples had shut the doors for fear of the Jews; and… Jesus himself came and stood in the midst of them, having miraculously… opened the doors.
Henry confirms Jesus was not a phantom, Docetism is a Gnostic heresy, as he physically open the doors, yet the Gospel does not mention Jesus opening the doors [John 20:19].
It is a comfort to Christ's disciples, when their assemblies can only be held in private, that no doors can shut out Christ's presence.
This is an excellent example of a poor exegesis. Of course, Christianity was originally a mystery religion, as only the faithful could attend services [“Holy things are for the holy.”], and this only changed in western Europe after the Reformation. Even today, catechumens in the Roman and Greek Churches are dismissed, as they are not worthy to partake of the mysteries.
When He manifests his love to believers by the comforts of his Spirit, he assures them that because he lives, they shall live also.
The Good News, which Henry hides in an endless exegesis, is that the Master’s faithful servants will live again and be with him forever. Whatever imperfections are in our humanity, the faithful will be judged by the Lord of the living and the dead, wherein our hope lies with Divine Mercy and the Divine Will. This Good News seems lost in discussions of creditors and debtors; misplaced in endless Biblical controversies, or forgotten in pointless pontificating on what is sin and it is not.
[Jesus] said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, thus showing that their spiritual life, as well as all their ability for their work, would be derived from him, and depended upon him. Every word of Christ which is received in the heart by faith, comes accompanied by this Divine breathing; and without this there is neither light nor life. Nothing is seen, known, discerned, or felt of God, but through this. [Christ] directed the apostles to declare the only method by which sin would be forgiven. This power did not exist at all in the apostles as a power to give judgment, but only as a power to declare the character of those whom God would accept or reject in the day of judgment.
We now know why protestants cling to conventional morality, all the while preaching that works cannot save- the possibility of God’s rejection of their character on the day of judgment.
They have clearly laid down the marks whereby a child of God may be discerned and be distinguished from a false professor; and according to what they have declared shall every case be decided in the day of judgment.
The disciples of Christ should endeavour to build up one another in their most holy faith, both by repeating what they have heard to those that were absent, and by making known what they have experienced.
Repeating second hand accounts and valuing subjective statements regarding personal experiences explains why modern Christianity is cannot be stable. As the stories and experiences change with the passage of time, so does the expression of their religion.
Thomas limited the Holy One of Israel, when he would be convinced by his own method or not at all.
Saint Thomas was convinced by the objective method of the using his God given senses- sight and touch.
Of course, protestants use their own subjective method to convince themselves who are and are not Christians.
He might justly have been left in his unbelief, after rejecting such abundant proofs.
Saint Thomas did not accept that a statement of the disciples was true; he was uncertain and he required evidence for such an extraordinary claim. Furthermore, Saint Thomas did not know that Jesus died, as death often took several days, and he was not at the crucifixion [John 19:25]. Saint Thomas only heard stories that Jesus had died and heard other stories that he was alive. Since crucifixion was a form of execution, for Saint Thomas to see Jesus’ wounds would indicate that Jesus was crucified, died, and was now alive. Without the physical evidence of wounds, it might be suggested by deniers that Jesus was not killed and the resurrection was a hoax.
It seems that “abundant proofs” consist of gossip, stories from the disciples, and accounts from unknown authors. As always, stories, whether from Adam, Luther, Scaliger, Calvin, or Knox, may or may not be true.
The fears and sorrows of the disciples are often lengthened, to punish their negligence.
Henry knows that fear and guilt are excellent motivators for individuals who exist irrationally.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Whose soever sins...-It is worthy of remark here that Jesus confers the same power on all the apostles. He gives to no one of them any special authority. If Peter... had been appointed to any special authority, it is wonderful that the Saviour did not here hint at any such pre-eminence.
The protestant Bible is full of wonders, among which are a questioning snake and a snarky donkey.
This passage conclusively proves that they were invested with equal power in organizing and governing the church.
Barnes states that the passage “in a decisive way” “has the effect of proving a case” and is “evidence or [an] argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.”
Inexplicably, Barnes interprets the authority of remitting sins as the governance the churches.
This authority given them was full proof that they were inspired.
The Apostles were inspired because authority was given to them and the Apostles are authoritative because they were inspired.
The meaning of the passage is not that man can forgive sins that belongs only to God… but that they should be inspired; that in founding the church, and in declaring the will of God, they should be taught by the Holy Spirit to declare on what terms, to what characters, and to what temper of mind God would extend forgiveness of sins.
We learn that the “inspired” man can declare the will of God, yet it seems that those who are least “filled with the urge to do something” are the most vocal proponents of knowing God’s will.
Once again, “characters”, or “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual”, are discussed with the forgiveness of sins.
It was not authority to forgive individuals, but to establish in all the churches the terms and conditions on which men might be pardoned, with a promise that God would confirm all that they taught; that all might have assurance of forgiveness who would comply with those terms; and that those who did not comply should not be forgiven, but that their sins should be retained. This commission is as far as possible from the authority which the Roman Catholic claims of remitting sin and of pronouncing pardon.
This explanation is “as far as possible from the” clear words of Christ that the Apostles have the authority to remit individual sins, the “authority to forgive individuals”. Nowhere in this statement does Jesus mention establishing churches with “terms and conditions”. Barnes make several serious attempts to obscure the clear words of Christ by directing the reader to governing churches and stating the will of God.
From the previous two paragraphs, we are certain that Barnes is well antiquated with the nonsensical exegeses and meandering ramblings of the alleged writings of the Church Father.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
23. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, &c.— In any literal and authoritative sense this power was never exercised by one of the apostles, and plainly was never understood by themselves as possessed by them or conveyed to them.
Although the protestant Bible is extensive, it does not record every Apostolic act so it is not surprising that this usage of power by the Apostles is not mentioned. To speculate what the Apostles, or any historical characters, understood about themselves by modern commentators, especially with specif agendas, is fraught with difficulties.
The power to intrude upon the relation between men and God cannot have been given by Christ to His ministers in any but a ministerial or declarative sense--as the authorized interpreters of His word, while in the actings of His ministers, the real nature of the power committed to them is seen in the exercise of church discipline.
The commentator states that Christ has no power to “intrude upon the relation between men and God”. This intrusion is due entirely to the protestant premise that each believer is his own priest and there is no need for another to remit their sins. If this premise is in conflict with Christ’s words, then it is of no concern to those who know that they are saved. We caution that there is neither “proof” nor strong evidence nor compelling arguments for this novel position.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Our Lord… speaks of the sins of persons… This text hath caused a great deal of contest. All remission of sins is either authoritative; so it is most true, that none can forgive sin but God; and if we had no Scripture to prove it, yet reason will tell us none can discharge the debtor but the creditor, to whom the debt is owing: or else ministerial; thus he who is not the creditor (amongst men) may remit a debt by virtue of a letter of attorney made to him, authorizing him so to do.
Because something is unreasonable does not mean that it is not factual. Why is an undefined term, sin, presented as a debt? Because, as Poole effortlessly changes the premise and notes that reason states there is no debtor without a creditor and, in this example, God is the ultimate creditor. Of course, it is not reasonable to suggest that an eternal spiritual being can feel upset, annoyed, or resentful by the actions of a finite material creature.
The question therefore amongst divines is, Whether Christ in this text hath given authority to his ministers actually to discharge men of the guilt of their sins; or only to declare unto them, that if their repentance and faith be true, their sins are really forgiven them? The former is by many contended for; but it doth not seem reasonable,
Christ did not give authority to remit sin to “his ministers”, generally, but to the Apostles, specifically. We note the term “discharge”, or “the cancellation of a debt”, which is used between creditors and debtors.
Something can be unreasonable and be true, as not all things can conform to human expectations, human experiences, and human reason.
1. That God should entrust men with such a piece of his prerogative.
Poole would know that in the Old Testament there are sacrifices for sin and guilt and even if these are not considered as remitting sins, then the sacrifice on the Day of Atonement must be admitted as God’s delegation of remitting the sins of Israel to a man, the High Priest.. Therefore, it is no great feat if the ability to remit sins were no longer limited to the sons of Levi.
God’s prerogatives, or his “exclusive rights or privileges” are known to Poole. Since Jesus is said to be God, then the meaning of the text is clear: Jesus has delegated this authority to the Apostles and this seems reasonable, as the Good News will not be confined to the people of Israel and the Temple at Jerusalem, but will be taught to the Gentiles. The only valid controversy should be whether or not the Apostles could delegate this authority to others, that is, to bishops, as successors to the Apostles, and to priests.
2. That God… should give unto any of the sons of men an absolute power under him, and in his name, to discharge any from the guilt of sin; for certain it is, that without true repentance and faith in Christ no man hath his sins forgiven; so as no minister, that knoweth not the hearts of men, can possibly speak with any certainty to any man, saying, his sins are forgiven.
By true repentance, or by honestly and intentionally changing one’s mind, the guilt of sin of mixing meat and dairy, such as eating cheeseburgers, can be of no further concern.
We do not appreciate the subtle difference between, firstly, Poole denying the possibility that God would not give men the power to remit sins and, secondly, protestants claiming to offer eternal salvation to the souls of men who truly believe a protestant message that sins can be forgiven.
Because a statement is difficult, or is unreasonable, or is contrary to one’s cherished opinions, does not necessarily indicate that said statement is false.
What knowledge the apostles might have by the Spirit of discerning, we cannot say. But certain it is, none hath any such certainty of knowledge now of the truth of any man, declaring his faith and true repentance; from whence it is to me apparent, that no man hath any further power from Christ, than to declare to them, that if indeed they truly believe and repent, their sins are really forgiven. Only the minister, being Christ’s interpreter and ambassador, and better able to judge of true faith and [true] repentance than others, (though not certainly and infallibly)...
We note the insistence upon “certainty of knowledge”, “truth” and “true” in this section. While these words can be successfully applied to the material world, their attempted application to the spiritual real, of which nothing is known, is incongruous
We cannot discern a distinction between, firstly, denying that faith that is needed to believe that a priest can certainly remit one’s sin and, secondly, believing that a book is inerrant.
The reader encounters “repentance”, “faith”, “true repentance”, and “true faith” and may wonder what constitutes “false repentance” and “false faith”.
...such declarations from a faithful, able minister, are of more weight and authority than from others.
Contrary to the clear teaching of Saint James, Poole is a respecter of persons, assigning more authority to declarations from a minister than from others, and he is, therefore, a sinner [James 2:9].
And this is the most I can conceive should be in this matter; and that if by those words any further power be granted to the apostles, it was by reason of that power of discerning of spirits, 1 Corinthians 12:10, which ordinary ministers since the apostles’ times, or in latter ages, cannot with any modesty pretend unto.
According to Poole, Christ’s authority, his divine prerogative, to remit sins could not be delegated to the Apostles. If it is true that this ability was not, and cannot be, transmitted during the earthly church’s existence until Christ comes again, one wonders the reason or reasons this difficult and controversial passage was included in the protestant Bible.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Whose soever sins ye remit...God only can forgive sins, and Christ being God, has a power to do so likewise; but he never communicated any such power to his apostles...
It is evident from Gill’s comments that he has not read the text. Christ clearly gives the authority to remit sins to the Apostles, while Gill discusses forgiving sins.
The word “remit” is found once in the King James Bible version. However, the Greek word aphiēmi is found on 146 occasions in the New Testament. The King James Bible version translates the verb aphiēmi [Strong's G863] as: leave (52), forgive (47), suffer (14), let (8), forsake (6), let alone (6), and miscellaneous (13).
The King James Bible version translates the 17 occurrences of the feminine noun aphesis [Strong's G859] as: remission (9), forgiveness (6), deliverance (1), and liberty (1). Strong’s G859 is derived from Strong’s G863.
As “leave” and “forgive” are nearly equally used when translating G863, the “remitting of sins” can seemingly be translated as either the “forgiving of sins” or the “leaving of sins”.
The word “forgive” is found on 56 occasions in the King James Bible version. All New Testament usage: Matthew, 9; Mark, 6; Luke, 8; 2 Corinthians, 3: 1 John, 1. Total: 27
The King James Bible version translates the 23 occurrences of the verb charizomai [Strong's G5483] as: forgive (11), give (6), freely give (2), deliver (2), grant (1), and frankly forgive (1).
...nor did they ever assume any such power to themselves, or pretend to exercise it;
It is evident that there is no record in the protestant Bible that the Apostles used or exercised the power of remitting sins.
it is the mark of antichrist, to attempt anything of the kind;
From these statements, the conclusion is that both the Roman Church and the Orthodox Church possess the “mark of the antichrist”.
who, in so doing, usurps the divine prerogative, places himself in his seat, and shows himself as if he was God...
Gill has the mind of Christ and knows what is and is not “divine prerogative”. Gills conflates the “forgiveness of sins” with “remitting sins”. Forgiving sins might be a divine prerogative, but the remission of sins, the authority granted to the Apostles, is another matter.
There are ten occurrences of the word “remission” in the King James Bible version and all are located in the New Testament. Matthew, 1; Mark, 1; Luke, 3; Acts, 2; Romans, 1; Hebrews, 2.
The King James Bible version translates the single occurrence of the feminine noun paresis [Strong's G3929] as: remission (1) [Romans 3:25]. Strong’s G3920 is derived from Strong’s G2935.
The King James Bible version translates the only occurrence of the masculine noun ktētōr [Strong's G2935] as: possessor (1). Strong’s G2935 is derived from Strong’s G2932.
The King James Bible version translates the verb ktaomai [Strong's G2932] as: possess (3), purchase (2), provide (1), and obtain (1). Strong’s G2932 is a primary verb.
Strong’s G2932 and G2935 have the sense of “having” or “possessing” and so G3929 has the sense “not having” or “being sent away”.
[But] this is to be understood only in a doctrinal, or ministerial way, by preaching the full and free remission of sins... to such as repent of their sins, and believe in Christ; declaring, that all such persons as do so repent and believe, all their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake… On the other hand he signifies, that whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained: that is, that whatsoever sins ye declare are not forgiven, they are not forgiven; which is the case of all final unbelievers, and impenitent sinners; who dying without repentance towards God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, according to the Gospel declaration, shall be damned... for God stands by, and will stand by and confirm the Gospel of his Son, faithfully preached by his ministering servants; and all the world will sooner or later be convinced of the validity, truth, and certainty, of the declarations on each of these heads, made by them.
While Gill denies that the Apostles can remit sins, he agrees that the Apostles can declare sins that are not forgiven, in effect, the Apostles can state the obvious, that sinners sin, and nothing changes, as the sins remain. The sinner Gill respects faithful preaching by ministering servants.
john 10:23 greek
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
John 20:23. The peculiar authority of the apostolical office... was therefore an individual and specific charismatic endowment, the bestowal of which the Lord knew must be still connected with His personal presence, and was not to be deferred until after His ascension, [268] namely, that of the valid remission of sins, and of the opposite, that of the moral disciplinary authority, consisting not merely in the authorization to receive into the Church and to expel therefrom, [269] but also in the authorization of pardoning or of inflicting penal discipline on their fellow-members.
The apostles exercised both authorizations, and it is without reason to understand only the former, since both essentially belonged to the mission (πέμπω, John 20:21) of the apostles. The promise (Matthew 16:19; 18:18) is similar, but not equivalent. The apostolic power of the keys in the sense of the Church is contained directly in the present passage... It had its regulator in the Holy Spirit, who separated its exercise from all human arbitrariness, so that the apostles were therein organs of the Spirit. That was the divine guarantee, as the consecration of moral certainty through the illumination and sanctification of the judgment in the performance of its acts.
When we read Meyer’s wording of “the divine guarantee”, we recall Barnes’ “terms and conditions”. The reader can be forgiven for seeing in these phrases the outlandish promises and the legal caveats of used car salesmen.
On ἄν. instead of ἐάν, see Hermann…
ἀφίενται] They are remitted, that is, by God. This presumption that God remits sins is reasonable, but whether it is a clear Biblical teaching is not clear.
κρατῆτε] He abides by the figure; opposite of loosing: hold fast…
κεκράτ] They are held fast, by God. Here the perf.; for the κρατεῖν is on the part of God no commencing act (such is the ἀφιέναι).
Once again God is brought into the explanation, although God is not present in the text.
That to Thomas, who was at that time absent (John 20:24), the same full authority under the impartation of the Spirit was further particularly and supplementarily (after John 20:29) bestowed, is... not related, but must be assumed, in accordance with the relation of the necessity contained in the equality of his position.
The objections of Luthardt [AD 1823–1902] against our interpretation of this verse are unimportant, since in reality the eleven are thought of as assembled together...
With the death of Judas Iscariot and the assembly of the eleven Apostles, but as Thomas is absent, it is a mathematical certainty that there are more than twelve Apostles, at least where the fourth Gospel is concerned. Of course, there is no Apostolic list in this Gospel.
...and since the assertion, that all charismatic endowments first date from Pentecost onwards... is overthrown precisely by the present passage... Calovius [AD 1612-1686] well says: “ut antea jam acceperant Spiritum ratione sanctificationis, ita nunc accipiunt ratione ministerii evangelici.” The full outpouring with its miraculous gifts, but on behalf of the collective church, then follows Pentecost.
[268] Hence the objection: “they required at present no such impartation” (Hofmann), is precipitate. They made use of it first at a future time, but the bestowal was still to take place face to face, in this last sacred fellowship, in which a quite peculiar distinction and consecration was given for this gift.
[269] This in answer to De Wette and several others... who explains it of the reception or non-reception to baptism, and to the forgiveness of sins therewith connected. But baptism is here, without any indication of the text, imported from the institution, which is non-relevant here, in Matthew 28:18 ff. On the apostolic penal discipline, in virtue of the κρατεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, on church members, comp. the apostolic handing over to Satan...
Expositor's Greek Testament
John 20:23. The authorisation of the Apostles is completed in the words: ἄν τινων… κεκράτηνται. “Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven to them: whosesoever ye retain, they are retained.” The meaning of κεκράτηνται is determined by the opposed ἀφέωνται [the better reading]. Yet if they were to represent Him, they must be empowered to continue a function which He constantly exercised and set in the forefront of His ministry. They must be able in His name to pronounce forgiveness, and to threaten doom.
It not evident why a function of divine prerogative by Jesus must be “exercised”. The resurrection can be considered a divine prerogative that occurred only once, but few would argue that the teaching of his betray, death, and resurrection was not at the forefront of his ministry.
No comment is necessary on the modus operandi of threatening “doom”.
This indeed formed the main substance of their ministry, and it was by receiving His Spirit they were fitted for it. The burden was laid upon them of determining who should be forgiven, and who held by their sin.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
23. Whose soever sins, &c.] This power accompanies the gift of the Spirit just conferred. It must be noticed (1) that it is given to the whole company present; not to the Apostles alone. Of the Apostles one was absent, and there were others who were not Apostles present: no hint is given that this power is confined to the Ten. The commission therefore in the first instance is to the Christian community as a whole, not to the Ministry alone.
As the Cambridge Bible states “there were others who were not Apostles present”, this commentary makes a distinction between the disciples, the “community as a whole”, and the Apostles, the “Ministry”. We acknowledge a difference between being a disciple and being an Apostle, or those sent out to share the Gospel. However, interpreters of the Bible, as a whole, makes no such distinction, using the words interchangeably.
Whoever receives the commission depends upon the reader’s interpretation of disciple and Apostle, whether a dozen men or an entire community.
It follows from this (2) that the power being conferred on the community and never revoked, the power continues so long as the community continues. While the Christian Church lasts[,] it has the power of remitting and retaining along with the power of spiritual discernment which is part of the gift of the Spirit. [The Christian Church] has the power to declare the conditions on which forgiveness is granted and the fact that it has or has not been granted.
It should be noted (3) that the expression throughout is plural on both sides. As it is the community rather than individuals that is invested with the power, so it is classes of men rather than individuals on whom it is exercised. God deals with mankind not in the mass but with personal love and knowledge... His Church in fulfilling its mission from Him, while keeping this ideal in view, is compelled for the most part to minister to men in groups and classes. The plural here seems to indicate not what must always or ought to be the case, but what generally is.
are remitted … are retained] Both verbs are perfects, though there is some doubt about the reading as regards the former. The force of the perfect is—‘are ipso facto remitted’—‘are ipso facto retained.’ When the community under the guidance of the Spirit has spoken, the result is complete.
retain] i.e. ‘hold fast,’ so that they do not depart from the sinner. The word occurs here only in this Gospel.
Bengel's Gnomen
John 20:23.
Ἄν τινων) if of certain persons [“Whosesoever”].
ἀφῆτε· κρατῆτε, ye remit—ye retain) See note on Matthew 16:19, “The binding and loosing,” and “the keys,” are given to Peter alone. [Comp. Matthew 18:18, ‘Loose,’ and ‘bind,’ where subsequently, after the transfiguration, (1) the binding and (2) loosing are given also to the disciples in common; the loosing to be exercised chiefly by prayer in the name of Christ (John 20). Now, after the resurrection, the order is reversed since the gate of salvation is opened, and the power is given (1) to remit, (2) to retain.
The power of binding and loosing is given to the disciples.
ἀφίενται--κεκράτηνται, are remitted—have been retained) The former is present: the latter, preterite [“expressing a past action or state”-GDO] [a distinction lost in the Engl. Vers.] The world IS under sin... “He that believeth not is condemned already:” “The wrath of God abideth on him;” John 15:6, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth—and withered [viz. already, ἐβλήθη, ἐξηράνθη; not merely, he shall be]. No prophet of the Old Testament ever received so comprehensive a power as the apostles received in this place.
We wonder if the comprehensive power received by the Apostles continues to this day.
[The] word of the Gospel can be available for the remission of sins to those who yield themselves up to the influence of the Holy Spirit, even though it be not applied by the mediation of ministers: Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned;” and Luke 24:47....
The fate of those who were baptized, but either do not believe or never believed is not indicated.
[399] Which therefore is not to be interpreted of sacerdotal absolution and penance.--
E. and T.
John 20:23
Vincent's Word Studies
Remit (ἀφῆτε) Only here in this Gospel in connection with sins. Often in the Synoptists (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 9:5; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:23, etc.).
Meyer's NT Commentary
John 20:23. The peculiar authority of the apostolical office... was therefore an individual and specific charismatic endowment, the bestowal of which the Lord knew must be still connected with His personal presence, and was not to be deferred until after His ascension, [268] namely, that of the valid remission of sins, and of the opposite, that of the moral disciplinary authority, consisting not merely in the authorization to receive into the Church and to expel therefrom, [269] but also in the authorization of pardoning or of inflicting penal discipline on their fellow-members.
The apostles exercised both authorizations, and it is without reason to understand only the former, since both essentially belonged to the mission (πέμπω, John 20:21) of the apostles. The promise (Matthew 16:19; 18:18) is similar, but not equivalent. The apostolic power of the keys in the sense of the Church is contained directly in the present passage... It had its regulator in the Holy Spirit, who separated its exercise from all human arbitrariness, so that the apostles were therein organs of the Spirit. That was the divine guarantee, as the consecration of moral certainty through the illumination and sanctification of the judgment in the performance of its acts.
When we read Meyer’s wording of “the divine guarantee”, we recall Barnes’ “terms and conditions”. The reader can be forgiven for seeing in these phrases the outlandish promises and the legal caveats of used car salesmen.
On ἄν. instead of ἐάν, see Hermann…
ἀφίενται] They are remitted, that is, by God. This presumption that God remits sins is reasonable, but whether it is a clear Biblical teaching is not clear.
κρατῆτε] He abides by the figure; opposite of loosing: hold fast…
κεκράτ] They are held fast, by God. Here the perf.; for the κρατεῖν is on the part of God no commencing act (such is the ἀφιέναι).
Once again God is brought into the explanation, although God is not present in the text.
That to Thomas, who was at that time absent (John 20:24), the same full authority under the impartation of the Spirit was further particularly and supplementarily (after John 20:29) bestowed, is... not related, but must be assumed, in accordance with the relation of the necessity contained in the equality of his position.
The objections of Luthardt [AD 1823–1902] against our interpretation of this verse are unimportant, since in reality the eleven are thought of as assembled together...
With the death of Judas Iscariot and the assembly of the eleven Apostles, but as Thomas is absent, it is a mathematical certainty that there are more than twelve Apostles, at least where the fourth Gospel is concerned. Of course, there is no Apostolic list in this Gospel.
...and since the assertion, that all charismatic endowments first date from Pentecost onwards... is overthrown precisely by the present passage... Calovius [AD 1612-1686] well says: “ut antea jam acceperant Spiritum ratione sanctificationis, ita nunc accipiunt ratione ministerii evangelici.” The full outpouring with its miraculous gifts, but on behalf of the collective church, then follows Pentecost.
[268] Hence the objection: “they required at present no such impartation” (Hofmann), is precipitate. They made use of it first at a future time, but the bestowal was still to take place face to face, in this last sacred fellowship, in which a quite peculiar distinction and consecration was given for this gift.
[269] This in answer to De Wette and several others... who explains it of the reception or non-reception to baptism, and to the forgiveness of sins therewith connected. But baptism is here, without any indication of the text, imported from the institution, which is non-relevant here, in Matthew 28:18 ff. On the apostolic penal discipline, in virtue of the κρατεῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας, on church members, comp. the apostolic handing over to Satan...
Expositor's Greek Testament
John 20:23. The authorisation of the Apostles is completed in the words: ἄν τινων… κεκράτηνται. “Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven to them: whosesoever ye retain, they are retained.” The meaning of κεκράτηνται is determined by the opposed ἀφέωνται [the better reading]. Yet if they were to represent Him, they must be empowered to continue a function which He constantly exercised and set in the forefront of His ministry. They must be able in His name to pronounce forgiveness, and to threaten doom.
It not evident why a function of divine prerogative by Jesus must be “exercised”. The resurrection can be considered a divine prerogative that occurred only once, but few would argue that the teaching of his betray, death, and resurrection was not at the forefront of his ministry.
No comment is necessary on the modus operandi of threatening “doom”.
This indeed formed the main substance of their ministry, and it was by receiving His Spirit they were fitted for it. The burden was laid upon them of determining who should be forgiven, and who held by their sin.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
23. Whose soever sins, &c.] This power accompanies the gift of the Spirit just conferred. It must be noticed (1) that it is given to the whole company present; not to the Apostles alone. Of the Apostles one was absent, and there were others who were not Apostles present: no hint is given that this power is confined to the Ten. The commission therefore in the first instance is to the Christian community as a whole, not to the Ministry alone.
As the Cambridge Bible states “there were others who were not Apostles present”, this commentary makes a distinction between the disciples, the “community as a whole”, and the Apostles, the “Ministry”. We acknowledge a difference between being a disciple and being an Apostle, or those sent out to share the Gospel. However, interpreters of the Bible, as a whole, makes no such distinction, using the words interchangeably.
Whoever receives the commission depends upon the reader’s interpretation of disciple and Apostle, whether a dozen men or an entire community.
It follows from this (2) that the power being conferred on the community and never revoked, the power continues so long as the community continues. While the Christian Church lasts[,] it has the power of remitting and retaining along with the power of spiritual discernment which is part of the gift of the Spirit. [The Christian Church] has the power to declare the conditions on which forgiveness is granted and the fact that it has or has not been granted.
It should be noted (3) that the expression throughout is plural on both sides. As it is the community rather than individuals that is invested with the power, so it is classes of men rather than individuals on whom it is exercised. God deals with mankind not in the mass but with personal love and knowledge... His Church in fulfilling its mission from Him, while keeping this ideal in view, is compelled for the most part to minister to men in groups and classes. The plural here seems to indicate not what must always or ought to be the case, but what generally is.
are remitted … are retained] Both verbs are perfects, though there is some doubt about the reading as regards the former. The force of the perfect is—‘are ipso facto remitted’—‘are ipso facto retained.’ When the community under the guidance of the Spirit has spoken, the result is complete.
retain] i.e. ‘hold fast,’ so that they do not depart from the sinner. The word occurs here only in this Gospel.
Bengel's Gnomen
John 20:23.
Ἄν τινων) if of certain persons [“Whosesoever”].
ἀφῆτε· κρατῆτε, ye remit—ye retain) See note on Matthew 16:19, “The binding and loosing,” and “the keys,” are given to Peter alone. [Comp. Matthew 18:18, ‘Loose,’ and ‘bind,’ where subsequently, after the transfiguration, (1) the binding and (2) loosing are given also to the disciples in common; the loosing to be exercised chiefly by prayer in the name of Christ (John 20). Now, after the resurrection, the order is reversed since the gate of salvation is opened, and the power is given (1) to remit, (2) to retain.
The power of binding and loosing is given to the disciples.
ἀφίενται--κεκράτηνται, are remitted—have been retained) The former is present: the latter, preterite [“expressing a past action or state”-GDO] [a distinction lost in the Engl. Vers.] The world IS under sin... “He that believeth not is condemned already:” “The wrath of God abideth on him;” John 15:6, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth—and withered [viz. already, ἐβλήθη, ἐξηράνθη; not merely, he shall be]. No prophet of the Old Testament ever received so comprehensive a power as the apostles received in this place.
We wonder if the comprehensive power received by the Apostles continues to this day.
[The] word of the Gospel can be available for the remission of sins to those who yield themselves up to the influence of the Holy Spirit, even though it be not applied by the mediation of ministers: Mark 16:16, “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned;” and Luke 24:47....
The fate of those who were baptized, but either do not believe or never believed is not indicated.
[399] Which therefore is not to be interpreted of sacerdotal absolution and penance.--
E. and T.
John 20:23
Vincent's Word Studies
Remit (ἀφῆτε) Only here in this Gospel in connection with sins. Often in the Synoptists (Matthew 6:12; Matthew 9:5; Mark 2:5; Luke 5:23, etc.).
1 corinthians 10:29 english
1 corinthians 10:29 greek
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Second Epistle to the Corinthians 4:4
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(4) In whom the god of this world...— The word sounds somewhat startling as a description of the devil, but it has parallels in “the prince of this world” (John 14:30), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). The world which “lieth in wickedness,” perhaps in the evil one (1John 5:19), worships the spirit of hate and falsehood and selfishness, and in so doing it practically deifies the devil.
One wonders if “practically” deifying “the devil” is equivalent of assign him the status of being the “second God”.
And the work of that god of this world is directly in antagonism to that of God. He seeks to lead men back from light to darkness. “He blinded” (the Greek tense indicates an act in past time without necessarily including the idea of its continuance in the present) “the minds of the unbelievers.” The noun is probably used, as in 1Corinthians 6:6; 7:12-15; 10:27; 14:22-24, with a special reference to the outside heathen world. Their spiritual state was, St. Paul seems to say, lower than that of Israel.
While the devil leads men to darkness, Lucifer brings them to the light. If nothing else, the agents in the other world have job security.
The veil was over the heart of the one; the very organs of spiritual perception were blinded in the other.
Lest the light of the glorious gospel.—Better to the end that the radiance (or, light-giving power) of the gospel of the glory of God... The words describe not merely a purpose, but a result. The word for “light” here... [is] a secondary form, derived from the verb “to give light” or “illumine.” The English version “glorious,”... lacks the vigour and emphasis of the original, which expresses the thought that the gospel is not only glorious itself, but shares in the glory of Christ... But even that gospel may fail of its purpose. The blind cannot see even the brightness of the noon-day sun. The eye of the soul has to receive sight first. So, in the mission to the Gentiles given to the Apostle [Saint Paul] on his conversion, his first work was “to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light”…
And he [Jesus] said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luke 18:10
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth,,, believe it not. Matthew 24:26
And as he [Saul] journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: Acts 9:3
[As] I [Paul] made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. Acts 22:7
At midday, O king, I [Paul] saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me… Acts 26:13
Christ, who is the image of God.--The Greek word is used in the LXX. of Genesis 1:26 for the image of God, after which man was created. So in 1Corinthians 11:7 man is spoken of as “the image and glory of God.” In Hebrews 10:1 it stands as intermediate between the object and the shadow, far plainer than the latter, yet not identical with the former, however adequately representing it.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God... 1 Corinthians 11:7
Should shine unto them.—Literally, should irradiate, or, cast its beams upon them.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
4:1-7 The apostles had no base and wicked designs, covered with fair and specious pretences.
Henry offers his opinions on the motives of the Apostles, which seems odd to mention, yet there were reports, as recorded in the protestant Bible, that some of early believers said “Let us do evil, that good may come.” [Romans 3:8]
They did not try to make their ministry serve a turn. But the design of the devil is, to keep men in ignorance; and when he cannot keep the light of the gospel of Christ out of the world, he spares no pains to keep men from the gospel, or to set them against it. The rejection of the gospel is here traced to the wilful blindness and wickedness of the human heart. God could have sent angels to make known... the gospel, or could have sent the most admired sons of men to teach the nations, but he chose humbler, weaker vessels, that his power might be more glorified in upholding them, and in the blessed change wrought by their ministry.
As we mentioned, the devil keeps men in ignorance, while Lucifer brings them light or knowledge.
We realize that people dismiss or refuse of the proposal of the Gospel, yet we cannot assign the reason to either willful blindness nor wickedness, regardless of the thoughtfulness of these conclusions.
xxxx
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
In whom- In respect to whom; among whom; or in whose hearts. The design of this verse is to account for the fact that the glory of the gospel was not seen by them. It is to be traced entirely to the agency of him whom Paul here calls "the god of this world."
The god of this world- There can be no doubt that Satan is here designated by this appellation; though some of the fathers supposed that it means the true God…
While Barnes does not doubt that Satan is designated, Saint Paul did not write “Satan”, but the ambiguous wording of “the god of this world”, which, as Saint Paul would be aware, is open to interpretation.
In John 12:31, he [Satan] is called "the prince of this world."
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31
Jesus did not say “Satan”, but used the vague expression “the prince of this world”.
In Ephesians 2:2, he is called "the prince of the power of the air."
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, Ephesians 2:2
Saint Paul did not write “Satan” or “the god of this world”, but “the prince of the power of the air”. By his commentary, Barnes indicates the following relationships:
“Satan” = “the god of this world” =
“the prince of this world” = “the prince of the power of the air”
And in Ephesians 6:12, the same bad influence is referred to under the names of "principalities, and powers," "the rulers of the darkness of this world," and "spiritual wickedness in high places."
Therefore:
“Satan” = “the god of this world” = “the prince of this world” =
“the prince of the power of the air” = "principalities and powers" =
"the rulers of the darkness of this world" = "spiritual wickedness in high places."
The name "god" is here given to him, not because he has any divine attributes, but because he... has the homage of the people of this world as their god... or who has the affections of their hearts in the same way as it is given to idols.
According to Barnes, the word “God” has no definite meaning, as it can refer either to the Deity or to Satan. The wording “the Lord of this world” might suggest divinity, but Saint Paul did not write that phrase.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels… Colossians 2:18
Angels have no “divine attributes”, but they actually have “the homage of the people” as their god.
By "this world" is meant the wicked world; or the mass of people.
The wording of “this world” lacks a moral attribute and so excludes “the wicked world”, however, we are inclined to accept “the mass of people” as the most likely interpretation.
[Satan] has dominion over the world. They obey his will; they execute his plans; they further his purposes, and they are his obedient subjects. He has subdued the world to himself, and was... adored in the place of the true God… "They sacrificed to devils and not to God."
Satan has “dominion over the world”, yet, he requires minions to “execute his plan” and “further his purposes”. Of course, “there is” only “one God” [1 Corinthians 8:6].
Here it is meant by the declaration that Satan is the god of this world:
(1) That the world at large was under his control and direction. He secured the apostasy of man, and early brought him to follow his plans... No more abject submission could be desired by him than has been rendered by the mass of people.
Apostasy: “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief.”
The world “was” under his control. Barnes’ usage of the past tense indicates this Satanic “control” is no longer in effect which we attribute to the Incarnation.
(2) the idolatrous world... is under his control, and subject to him… He is worshipped there; and the religious rites and ceremonies of the pagan are in general just such as a mighty being who hated human happiness... and over all the pagan world his power is absolute.
The “idolatrous world” is under the “absolute power” of Satan. Barnes states that Satan hates “human happiness”.
(3) he rules in the hearts and lives of all wicked people- and the world is full of wicked people.
People who do not believe as Barnes believes are “wicked people” who fill the world.
They obey him...[and execute] fraud, and rapine, and piracy, and murder, and adultery, and lewdness; in wars and fightings; in their amusements and pastimes; in dishonesty and falsehood.
By our intentional omission of clarifying that the pronoun “him” refers to Satan, the subject of the sentence could be Jehovah and, based on accounts in the Old Testament, the list would not loose validity.
The dominion of Satan over this world has been, and is still almost universal and absolute; nor has the lapse of 1,800 years rendered the appellation improper as descriptive of his influence, that he is the god of this world. The world pursues his plans; yields to his temptations; neglects, or rejects the reign of God as he pleases... and is still full of abomination[,] cruelty, and pollution, as he desires it to be.
We are unable to reconcile section (1), where Satan was in control, with this section, where the dominion of Satan is “almost universal”.
Barnes accepts Scaliger’s opinion of chronology formulated in the sixteenth century [“the lapse of 1,800 years”].
Hath blinded the minds of them which believe not- Of all who discern no beauty in the gospel, and who reject it. It is implied here:
(1) That the minds of unbelievers are blinded; that they perceive no beauty in the gospel. This is often affirmed of those who reject the gospel, and who live in sin…
Those who do not “perceive or recognize” beauty in the Gospel and dismiss its teachings as ugliness are “blinded”.
As the Bible does not offer one objective definition of “sin”, the wording of those “who live sin” has no objective application.
[They] did not see the spiritual beauty and glory of the plan of redemption. They act in reference to that as they would in reference to this world… All is dark, and obscure, and destitute of beauty to them, however much beauty may be seen in all these objects by others.
(2) that this is done by the agency of Satan; and that his dominion is secured by keeping the world in darkness. The affirmation is direct and positive, that it is by his agency that it is done. Some of the "modes" in which it is done are the following:
(a) By a direct influence on the minds of people. I do not know why it is absurd to suppose that one intellect may, in some way unknown to us, have access to another, and have power to influence it…
This supposition is absurd as there is no evidence demonstrating anyone or anything has access to the intellect of another individual and can influence it. This supposition is superstition.
[Nor] can it be proved that Satan may not have [1] power to pervert the understanding; [2] to derange its powers; [3] to distract its attention; [4] and to give in view of the mind a wholly delusive relative importance to objects.
We agree that it can not be shown that Satan has these four abilities.
In the time of the Saviour it cannot be doubted that in the numerous cases of demoniacal possessions, Satan directly affected the minds of people; nor is there any reason to think that he has ceased to delude and destroy them.
There are no examples of “demoniacal” possession in the Old Testament; as this is a common phenomenon found only in the New Testament, yet, there are few demonic possessions today. Of course, modern man is so sick that one could successfully argue that the vast majority of people today are possessed by demons, as this would explain their erratic behavior, especially their self destructive tendencies.
(b) By the false philosophy which has prevailed- a large part of which seems to have been contrived as if on purpose to deceive the world, and destroy the peace and happiness of people.
False philosophy, or the chance development of poor ideas and their general acceptance over time, is assigned to the goals of deceiving and of destroying. Once again, Barnes mentions the happiness of people and we are uncertain as to the emphasis upon happiness in a world dominated by Satanic malice.
(c) By the systems of superstition and idolatry. All these seem to be under the control of one Master Mind.
It is easier to believe that the world is under the near universal control of Satan, or secret societies, than it is to expend the effort to discover the true cause of events. Since the world is not as Barnes wishes it, the world is seen as being made deformed, ugly, and evil by Satan.
They are so well conceived and adapted to prostrate the moral powers; to fetter the intellect; to pervert the will; to make people debased... and they so uniformly accomplish this effect, that they have all the marks of being under the control of one mighty Mind, and of having been devised to accomplish His purposes over people.
Without a sense of irony, Barnes condemns superstition and idolatry, while mentioning prostrate moral powers and fettered intellects.
(d) By producing in the minds of people a wholly disproportionate view of the value of objects.
As objects or things are real, that is, they partake of reality, they can, and do, have various values. One cannot value unreal or fantastic objects, as the unaided human mind cannot value what it cannot experience.
[The things of this world] are placed directly before us, and are placed directly between us and the glory of the gospel.
Barnes makes the seemingly Gnostic distinction between the physical “things of this world” placed before us and the unseen spiritual “glory of the gospel.”
And the trifles of wealth and of fashion... are made to assume an importance in view of the mind which... excludes the glory of the gospel, and shuts out all the realities of the eternal world.
Barnes dismisses “objects of pleasure”, but repeatedly mentions the need for human happiness.
The “realities of the eternal world” are not, nor can be, experienced by man, as they are supernatural, not realities as such, and cannot be understood by man.
And he does it:
(e) By the blinding influence of passion and vice. Before a vicious mind all is dark and obscure. There is no beauty in truth, in chastity, or honesty, or in the fear and love of God. Vice always renders the mind blind.. and shrouds everything in the moral world in midnight. And in order to blind the minds of people to the glory of the gospel, Satan has only to place splendid schemes of speculation before people; to tempt them to climb the steeps of ambition...
Barnes uses alliteration: “Satan has only to place splendid schemes of speculation” and, with the additional “s” sound in “has” and “place”, this sentence, for what it is worth, when spoken aloud, sounds like a hissing snake.
...to entice them to scenes of gaiety; to secure the erection of theaters, and gambling houses, and houses of infamy and pollution; to fill the cities... with taverns... and to give opportunity everywhere for… unrestrained indulgence of passion; and the glory of the gospel will be as effectually unseen as the glory of the sun is in the darkest night.
Barnes mentions the construction of various buildings and “theaters” leads the list. During Shakespeare’s time, plays were viewed by the common people as sinful as prostitution and no respectable nobleman would be involved with the theater. Therefore, he usage of the word “erection” must be understood as a subtle double entendre.
Lest the light...- [Satan] "hates" the gospel, and wishes to prevent its influence and spread in the world Satan has always hated and opposed it, and all his arts have been employed to arrest its diffusion on earth.
While the god of this world opposes the diffusion of the Gospel and has near universal dominion, yet he has not been successful in his goal. It is as if the prince of the power of the air is powerless to stop the spread and diffusion of the Gospel “on earth.”
The word "light" here means excellence, beauty, or splendor. Light is the emblem of knowledge, purity, or innocence; and is here and elsewhere applied to the gospel, because it removes the errors, and sins, and wretchedness of people…
Per Barnes, light means “excellence”, “beauty”, “splendor”, and symbolizes “purity”, “knowledge”, and “innocence”.
Wretched: “(of a person) in a very unhappy or unfortunate state.”
This purpose of preventing the light of the gospel shining on people, Satan will endeavor to accomplish by all the means in his power. It is his "grand" object in this world, because it is by the gospel only that people can be saved; by that that God is glorified on earth more than by anything else; and... if he can prevent sinners from embracing that, he will secure their destruction, and most effectually show his hatred of God.
Although Barnes writes that Satan hates God, Satan dutifully presents himself to God on two occasions and Satan obeys God’s decree that he not kill Job [Job 1:6, 2:1, 2:6].
Barnes declares that Satan, in denying the glorification of God in this world, desires “destruction” of the deprived, not the expected wording of “damnation”.
And it is to Satan a matter of little importance what people "may be," or "are," provided they are not Christians.
In the English language, the first usage of Christian meaning “one who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity” is from AD 1526.
In the English language, first of usage of Christian meaning “of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ” is from AD 1553.
The two definitions of “Christian” appear after the introduction of the protestant Bible.
https://greatestoccultist21century.weebly.com/aatd-the-word-christian.html
They may be amiable, moral, accomplished, rich, honored, esteemed by the world, because in the possession of all these he may be equally sure of their ruin, and because... these things may contribute somewhat to turn away their minds from the gospel.
Barnes writes that being “moral” “may contribute somewhat to turn away… minds from the gospel.” We will not hesitant to omit the conditional phrasing and write that being a moral person will turn one’s mind from the Gospel, as it is popularly expounded and embraced.
Satan... will not oppose plans of gain or ambition;... purposes of fashion and amusement;... schemes by which we desire to rise in the world; he will not oppose the theater, the ballroom, the dance, or the song;... thoughtless mirth; but the moment the gospel begins to shine..., he will make resistance, and then all his power will be concentrated.
Although he cannot prevent the spread of the Gospel, Satan allows men to enjoy themselves as men with diversions such as plays, dances, and songs. It is of interest that the moment minds are exposed to the Gospel, resistance is encountered.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
4. In whom— Translate, "In whose case."
god of this world— The worldly make him their God (Php 3:19). He is, in fact, "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that ruleth in the children of disobedience" (Eph 2:2).
[The “enemies of the cross of Christ”] Whose end is destruction G684, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. Philippians 3:19
Saint Paul writes “destruction”, not the expected word “damnation”.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G622 as: perish (33), destroy (26), lose (22), be lost (5), lost (4), and miscellaneous (2).
Strong’s G684 is derived from Strong’s G622.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G684 as: perdition (8), destruction (5), waste (2), damnable (1), to die (with G1519) (1), perish (with G1498) (with G1519) (1), and pernicious (1).
minds— "understandings": "mental perceptions," as in 2Co 3:14.
them which believe not— the same as "them that are lost" (or "are perishing"). Those perishing unbelievers are not merely veiled, but blinded (2Co 3:14, 15): Greek, not "blinded," but "hardened."
Per the commentary:
“them which believe not” = ”them that are lost” = ”them that are perishing”
not believing = being lost = are dying
light of the glorious gospel of Christ— Translate, "The illumination (enlightening: the propagation from those already enlightened, to others of the light) of the Gospel of the glory of Christ." "The glory of Christ" is not a mere quality (as "glorious" would express) of the Gospel; it is its very essence and subject matter.
image of God— implying identity of nature and essence... He who desires to see "the glory of God," may see it "in the face of Jesus Christ"... Christ is "the image of God," into which "same image" we, looking on it in the mirror of the Gospel, are changed by the Spirit; but this image is not visible to those blinded by Satan [Alford].
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Though some, by the god of this world, understand the true and living God, the Lord of heaven and earth; yet the notion of the most interpreters, that it is the devil who is here called the god of this world, because he ruleth over the greatest part of the world, and they are his servants and slaves, is most consonant to Scripture…
Poole states that “the devil”, neither Satan nor “the true God”, is “the god of this world”.
...for though we no where else find him called the god of this world, yet our Saviour twice calls him the prince of this world, John 12:31 14:30; and our apostle, Ephesians 2:2, calls him the prince of the power of the air.
It follows from Poole’s statements that “the devil” is the “prince of this world” and he is the “prince of the power of the air.”
The effect also doth more properly belong to the devil, than unto God, who no otherwise blindeth the eyes of them than either permissively, by suffering them to shut their own eyes, or judicially. And the apostle declares, that those who are so blinded are such persons as believe not.
He further declareth the end of the devil’s agency in blinding men’s eyes with errors, malice, and prejudice,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, the express image of his person, (considered as to his Divine nature),
should shine unto them, that is, into their hearts.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
In whom the god of this world hath blinded...
The description of the persons to whom the Gospel is hid, is here further carried on; in which the character of Satan is given, who is here styled "the god of this world"; just as he is by Christ, "the prince of this world", John 12:31 not because he had any hand in the making of it, or has any concern in the government of it, or in the disposal of men or things in it…
Concern: As a verb [1] “relate to; be about.” [2] “worry (someone); make anxious.”
As a noun [1] ‘anxiety; worry.’ [2] “a matter of interest or importance to someone.”
Gill agrees that Satan is “the god of this world” and “the prince of this world”, although Satan did not assist in making this world nor does he have concern over its governance nor concern in the disposal of men or the things in it. Satan, as explained by Gill, is a strange god.
Yours Truly has no recollection of assisting in the formation of the cosmos nor are we concerned with its governance nor of the things in it, although we do take an interest in certain individuals known to us who possess our highest virtue. The reason for our general lack of concern is that our control over these things ranges from minuscule to nothing and to worry or be anxious about matters we cannot affect is not reasonable. As we partake of Gill’s attributes of the god of this world and having been chrismated, we are in the seemingly contradictory position of being both a Satan and a Christ.
[But] because of his influence over the worst, and greatest part of the world; which lies in wickedness... who have voluntarily given themselves up to him, and whose lusts they will do; and so declare themselves to be his children, and him their Father, yea, their god: the influence he has over them is…
Satan has no concern for the world, yet influences the greatest part of the wicked world.
…he hath blinded the minds of them that believe not.
The apostle [Saint Paul] here seems to refer to one of the devils, which the Jews (l) frequently speak of "Samael"; who they say is the head of all the devils… and who deceived our first parents...
The Jews believe that one of the devils, Samael by name, deceived Eve.
[The] word is compounded of "god", and "to blind"; him they call the angel of death, and say (m), that he hath, "brought darkness upon the face of the world", or the creatures, the Gentiles: agreeably to which the apostle [Saint Paul] calls the devil, "the god that hath blinded"; what he blinds in men, is "their mind": the more excellent and knowing part of man; not the eyes of their bodies, but of their understandings; which shows the near access Satan has to the souls of men…
Satan can “nearly approach or enter” into the souls of men.
[He] penetrates into their very hearts and minds, and has an influence there: the persons whose minds he blinds, are those "who believe not"; which distinguishes them from others that perish, who never enjoyed the Gospel, and therefore he says, "in", or "among whom"; and from true believers, on whom Satan can have no such influence; and is a reason of these men's perishing, and of Satan's influence over them; and must be understood of reprobates, and final unbelievers: the influence he has over them is expressed by "blinding" them; which he does, by diverting them from hearing the Gospel, and by stirring up the enmity of their minds against it, and by increasing their natural darkness and blindness with respect to it. The end which Satan has in doing this is,
lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them;
here many things are hinted, in commendation of the Gospel, as that it is the Gospel of Christ... The Jews (n) call the Messiah, "the image of God"; some copies... and the Arabic version, read, "the image of the invisible God"... So Christ is as the Son of God, being the natural, substantial, essential, eternal, not created, and perfect image of his Father; and so he is as man and Mediator: further, the Gospel is said to be the "glorious" Gospel of Christ, as it must needs be, since it so clearly and illustriously sets forth the glory of Christ; contains such glorious doctrines and promises in it, and is attended with such glorious effects, where it comes with power: add to all this, that "light" is attributed to it; the Jews (o) speak of the "light of the law", and the law is called light;… [saying] "there is no light but the law"; but this may be more truly said of the Gospel, by which not only persons may be notionally enlightened, who never were made really partakers of the grace of God, but is the means of spiritual and saving illumination to thousands, when it is attended with the demonstration of the Spirit: now all these excellent characters of the Gospel serve to enhance the spite and malice of Satan,
Christ is “not created”, as the Nicean Creed states: He was “begotten, not made”; “genitum non factum”.
Satan acts with “spite” and “malice”.
in endeavouring all he can to kinder the bright shining of this glorious Gospel, to and upon any of the sons of men; and his reason for so doing is, because he knows, that should the Gospel shine unto them, the interest and glory of Christ would be advanced, and his own would decline.
The interests between Satan and Christ is a zero sum game.
(l) Targum Jon. ben Uzziel in Genesis 3.6. Zohar in Gen. fol. 37. 2. Vajikra Rabba, fol. 162. 3. Debarim Rabba, fol. 245. 3. Tzeror Hammor in Gen. fol. 6. 2. & 7. 3. Vid. Irenaeum. adv. Haeres. l. 1. p. 136.
(m) Zohar in Gen. fol. 31. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 93. 3.
(n) Zohar in Gen. Fol. 31. 1.
(o) Targum in Job 3.16. T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 7. 2. Tzreor Hammor, fol. 89. 4.
Geneva Study Bible
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the {d} light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the {e} image of God, should shine unto them.
(d) The light of plain and enlightening preaching, which shows forth the glory of Christ.
(e) In whom the Father sets himself forth to be seen and beheld.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
2 Corinthians 4:4. A statement to establish the ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. ἐστι κεκαλ., so that ἐν οἶς is equivalent to ὅτι ἐν τούτοις (comp. on 2 Corinthians 3:6): in whom the devil has made blind, i.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the unbelieving (νοήματα, as in 2 Corinthians 3:14[189]). It is his work to make the unbelieving blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront the light of the gospel;
The devil has the joyless task of making the “unbelieving blind” to the gospel. It is joyless because, as the unbelieving are synonymous with the blind, there is nothing to do.
...and this his characteristic ἔργον he has carried out in the ἀπολλύμενοι; in their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving.
The devil succeeds in blinding the thoughts of unbelievers.
Observe... that the conception of the ἀπολλύμενοι [apollymenoi, “destroyed”, once in the KJV] is a narrower one than that of the ἄπιστοι [apistoi,”unbelievers”, once in the KJV]. Not with all ἄπιστοι does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel his object of blinding them and making them ἀπολλύμενοι; many so comport themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and σωζόμενοι [sōzomenoi, “that be saved”, once in the KJV]…
Hence τῶν ἀπίστων [ton apiston] is neither aimless... nor is it… to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly prominent, that the ἀπολλύμενοι are the ἄπιστοι, have appended the appositional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche [AD 1776–1850]... takes τῶν ἀπίστ. proleptically: “hoc effectu ut nullam haberent fidem.” But the proleptic use of adjectives... is nowhere found with the genitive of an adjective used substantively; it must have run ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα ἄπιστα.[190]... Quite arbitrarily, most of the older expositors… explain it in such a way that ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ fills the place of an apposition to ἘΝ ΟἿς. In that case it must have run: ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΠΊΣΤΟΙς... According to Ewald [AD 1803– 1875], Paul has inserted the addition τῶν ἀπίστ., as if he meant thereby merely to say: “the Gentile thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers.
We now know where protestants derive their opinion that certain Christians are unbelievers.
But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication, as the reader had to find in τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. Gentiles and Jews, consequently in τῶν ἀπίστ, no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hofmann, ἐν οἷς is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this domain is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbelieving. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever for limiting the ἀπολλύμενοι to the sphere of the Gentile world; they form, in general, a contrast to the σωζόμενοι… and to the ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΝΤΕς, 2 Corinthians 3:18, who are just the σωζόμενοι. Finally, it is to be observed as a mere historical point, that Irenaeus..., Origen, Tertullian..., Chrysostom, Augustine..., with a view to oppose the dualism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ (infidelium hujus saeculi).
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτ.] the God of this... period. On the subject-matter… The devil, as ruling principle, is called god. Among the Rabbins, also, it is said: “Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael, [“The first God is the true God, but the second God is Samael”, our translation]”… where he is called the strange god and the other god. There is not something ironical in the expression here... for that would be quite alien to the connection...
Irony: “the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.”
Because something would be alien to the connection does not prevent it from partaking of irony.
The second God is the “strange god”, the “other god”, and the “blind god” who may inhabit the Holy of Holies which was entered only once a year. The high priest wore bells to announce his presence in the Holy of Holies and even then there was the possibly that he may be struck down. In the unfortunate event of the demise of the high priest, a rope was tied to his ankle so that the body could be pulled from the Holy of Holies, without the need for anyone else entering it.
[On] the contrary, with the utmost earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to be made palpably evident.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.] Purpose of the devil: in order that the illumination should not shine, etc. For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded.[191] Hence it is... unnecessary to explain αὐγάσαι [augazó,”to shine forth”, once in the KJV] to see, or to have an eye upon… which signification... undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets..., but is foreign even to the LXX… the simple αὐγάζειν does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meaning fulgere (though the compounds καταυγάζειν and διαυγάζειν, which are the readings of several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense: irradiate, illumine...
φωτισμός] illumining, is found in Sextus Empiricus... more often in the LXX…. Without figure, the meaning is: in order that the enlightening truth of the gospel might not he known and appropriated by them.
τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ] The glory of the exalted Christ... is here denoted as the contents of the Messianic preaching; elsewhere (1 Corinthians 1:18) it is the word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement of the context, and both rightly... for the δόξα [doxa] is the consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned… and it conditions the future completion of the work of the cross…
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τ. θεοῦ] for Christ in the state of His exaltation [192] is again, as He was before His incarnation… fully ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ and ἴσα θεῷ (Php 2:6), hence in His glorified corporeality (Php 3:21) the visible image of the invisible God… It is true that in the state of His humiliation He had likewise the divine δόξα, which He possessed κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1:4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth.
Expositor's Greek Testament
2 Corinthians 4:4. ἐν οἷς ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος:
among whom the god of this world, sc., Satan. αἰών is an “age,” a certain limit of time, and so ὁ αἰὼν οὑτός… is “this present age,” over which the devil is regarded as having power… We have the expression αἱ βασιλεῖαι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in Ignatius… Wetstein [AD 1693–1754] quotes a Rabbinical saying, “The true God is the first God, but Sammael (i.e., the evil angel who was counted Israel’s special foe) is the second God”. Many early writers… through dread of Gnostic speculations, dissociate ὁ Θεός [the God] from τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου [this age], which they join with τῶν ἀπίστων [the unbelieving]. But this is a mere perversity of exegesis, suggested by controversial prejudice.
ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων: hath blinded (the “ingressive aorist” again; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2) the minds (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:14) of the unbelieving. Out of sixteen occurrences of the word ἀπιστος in the Pauline Epistles, fourteen are found in the Epp. to the Corinthians; it consistently means “unbelieving,” and is always applied to the heathen, not to the Jews (except, perhaps, Titus 1:15).--
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.: to the end that the light (lit. “the illumination”) of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the Image of God, should not dawn upon them. This is the force of αὐγάσαι, even if... we omit αὐτοῖς from our text; αὐγή is the “dawn,” and αὐγάσαι is to be taken intransitively. The R.V. marginal rendering “that they should not see the light,” etc., does not suit the context so well. The A.V. “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ” is inadequate, as it does not bring out the force of the phrase τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης. δόξης is the genitive of contents... the substance of the good tidings preached is the δόξα, the glorious revelation of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6 below). That Christ is the Image or εἰκών [icon] of God is the statement of St. Paul which approaches most nearly in form to the λόγος doctrine of St. John…
P. Ewald, who maintains that St. Paul was acquainted with a Johannine tradition of our Lord’s words, finds in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 reminiscences of conversations reported in the Fourth Gospel. Thus we have in consecutive verses (John 8:44-45) ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ… οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι, and the expression ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is comparable with ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου [the archon of this cosmos](John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11). The parallels are certainly interesting; cf. also the phrase εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ [image of God] with John 8:19; John 8:42.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world [ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου] be cast out. John 12:31
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world [ὁ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἄρχων] cometh, and hath nothing in me. John 14:30
Of judgment, because the prince [ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου] of this world is judged. John 16:11
The translation of ἄρχων [archon] is consistently translated in these examples as “prince”.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4. in whom the god of this world] i.e. the devil, who is called the prince or ruler of this world in John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11…
The King James Bible versions translates the masculine noun archōn [Strong's G758] as: ruler (22), prince (11), chief (2), magistrate (1), and chief ruler (1).
He is so called because for the present he has power in it, Revelation 12:12. The early fathers, in their zeal against the two gods (one good and one evil) of the Manichaeans and some sects of the Gnostics...
And, as we have learned, of the Jews.
...repudiate this interpretation, and render, in defiance of the plain meaning, ‘God hath blinded the understandings of the unbelievers of this world.’
A quote from Calvin is omitted.
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not] The meaning is either (1) that all were perishing alike (John 3:18), but that some believed and Satan blinded the minds of the rest, or (2) that all were formerly unbelieving, but that some, by rejecting the good tidings of salvation through Christ, passed over into the category of the perishing.
The word “perishing” is a technical term for those who reject the Gospel.
In support of (1) we may render ‘in whom’ by ‘among whom.’ The word here translated ‘them which believe not’ is used in 1 Corinthians 6:6; 7:12-15; 10:27; 14:22-24, of those who do not believe in Christ. The word translated ‘blinded’ is not the same as that used in ch. 2 Corinthians 3:14.
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ] Rather, lest the enlightenment (Rhemish, illumination) of the Gospel of the glory of Christ. The word translated ‘light’ in the A. V. signifies rather the result of light than light itself. The words translated ‘glorious gospel’ are so translated in virtue of the constant occurrence of Hebraisms of this kind in the N. T. But it seems impossible to doubt that there is here a reference to the ‘glory’ so frequently mentioned in the last chapter, as in the word ‘blinded’ there is an obvious reference to the vail.
who is the image of God] The word in the original is exactly equivalent to our word likeness. An image or likeness is a visible representation of an object. So Christ in His humanity... is a visible representation of the unseen God.
The Council of Nicea allows images of Christ to be created, due to his visible form resulting from the Incarnation. Additionally, images of Christ and the Saints can be venerated, but not worshiped, as protestants claim.
No revelation of the wisdom and power of God that man has received can compare with that made in the Life, Death and Resurrection of the Incarnate Son. Also as the ‘Mediator of the New Covenant’..., the glory of the Invisible God, streams from His Face, a glory far brighter than that with which Moses’ face shone after communing with God.
Bengel's Gnomen
2 Corinthians 4:4.
Ἐν οἷς, as concerns whom, [in whom])--
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, the god of this world) A great, but awful description of Satan..., comp. Ephesians 2:2, respecting the fact itself: and Php 3:9, respecting the term. Who would otherwise think, that he could in the case of men obstruct so great a light [as that which the Gospel affords]? But there is somewhat of a mimesis [“representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature.”]; [19] for those that perish, especially the Jews, think, that they have God, and know Him.
Bengel identifies Satan as the “god of this world”.
Bengel [AD 1687-1752] categorizes the Jews with those who are perishing and we are surprised that they are not described by their historical slurs as either “Christ deniers” or “killers of Christ.” Of course, crucifixion was the Roman method of execution, while stoning was the manner of Jewish execution. Therefore, per the Gospel accounts, Jesus was killed by the Romans.
As it not disputed that the Jews are a tribe of Jehovah’s chosen people, the Israelites, and have the divine revelation of the Law, it is reasonable to state that they “have God” and “know Him”. In fact, we have learned they have a first God and a second God.
We now know why some researchers claim that Gnosticism has a Jewish origin. Previously, we only knew of the divine wisdom, or Shekhinah, that is feminine and corresponds to wisdom, or Sophia, of the Gnostics.
The ancients construed ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ with ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ, as if it were, the unbelievers of this world, in order that they might give the greater opposition to the Manicheans and the Marcionites.[20]--
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, of this world) He says, of this, for the devil will not be able always to assail.--
ἐτύφλωσε, blinded) not merely veiled [ch. 2 Corinthians 3:14-15].--
The King James Bible version translates the verb typhloō [Strong's G5186] as: blind (3)
τῶν ἀπίστων, of them who believe not) An epithet,[21] by supplying the relative pronoun ἐκείνων, of them; for among those, that perish, are chiefly those, who, though they have heard, do not believe. The Gospel is received by faith unto salvation.--
By analogy, the modern Gospel is rejected by reason unto damnation.
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι[22]) lest should shine.--
τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Κ.Τ.Λ., the enlightening [illumination] of the Gospel, etc.)
He afterwards calls it the enlightening of the knowledge, etc.--
φωτισμὸς, enlightening, is the reflection or propagation of rays from those, who are enlightened, for the purpose of enlightening more. The Gospel and knowledge are correlatives, as cause and effect.--
τῆς δόξης, of the glory) 2 Corinthians 3:18, note.--
εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ, the image of God)
From this we may sufficiently understand how great is the glory of Christ, v. 6; 1 Timothy 6:15. He, who sees the Son, sees the Father, in the face of Christ. The Son exactly represents and reflects the Father.
[19] See Append. Allusion to an opponent’s words or sentiments.
[20] Both which sects regarded matter as essentially evil and under the power of the devil, which the rendering, god of this world, seemed to sanction.—ED.
[21] Beng. would make it thus, The unbelieving lost, spoken of above.
[22] The Germ. Ver. also exhibits the pronoun αὐτοῖς, which is more highly esteemed in the margin of the 2d Ed. than in the larger Ed.—E. B.
ABCD corrected, G Vulg. f Orig. Iren. omit αὐτοῖς. Except one passage of Origen there is none of the oldest authorities in support of it.—ED.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 4. - The god of this world; rather, the god of this age.
The King James Bible version translates the 128 occurrences of the masculine noun aiōn [Strong's G165] as: ever (71), world (38), never (with G3364) (with G1519) (with G3588) (6), evermore (4), age (2), eternal (2), and miscellaneous (5).
It is... "a great and horrible description of the devil." He is not, however, here called a god of the kosmos, but only of the olam hazzeh [“the everyday world”-GDO], the present dispensation of things as it exists among those who refuse to enter that kingdom in which the power of Satan is brought to nought. The melancholy attempt to get rid of Manichean arguments by rendering the verse "in whom God blinded the thoughts of the unbelievers of this world" is set aside by the fact that the terrible description of Satan as "another god" (El acheer) was common among the rabbis.
The devil, not Satan, is the “god of this age”.
Satan was described as “another god” among the Rabbis.
They knew that his power was indeed a derivative power, trot [sic?, though?] still that it was permitted to be great… In John 12:31 (John 14:30) our Lord speaks of him as "the ruler of the kosmos."
Hath blinded; rather, blinded. The verb here has no other meaning than "to blind," and is quite different from the verb "to harden," rendered by "to blind" in 2 Corinthians 3:14 with the same substantive. They are blind from lack of faith, and so being "unbelieving" they are" perishing"... seeing that they "walk in darkness"... and are in Satan's power… Blindness of heart," says St. Augustine, "is both [1] a sin and [2] a punishment of sin and [3] a cause of sin."
The light of the glorious gospel of Christ; rather, the illumination of the gospel of the glory of the Christ.
The word photismos in later ecclesiastical Greek was used for "baptism."
Who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3).
Should shine unto them; or, as in the Revised Version, should dawn upon them. The other rendering, "that they should not see the illumination," gives to the verb augazo, a rarer sense, only found in poetry, and not known to the LXX. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Vincent's Word Studies
The god of this world (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) The phrase occurs only here… Satan is called god in the rabbinical writings. "The first God is the true God; but the second god is Samael." "The matron said, 'Our god is greater than thy God; for when thy God appeared to Moses in the bush, he hid his face; when, however, he saw the serpent, which is my god, he fled."'
We are unsure who the “matron” is and we could only find this quote in online versions of Vincent’s Word Studies.
The light (τὸν φωτισμὸν) Only here and 2 Corinthians 4:6. Lit., the illumination, act of enlightening.
Image of God Christ's light is also God's. Compare Hebrews 1:3, Rev., effulgence (ἀπαύγασμα, compare αὐγάσαι shine, in this passage). Theodoret [AD 393-457], says: "The effulgence is both from the fire and with the fire, and has the fire as its cause, yet is not divided from the fire; for whence comes the fire, thence also comes the effulgence."
Shine (αὐγάσαι) Only here in the New Testament. From αὐγή brightness, which also occurs but once, Acts 20:11, daybreak. In classical Greek of the sun especially. Rev., dawn is legitimate as a translation, but hardly here, since Paul is going back to the figure of 2 Corinthians 3:18.
****
For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
First Epistle to the Corinthians 11:19
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(19) For there must be also heresies.—Better, For there must be also sects. There have been many attempts to explain where lies the difference between the “divisions” of the former verse and the “sects” of this verse. From all that we know of the Apostolic Church it is clear that neither of these words can mean sects separated from the Church, but “parties” in the Church. Christ had foretold… that “stumbling-blocks,” or “scandals,” must arise in the Church, and it is possible that our Lord on some occasion spoke of these as “sects” (Justin Martyr [AD 100-160] attributes the use of this very word to our Lord); and St. Paul, possibly, uses the word here because it was the one traditionally reported as having been used by Christ in some of His unrecorded utterances.
For Saint Paul to quote “unrecorded utterances” of Christ contradicts his express statement that he only wants to know Christ crucified [1 Corinthians 2:2].
Christ has foretold that in the divine economy of permission such divisions will arise. They are allowed because this is a state of continual judgment; and the existence of such “offences” will be God’s means of manifesting those who are void of offence, and those who are not.
It is not certain what is meant by the wording “void of offence”, as all sin and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23].
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
11:17-22 The apostle rebukes the disorders in their partaking of the Lord's supper. The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be apt to make us worse. If the use of them does not mend, it will harden. Upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms. Christians may separate from each other's communion, yet be charitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, yet be uncharitable. This last is schism, rather than the former. There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper, which adds to guilt.
Since the “Lord’s supper” is only symbolic or “a conventional representation of an object, function, or process”; not Christ’s body and blood, it is uncertain how eating this can add to guilt.
Many rich Corinthians seem to have acted very wrong at the Lord's table, or at the love-feasts, which took place at the same time as the supper.
Henry offers his speculation on the behavior and the various economic statuses of Christians in the ancient church at Corinth.
The rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. What should have been a bond of mutual love and affection, was made an instrument of discord and disunion.
Henry provides a plausible backstory between opposing social groups to Saint Paul’s letter to Corinth.
We should be careful that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table, appears to make light of that sacred institution. The Lord's supper is not now made an occasion for gluttony or revelling, but is it not often made the support of self-righteous pride, or a cloak for hypocrisy? Let us never rest in the outward forms of worship; but look to our hearts.
Symbol: “a mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process.”
It is not clear how the Lord’s supper, which is symbolic and can only a representation, not an authentic version, can be described as sacred.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For there must be- It is necessary (δεῖ dei); it is to he expected; there are reasons why there should be.
What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse; compare Matthew 18:7; 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Peter 2:2. The meaning is, [1] not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion, [2] not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist, and [3] not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God.
Blame: “assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.”
Through human understanding, the false friends of God can be distinguished from “the true friends of God”.
Heresies- Margin, "Sects." Greek Αἱρεσεις Haireseis see the note at Acts 24:14. The [English] words "heresy" and "heresies" occur only in these places, and in Galatians 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1.
The King James Bible version translates the 9 occurrences of the feminine noun hairesis [Strong's G139] as: sect (5), and heresy (4).
The Greek word occurs also in Acts 5:17 (translated "sect"); Acts 15:5; 24:5; 26:5; 28:22, in all which places it denotes, and is translated, "sect." We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some "doctrine" the holding of which will exclude from salvation.
It is possible for one to have beliefs that contradict the beliefs of others and, by maintaining these beliefs, one will be excluded “from salvation”; Divine Will and Divine Mercy be damned.
But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used... is in Galatians 5:20, where... the word "contentions" or "divisions," would be quite as much in accordance with the connection. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or "sects," as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations:
(1) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.
Strong’s G139 is derived from Strong’s G138. The King James Bible version translates the verb haireō [Strong's G138] as: choose (3).
(2) it is the sense which the connection here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of "irregularity" in "conduct;" and the first thing which he mentions, is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to "doctrines" would by no means suit the connection, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must he expected that there would be "fundamental errors of doctrine" in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner.
Barnes seems to understand Saint Paul’s reasoning better than Saint Paul himself. Of course, thinking, understanding, and forming judgments by a process of logic is not necessarily an aspect of Pauline doctrine.
The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected: there are causes for it; and it cannot he avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not."
The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentious may be traced to the following causes:
Since the Christian religions is pure and requires union, divisions and sects are the expected result as adherents shun “false Christians” and have fellowship with “true Christians”.
(1) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of people, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.
We agree that religion is made the means to power, as the intended audience is designed to appeal to the vast majority, unlike philosophy, which is the domain of the few. Religious leaders can control the consciences and the opinions of people, especially when the simple faithful are threatened weekly with eternal damnation for alleged disobedience.
(2) showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ;
It is more difficult, nay, nearly impossible, to respect an amalgamation of contradictory sayings and behaviors of an imagined being than to respect a know individual. As always, showing more respect to anyone, even a religious teacher, is a sin [James 2:9].
(3) the multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.
We understand “confessions of faith” as protestant communities. We note that Barnes acknowledges that new doctrines or new teaching are created in protestantism and these cause separations.
One wonders how novel teachings are found in a book that has remained unchanged for 500 years.
(4) the passions of people- their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends.
Bigotry: “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction”.
It is only evident from church history that the church was unified; the Romans separated in AD 1054 and the protestants began to leave the Roman church in the sixteenth century. While the Roman Church states that the schismatic Orthodox church left in AD 1054, the Orthodox church has not added any new doctrines since the separation, unlike the Roman Church. We assign no moral judgments to new revelations, whether from Rome or from protestantism, we only bring these developments to the reader’s attention.
From the practice of modern Christians, it is evident there is no objective standard to determine Christ’s “true followers”.
That they which are approved- That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.
Barnes usage of “his laws” is vague and may include all, some, or none of the 613 Old Testament Laws.
May be made manifest- May be known; recognized; seen. The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God.
The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in… all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held,... such divisions show [1] who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; [2] who they are that... follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and [3] who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation; see Romans 16:17, "Mark them which cause divisions, and avoid them."
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
19. heresies— Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (1Co 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion"... but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"… At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mt 18:7; 24:10, 12; Lu 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists.
Paul was not present during Christ’s ministry, so he cannot remember the Redeemer’s words.
The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly... "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity."
that … approved may be made manifest—through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jo 2:19).
Matthew Poole's Commentary
There must be; it is not simply… necessary that there should be such divisions amongst you, (they are caused from the free acts of men’s corrupt wills), but yet these things do not fall out by chance, but through the providence of God, who hath... ordered and decreed, to suffer Satan to show his malice, and men to discover the lusts and corruptions of their own hearts.
The corrupt wills of humanity or corrupt humanity is not due to “chance” or “the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design”, but through the providence of God.
[Heresy is] a term that, by ecclesiastical usage, is restrained to signify perverse opinions in matter of doctrine, as to which men are stubborn and tenacious; yet it is manifest, that the word is not natively so to be restrained, neither can it reasonably be here so interpreted, but signifies the same thing with schisms and divisions before mentioned: for though... there were corrupt opinions amongst them in matters of doctrine, yet it is unreasonable to understand... these words being brought as a reason why he was inclined to believe that there were such schisms or divisions amongst them, because there must be heresies.
That they which are approved may be made manifest among you:
God hath his wise end in suffering breaches and divisions, that such as are true and sincere Christians, opposing themselves to such violations of charity, might appear to you to be true and sincere…
One can be sincere either “free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings” or “saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical” and still be incorrect.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For there must be also heresies among you… This is a reason why he [Saint Paul] was ready to believe there might be... divisions among them; for if there were heresies... such as were subversive of the fundamentals of Christianity, as the denial of the resurrection of the dead, &c.
Some people do not deny the resurrection, but erroneously state it happened in the past and subvert the faith of some [2 Timothy 2:18].
[It] was no wonder that there were schisms and factions among them, since heresies generally issue in them. These... "must be"; because God has decreed they shall... and since this always was the case, that there were false prophets under the former dispensation, it must be expected that false teachers will arise... bringing in damnable heresies; and since Satan is always busy to sow the tares of false doctrine; and human nature, being... easily… deceived, it cannot be thought that it should be otherwise…
We offer a potentially damnable heresy, that is, the resurrection has occurred in the past:
[Hymenaeus and Philetus, v.17] Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:18
that they which are approved: who sincerely believe in Christ, are sound in the faith, and have a well grounded experience of it... and have been tried by others, and found to be sincere, upright, and faithful, and are approved of God and good men:
One can be sincere and be mistaken.
One must have an “experience” of sound faith. The importance of being “approved of God and good men” is stressed. In the long term, seeking external validation or approval cannot be beneficial.
may be made manifest among you; by their steadfastness in the faith, their zealous attachment to it... and warm and honest vindication of it; and by the departure of those from them who oppose it, and go on the side of error and heresy; by which means it is known who are the sincere followers of the Lamb, in doctrine, discipline, and conversation, and who [are] not.
Steadfastness or conviction does not prevent one from being mistaken.
Geneva Study Bible
{16} For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are {f} approved may be made manifest among you.
(16) Although schisms and heresies proceed from the devil, and are evil, yet they come not by chance, nor without cause, and they turn to the profit of the elect.
(f) Whom experience has taught to be of sound religion and godliness.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Expositor's Greek Testament
1 Corinthians 11:19.
Paul is prepared to believe what he thus hears; these divisions were inevitable: “For indeed parties must needs exist among you”.--
δεῖ affirms a necessity lying in the moral conditions of the case… --
αἵρεσις ... is more specific than σχίσμα, implying mental tendency—... “Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy”. These words... verge toward their ecclesiastical use.--
[There] is a true purpose of God fulfilled in these unhappy divisions; they serve to sift the loyal from the disloyal. “in order that also the approved may become manifest among you”.
Xxxxxloycalty
One wonders of the nature of a false purpose of God is and how it would be fulfilled.
It is uncertain if the “approved” are, or would be, the minority or the majority of the congregation.
These αἱρέσεις are a magnet attracting... unsettled minds, and leaving genuine believers to stand out “approved” by their constancy;.., ἡ ὑπομονὴ κατεργάζεται δοκιμήν…
Unsettled: “lacking stability.”
The “approved” are the authentic or “genuine believers” who are consistent or “enduring and unchanging”. Of course, change is the byword of protestants, as they continually create new teachings with their innovative insights into an unvarying text.
As the approved stand out by their constancy, we mention the Orthodox church, as it has not added to or modified their doctrines since long before the Reformation.
For δόκιμος,... those approved with God thus “become manifest” to men…
[1693] Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans.).
[1694] ert. Tertullian.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
19. heresies]
In the Acts... it is usually translated sect. But in Acts 24:14 and in Galatians 5:20. so and 2 Peter 2:1, it is rendered... heresy. It signifies the deliberate choice of a doctrine or line of conduct, as opposed to receiving it on authority.
Those who do not accept the tradition of authority are heretics. Yet, uncertainty remains in the various branches of protestantism as to which traditions are authoritative, or God given, and which traditions are without authority, or originates with man.
[St Paul says] that not only will there be... division among Christians, but that some of them will go their own way in spite of the instructions both in doctrine and practice delivered to them by Christ’s Apostles.
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you] The Greek is not simply [“]so that[“], but [“]in order that[“], as though God had permitted these evils to arise in order to test the faith... of Christian men.
Like Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament tests humanity. It is evident that omniscience is not a characteristic of the Divinity found in the protestant Bible.
approved] δόκιμος, he who has stood the trial. It is the opposite of ἀδόκιμος, reprobate, rejected… Δοκίμιον... is translated trial in the passages cited in the last note.
Bengel's Gnomen
1 Corinthians 11:19. Καὶ αἱρέσεις, also heresies) Schisms and heresies are here applied to one thing; nor is the also intended to make a distinction; but this is its meaning: not only many good things, not merely small stumbling-blocks,... are found among you, but there must be also heresies, or different opinions and schisms, which generally arise out of them. A schism is a mutual separation; heresy is the separation of one party from the unity of the Church, in regard either to faith, or worship.--
By applying Bengel’s definition of “heresy”, that is, “the separation… from the unity of the Church in regard… [to] worship”, it is a true statement that protestants are heretics.
οἱ δόκιμοι, those approved) Therefore there were at least some such persons among them. A conciliatory (ἀστεῖος) mode of expression; for what he really meant to say, was, that those less approved should be openly manifested.
The usage of “less approved” is not synonymous with “unapproved”. It seems that all heresies are equal, but some are more approved than others.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 19. - There must be also heresies among you. Heresies. The word does not mean "erroneous opinions," but party factions. Originally the word only means "a choice," ... but since the opinionativeness of men pushes "a choice" into a "party,"... the word soon acquires a bad sense…
Approved; standing the test (dokimoi), the opposite of the "reprobate" (adokimoi) of 1 Corinthians 9:27. 1 Corinthians 11:19
Vincent's Word Studies
Heresies (αἱρἐσεις)
See on 2 Peter 2:1. In Paul only here and Galatians 5:20. Better, parties or factions, as the result of the divisions.
****
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other:
for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:29
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(29) Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.— Of course (says St. Paul) I mean his conscience, not yours. For no other man’s scruples are to bind my conscience. While the opinion or weakness of another is never to make my conscience waver from what it knows to be true, it may often be a reason for our sacrificing in act some personal indulgence.
Ellicott does not provide a value system clarifying the reasoning regarding the circumstances of when one would forgo a “personal indulgence” without deferring to another person’s “scruples” or “a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
10:23-33 There were cases wherein Christians might eat what had been offered to idols, without sin. But a Christian must not merely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and to edify others.
Henry adds to the meaning of how a Christian is to behave; a Christian must not only consider what is “lawful”, but must “edify others.” We wish all the best to those who have a sense of obligation to “instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually.” As the Master teaches, when the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a pit [Matthew 15:14]. Of course, falling into a pit can be interpreted as an allegory of falling into the pit; the pit of Hell.
Christianity by no means forbids the common offices of kindness, or allows uncourteous behaviour to any, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices.
Henry [AD 1662-1714] has an unrealistic view of historic western Christianity, wherein it does not allow “uncourteous behavior to any”.
But this is not to be understood of religious festivals, partaking in idolatrous worship.
And Henry adds a disclaimer that, no doubt, not only allows for discourtesy, but for persecution, violence, and murder of those who indulge in “idolatrous worship”, that is, the veneration of images of Jesus and the Saints.
According to this advice of the apostle, Christians should take care not to use their liberty to the hurt of others, or to their own reproach.
Henry states that Christians should not behave in such a manner that onlookers would express “disapproval or disappointment.” However, Henry does not explain why one’s liberty in Christ should be constrained by the conscious or the opinion of another.
[Aiming at the glory of God]... is the great end of all religion, and directs us where express rules are wanting.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Conscience, I say, not thine own - I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that; ground, as if an idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous, or of leading them into sin.
For why is my liberty...- There is much difficulty in this clause; for... it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying. He had been urging them to have respect to other people's consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. The sense may be thus expressed:
"I am free; I have "liberty" to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty - the right which I exercise - will be "misconstrued, misjudged, condemned" (for so the word κρίνεται krinetai seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience.”
Since we cannot be responsible for people’s misconstruing and misjudging our actions, we can not live a healthy life and a fulfilling existence by being continuously concerned about the erroneous opinions of others.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
29. Conscience… of the other—the weak brother introduced in 1Co 10:28.
for why is my liberty judged off another man's conscience?— The Greek terms for "the other" and "another" are distinct. "The other" is the one with whom Paul's and his Corinthian converts' concern is; "another" is any other with whom he and they have no concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat while I know it not, I have "liberty" to eat without being condemned by his "conscience" [Grotius].
One’s liberty to eat is a result of one’s ignorance of the provenance of the food.
[I] am to abstain only in the case of liability to offend another's conscience; in cases where my own has no scruple, I am not bound, in God's judgment, by any other conscience than my own.
It is not clear how eating or not eating or, for that matter, any action or inaction in the material world by a finite physical creatures tends to the glory of God.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
[It] is most reasonable to interpret those words [“]not thine own[“] in this verse, [“]not thine own only[“], there being frequent instances in Scripture where the negative particle must be so restrained, as John 4:42 6:27,38.
For why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? For why should my practice in a thing wherein I have a liberty, be censured or condemned by the conscience of another, he being persuaded that what I do, and judge that I have a liberty to do, and may do lawfully, is done by me sinfully, and I by him accounted a transgressor for it…
The concern given to how people perceive one’s actions is misplaced. The most we can expect is that our actions are proper and correct at all times, which will not transpire, and for us to be expected to take into considerations how people think, if they do think at all and not simply react emotionally, is neither reasonable nor necessary. This is an impossible yoke limiting our liberty in Christ.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Conscience I say, not thine own… Which is well informed about these things, and is fully persuaded that an idol is nothing, and that things sacrificed to idols are nothing; and as they cannot profit a man, or help forward his comfort, peace, and happiness, so they cannot hinder them:
Whenever protestants broach the subject of idolatry of statues in the Roman Church and icons in the Greek Church, we will do well if we recall the Apostle’s words that “an idol is nothing”.
[But] of the others; either the weak brother, or the unbelieving master of the feast; it is for the sake of their consciences such food must not be eaten, lest either the one should be grieved, or the other reproach:
for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? [They] are the words of the apostle... that it was not right and fitting that he should make use of his liberty... and so his liberty should be condemned as sinful by another man's conscience; since the weak believer would be apt to censure, judge, and condemn him as a libertine, and the unbeliever as an atheist, or one that had no regard to any religion at all; and therefore he reasons, that it was best to abstain from eating, rather than expose his liberty to such a censure and condemnation.
The proper role of man is not to live by the beliefs, censures, and condemnations of others. Gill provides a definition for an atheist: “one that had no regard to any religion at all”. Of course, “atheist” is a compound word from “a”, “without”, and “theos”, “God”, meaning “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”
Any censure or condemnation spoken in ignorance has merit only in appearance, not in reality, and can be rightly ignored.
Geneva Study Bible
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: {8} for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
(8) A reason: for we must take heed that our liberty is not spoken of as evil...
We cannot control what others say regarding ourselves, whether through malice or ignorance.
...and that the benefit of God which we ought to use with thanksgiving is not changed into impiety. And this is through our fault, if we choose rather to offend the conscience of the weak, than to yield a little of our liberty in a matter of no importance, and so give occasion to the weak to judge in such sort of us, and of Christian liberty. [The] apostle takes these things upon his own person, that the Corinthians may have so much the less occasion to oppose anything against him.
If a matter is of “no importance”, then it can be ignored. To be always concerned about matters “of no importance”, will lead one to neuroses and psychoses.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
1 Corinthians 10:29 f. Lest now any one should understand this last διὰ τ. συνείδ. as meaning one’s own conscience… and so misunderstand Paul with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic explanation, and the reason on which it rests (ἱνατί γάρ… 1 Corinthians 10:30).
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ] his own individual conscience,… [he] who was warned.
τοῦ ἑτέρου] of the other in the case, points back to the τὸν μηνύσαντα, whose conscience, too, is afterwards included under ἄλλης συνειδήσεως.
ἱνατί γὰρ κ.τ.λ [1720]] For why is my liberty, etc., that is: for it is absurd that another man’s conscience should pronounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (my moral freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in themselves). This is the reason, why Paul does not mean one’s own conscience when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eating in the case supposed (1 Corinthians 10:28), but the conscience of the other. One’s own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one’s own self-consciousness, does not need such consideration; for it remains unaffected by the judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without foundation.
One’s “distinctive moral element” is “unaffected by” unfounded judgments passed with slander and, on the other hand, one’s conscience should not affected by any external judgments that conflict with one’s morality.
But even apart from the fact that the text says nothing about “giving occasion,” or “letting it come to such a pass,” it is a very arbitrary proceeding to take a clause standing in such a marked way in the course of the argument as συνείδησιν… ἑτέρου, and to thrust it aside as something only incidentally appended. The connection... of the conditional protasis with the interrogative ΤΊ in the apodosis in 1 Corinthians 10:30, makes it clear enough that Paul wishes to bring out the absurdity of the relation between the two conceptions.
Observe the difference between ΤΟῦ ἙΤΈΡΟΥ (alterius) and ἄλλης (alius, i.e. alienae), by which any other conscience whatever is meant.
χάριτι] Dative of the manner: gratefully, with thanks. Comp Ephesians 2:5, where, however, the context shows that the meaning is by grace… It refers to the grace at meat. By understanding it as beneficio Dei…, we bring in Dei entirely without warrant, and overlook the parallel εὐχαριστῶ, the idea of which is the same with that of ΧΆΡΙΤΙ.
The twice-used ἘΓΏ is emphatic: I for my part.
μετέχω] The object of the verb is self-evident: food and drink. Comp ὙΠῈΡ ΟὟ.
ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤῶ] “Gratiarum actio cibum omnem sanctificat, auctoritatem idolorum negat, Dei asserit [“Thanksgiving sanctifies all food, denies the authority of idols, asserts God.”, Google Translate]…
[1720] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
29. why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?]
This and the following verse are a little obscure, but the sense appears to be that no man has a right to interfere with the liberty enjoyed by another, save so far as his own conduct and conscientious convictions are likely to be affected thereby.
A conviction is “a firmly held belief or opinion.” Convictions may be correct or incorrect.
An excerpt from a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 10:28-30:
“No man has any such right You were doing no harm. You had a perfect right to eat what was set before you with gratitude to God for what He had given.”
Bengel's Gnomen
1 Corinthians 10:29. Τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, thy own) comp. the preceding verse; or rather, because he is there speaking in the plural, my own; comp. this with what immediately follows.--
ἑτέρου, of another) of whom, 1 Corinthians 10:28.--
ἡ ἐλευθερία μου, my liberty) i.e. [Why am] I, along with the liberty of my conscience [judged]; so immediately after... by another along with his conscience which is encumbered with scruples.--
κρίνεται, is judged) i.e., his weak conscience cannot deprive my conscience of its liberty.--
ἄλλης, another) This word has greater force, than if it had been said, of another [judged by ANOTHER conscience; not as Engl. V. another man’s conscience].
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 29. - Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.
You may be well aware that you intend no sanction of idolatry, but if the other supposes that you do, you wound his conscience, which you have no right to do. Your own conscience has already decided for itself.
One’s conscience is one’s distinctive moral element.
For why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
These words explain why he said "conscience not thine own." The mere fact that another person thinks that we are doing wrong does not furnish the smallest proof that we are doing wrong. We stand or fall only to our own Master, and our consciences are free to form their own independent conclusion. Perhaps... we have an echo of the arguments used by… [those] who objected to sacrifice themselves to the scruples of the weak. The independence of conscience is powerfully maintained in Romans 14:2-5. 1 Corinthians 10:29.
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Second Epistle to the Corinthians 4:4
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(4) In whom the god of this world...— The word sounds somewhat startling as a description of the devil, but it has parallels in “the prince of this world” (John 14:30), “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2). The world which “lieth in wickedness,” perhaps in the evil one (1John 5:19), worships the spirit of hate and falsehood and selfishness, and in so doing it practically deifies the devil.
One wonders if “practically” deifying “the devil” is equivalent of assign him the status of being the “second God”.
And the work of that god of this world is directly in antagonism to that of God. He seeks to lead men back from light to darkness. “He blinded” (the Greek tense indicates an act in past time without necessarily including the idea of its continuance in the present) “the minds of the unbelievers.” The noun is probably used, as in 1Corinthians 6:6; 7:12-15; 10:27; 14:22-24, with a special reference to the outside heathen world. Their spiritual state was, St. Paul seems to say, lower than that of Israel.
While the devil leads men to darkness, Lucifer brings them to the light. If nothing else, the agents in the other world have job security.
The veil was over the heart of the one; the very organs of spiritual perception were blinded in the other.
Lest the light of the glorious gospel.—Better to the end that the radiance (or, light-giving power) of the gospel of the glory of God... The words describe not merely a purpose, but a result. The word for “light” here... [is] a secondary form, derived from the verb “to give light” or “illumine.” The English version “glorious,”... lacks the vigour and emphasis of the original, which expresses the thought that the gospel is not only glorious itself, but shares in the glory of Christ... But even that gospel may fail of its purpose. The blind cannot see even the brightness of the noon-day sun. The eye of the soul has to receive sight first. So, in the mission to the Gentiles given to the Apostle [Saint Paul] on his conversion, his first work was “to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light”…
And he [Jesus] said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven. Luke 18:10
Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth,,, believe it not. Matthew 24:26
And as he [Saul] journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: Acts 9:3
[As] I [Paul] made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. Acts 22:7
At midday, O king, I [Paul] saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me… Acts 26:13
Christ, who is the image of God.--The Greek word is used in the LXX. of Genesis 1:26 for the image of God, after which man was created. So in 1Corinthians 11:7 man is spoken of as “the image and glory of God.” In Hebrews 10:1 it stands as intermediate between the object and the shadow, far plainer than the latter, yet not identical with the former, however adequately representing it.
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God... 1 Corinthians 11:7
Should shine unto them.—Literally, should irradiate, or, cast its beams upon them.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
4:1-7 The apostles had no base and wicked designs, covered with fair and specious pretences.
Henry offers his opinions on the motives of the Apostles, which seems odd to mention, yet there were reports, as recorded in the protestant Bible, that some of early believers said “Let us do evil, that good may come.” [Romans 3:8]
They did not try to make their ministry serve a turn. But the design of the devil is, to keep men in ignorance; and when he cannot keep the light of the gospel of Christ out of the world, he spares no pains to keep men from the gospel, or to set them against it. The rejection of the gospel is here traced to the wilful blindness and wickedness of the human heart. God could have sent angels to make known... the gospel, or could have sent the most admired sons of men to teach the nations, but he chose humbler, weaker vessels, that his power might be more glorified in upholding them, and in the blessed change wrought by their ministry.
As we mentioned, the devil keeps men in ignorance, while Lucifer brings them light or knowledge.
We realize that people dismiss or refuse of the proposal of the Gospel, yet we cannot assign the reason to either willful blindness nor wickedness, regardless of the thoughtfulness of these conclusions.
xxxx
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
In whom- In respect to whom; among whom; or in whose hearts. The design of this verse is to account for the fact that the glory of the gospel was not seen by them. It is to be traced entirely to the agency of him whom Paul here calls "the god of this world."
The god of this world- There can be no doubt that Satan is here designated by this appellation; though some of the fathers supposed that it means the true God…
While Barnes does not doubt that Satan is designated, Saint Paul did not write “Satan”, but the ambiguous wording of “the god of this world”, which, as Saint Paul would be aware, is open to interpretation.
In John 12:31, he [Satan] is called "the prince of this world."
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. John 12:31
Jesus did not say “Satan”, but used the vague expression “the prince of this world”.
In Ephesians 2:2, he is called "the prince of the power of the air."
Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, Ephesians 2:2
Saint Paul did not write “Satan” or “the god of this world”, but “the prince of the power of the air”. By his commentary, Barnes indicates the following relationships:
“Satan” = “the god of this world” =
“the prince of this world” = “the prince of the power of the air”
And in Ephesians 6:12, the same bad influence is referred to under the names of "principalities, and powers," "the rulers of the darkness of this world," and "spiritual wickedness in high places."
Therefore:
“Satan” = “the god of this world” = “the prince of this world” =
“the prince of the power of the air” = "principalities and powers" =
"the rulers of the darkness of this world" = "spiritual wickedness in high places."
The name "god" is here given to him, not because he has any divine attributes, but because he... has the homage of the people of this world as their god... or who has the affections of their hearts in the same way as it is given to idols.
According to Barnes, the word “God” has no definite meaning, as it can refer either to the Deity or to Satan. The wording “the Lord of this world” might suggest divinity, but Saint Paul did not write that phrase.
Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels… Colossians 2:18
Angels have no “divine attributes”, but they actually have “the homage of the people” as their god.
By "this world" is meant the wicked world; or the mass of people.
The wording of “this world” lacks a moral attribute and so excludes “the wicked world”, however, we are inclined to accept “the mass of people” as the most likely interpretation.
[Satan] has dominion over the world. They obey his will; they execute his plans; they further his purposes, and they are his obedient subjects. He has subdued the world to himself, and was... adored in the place of the true God… "They sacrificed to devils and not to God."
Satan has “dominion over the world”, yet, he requires minions to “execute his plan” and “further his purposes”. Of course, “there is” only “one God” [1 Corinthians 8:6].
Here it is meant by the declaration that Satan is the god of this world:
(1) That the world at large was under his control and direction. He secured the apostasy of man, and early brought him to follow his plans... No more abject submission could be desired by him than has been rendered by the mass of people.
Apostasy: “the abandonment or renunciation of a religious belief.”
The world “was” under his control. Barnes’ usage of the past tense indicates this Satanic “control” is no longer in effect which we attribute to the Incarnation.
(2) the idolatrous world... is under his control, and subject to him… He is worshipped there; and the religious rites and ceremonies of the pagan are in general just such as a mighty being who hated human happiness... and over all the pagan world his power is absolute.
The “idolatrous world” is under the “absolute power” of Satan. Barnes states that Satan hates “human happiness”.
(3) he rules in the hearts and lives of all wicked people- and the world is full of wicked people.
People who do not believe as Barnes believes are “wicked people” who fill the world.
They obey him...[and execute] fraud, and rapine, and piracy, and murder, and adultery, and lewdness; in wars and fightings; in their amusements and pastimes; in dishonesty and falsehood.
By our intentional omission of clarifying that the pronoun “him” refers to Satan, the subject of the sentence could be Jehovah and, based on accounts in the Old Testament, the list would not loose validity.
The dominion of Satan over this world has been, and is still almost universal and absolute; nor has the lapse of 1,800 years rendered the appellation improper as descriptive of his influence, that he is the god of this world. The world pursues his plans; yields to his temptations; neglects, or rejects the reign of God as he pleases... and is still full of abomination[,] cruelty, and pollution, as he desires it to be.
We are unable to reconcile section (1), where Satan was in control, with this section, where the dominion of Satan is “almost universal”.
Barnes accepts Scaliger’s opinion of chronology formulated in the sixteenth century [“the lapse of 1,800 years”].
Hath blinded the minds of them which believe not- Of all who discern no beauty in the gospel, and who reject it. It is implied here:
(1) That the minds of unbelievers are blinded; that they perceive no beauty in the gospel. This is often affirmed of those who reject the gospel, and who live in sin…
Those who do not “perceive or recognize” beauty in the Gospel and dismiss its teachings as ugliness are “blinded”.
As the Bible does not offer one objective definition of “sin”, the wording of those “who live sin” has no objective application.
[They] did not see the spiritual beauty and glory of the plan of redemption. They act in reference to that as they would in reference to this world… All is dark, and obscure, and destitute of beauty to them, however much beauty may be seen in all these objects by others.
(2) that this is done by the agency of Satan; and that his dominion is secured by keeping the world in darkness. The affirmation is direct and positive, that it is by his agency that it is done. Some of the "modes" in which it is done are the following:
(a) By a direct influence on the minds of people. I do not know why it is absurd to suppose that one intellect may, in some way unknown to us, have access to another, and have power to influence it…
This supposition is absurd as there is no evidence demonstrating anyone or anything has access to the intellect of another individual and can influence it. This supposition is superstition.
[Nor] can it be proved that Satan may not have [1] power to pervert the understanding; [2] to derange its powers; [3] to distract its attention; [4] and to give in view of the mind a wholly delusive relative importance to objects.
We agree that it can not be shown that Satan has these four abilities.
In the time of the Saviour it cannot be doubted that in the numerous cases of demoniacal possessions, Satan directly affected the minds of people; nor is there any reason to think that he has ceased to delude and destroy them.
There are no examples of “demoniacal” possession in the Old Testament; as this is a common phenomenon found only in the New Testament, yet, there are few demonic possessions today. Of course, modern man is so sick that one could successfully argue that the vast majority of people today are possessed by demons, as this would explain their erratic behavior, especially their self destructive tendencies.
(b) By the false philosophy which has prevailed- a large part of which seems to have been contrived as if on purpose to deceive the world, and destroy the peace and happiness of people.
False philosophy, or the chance development of poor ideas and their general acceptance over time, is assigned to the goals of deceiving and of destroying. Once again, Barnes mentions the happiness of people and we are uncertain as to the emphasis upon happiness in a world dominated by Satanic malice.
(c) By the systems of superstition and idolatry. All these seem to be under the control of one Master Mind.
It is easier to believe that the world is under the near universal control of Satan, or secret societies, than it is to expend the effort to discover the true cause of events. Since the world is not as Barnes wishes it, the world is seen as being made deformed, ugly, and evil by Satan.
They are so well conceived and adapted to prostrate the moral powers; to fetter the intellect; to pervert the will; to make people debased... and they so uniformly accomplish this effect, that they have all the marks of being under the control of one mighty Mind, and of having been devised to accomplish His purposes over people.
Without a sense of irony, Barnes condemns superstition and idolatry, while mentioning prostrate moral powers and fettered intellects.
(d) By producing in the minds of people a wholly disproportionate view of the value of objects.
As objects or things are real, that is, they partake of reality, they can, and do, have various values. One cannot value unreal or fantastic objects, as the unaided human mind cannot value what it cannot experience.
[The things of this world] are placed directly before us, and are placed directly between us and the glory of the gospel.
Barnes makes the seemingly Gnostic distinction between the physical “things of this world” placed before us and the unseen spiritual “glory of the gospel.”
And the trifles of wealth and of fashion... are made to assume an importance in view of the mind which... excludes the glory of the gospel, and shuts out all the realities of the eternal world.
Barnes dismisses “objects of pleasure”, but repeatedly mentions the need for human happiness.
The “realities of the eternal world” are not, nor can be, experienced by man, as they are supernatural, not realities as such, and cannot be understood by man.
And he does it:
(e) By the blinding influence of passion and vice. Before a vicious mind all is dark and obscure. There is no beauty in truth, in chastity, or honesty, or in the fear and love of God. Vice always renders the mind blind.. and shrouds everything in the moral world in midnight. And in order to blind the minds of people to the glory of the gospel, Satan has only to place splendid schemes of speculation before people; to tempt them to climb the steeps of ambition...
Barnes uses alliteration: “Satan has only to place splendid schemes of speculation” and, with the additional “s” sound in “has” and “place”, this sentence, for what it is worth, when spoken aloud, sounds like a hissing snake.
...to entice them to scenes of gaiety; to secure the erection of theaters, and gambling houses, and houses of infamy and pollution; to fill the cities... with taverns... and to give opportunity everywhere for… unrestrained indulgence of passion; and the glory of the gospel will be as effectually unseen as the glory of the sun is in the darkest night.
Barnes mentions the construction of various buildings and “theaters” leads the list. During Shakespeare’s time, plays were viewed by the common people as sinful as prostitution and no respectable nobleman would be involved with the theater. Therefore, he usage of the word “erection” must be understood as a subtle double entendre.
Lest the light...- [Satan] "hates" the gospel, and wishes to prevent its influence and spread in the world Satan has always hated and opposed it, and all his arts have been employed to arrest its diffusion on earth.
While the god of this world opposes the diffusion of the Gospel and has near universal dominion, yet he has not been successful in his goal. It is as if the prince of the power of the air is powerless to stop the spread and diffusion of the Gospel “on earth.”
The word "light" here means excellence, beauty, or splendor. Light is the emblem of knowledge, purity, or innocence; and is here and elsewhere applied to the gospel, because it removes the errors, and sins, and wretchedness of people…
Per Barnes, light means “excellence”, “beauty”, “splendor”, and symbolizes “purity”, “knowledge”, and “innocence”.
Wretched: “(of a person) in a very unhappy or unfortunate state.”
This purpose of preventing the light of the gospel shining on people, Satan will endeavor to accomplish by all the means in his power. It is his "grand" object in this world, because it is by the gospel only that people can be saved; by that that God is glorified on earth more than by anything else; and... if he can prevent sinners from embracing that, he will secure their destruction, and most effectually show his hatred of God.
Although Barnes writes that Satan hates God, Satan dutifully presents himself to God on two occasions and Satan obeys God’s decree that he not kill Job [Job 1:6, 2:1, 2:6].
Barnes declares that Satan, in denying the glorification of God in this world, desires “destruction” of the deprived, not the expected wording of “damnation”.
And it is to Satan a matter of little importance what people "may be," or "are," provided they are not Christians.
In the English language, the first usage of Christian meaning “one who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity” is from AD 1526.
In the English language, first of usage of Christian meaning “of persons and communities: Believing, professing, or belonging to the religion of Christ” is from AD 1553.
The two definitions of “Christian” appear after the introduction of the protestant Bible.
https://greatestoccultist21century.weebly.com/aatd-the-word-christian.html
They may be amiable, moral, accomplished, rich, honored, esteemed by the world, because in the possession of all these he may be equally sure of their ruin, and because... these things may contribute somewhat to turn away their minds from the gospel.
Barnes writes that being “moral” “may contribute somewhat to turn away… minds from the gospel.” We will not hesitant to omit the conditional phrasing and write that being a moral person will turn one’s mind from the Gospel, as it is popularly expounded and embraced.
Satan... will not oppose plans of gain or ambition;... purposes of fashion and amusement;... schemes by which we desire to rise in the world; he will not oppose the theater, the ballroom, the dance, or the song;... thoughtless mirth; but the moment the gospel begins to shine..., he will make resistance, and then all his power will be concentrated.
Although he cannot prevent the spread of the Gospel, Satan allows men to enjoy themselves as men with diversions such as plays, dances, and songs. It is of interest that the moment minds are exposed to the Gospel, resistance is encountered.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
4. In whom— Translate, "In whose case."
god of this world— The worldly make him their God (Php 3:19). He is, in fact, "the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that ruleth in the children of disobedience" (Eph 2:2).
[The “enemies of the cross of Christ”] Whose end is destruction G684, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. Philippians 3:19
Saint Paul writes “destruction”, not the expected word “damnation”.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G622 as: perish (33), destroy (26), lose (22), be lost (5), lost (4), and miscellaneous (2).
Strong’s G684 is derived from Strong’s G622.
The King James Bible version translates Strong's G684 as: perdition (8), destruction (5), waste (2), damnable (1), to die (with G1519) (1), perish (with G1498) (with G1519) (1), and pernicious (1).
minds— "understandings": "mental perceptions," as in 2Co 3:14.
them which believe not— the same as "them that are lost" (or "are perishing"). Those perishing unbelievers are not merely veiled, but blinded (2Co 3:14, 15): Greek, not "blinded," but "hardened."
Per the commentary:
“them which believe not” = ”them that are lost” = ”them that are perishing”
not believing = being lost = are dying
light of the glorious gospel of Christ— Translate, "The illumination (enlightening: the propagation from those already enlightened, to others of the light) of the Gospel of the glory of Christ." "The glory of Christ" is not a mere quality (as "glorious" would express) of the Gospel; it is its very essence and subject matter.
image of God— implying identity of nature and essence... He who desires to see "the glory of God," may see it "in the face of Jesus Christ"... Christ is "the image of God," into which "same image" we, looking on it in the mirror of the Gospel, are changed by the Spirit; but this image is not visible to those blinded by Satan [Alford].
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Though some, by the god of this world, understand the true and living God, the Lord of heaven and earth; yet the notion of the most interpreters, that it is the devil who is here called the god of this world, because he ruleth over the greatest part of the world, and they are his servants and slaves, is most consonant to Scripture…
Poole states that “the devil”, neither Satan nor “the true God”, is “the god of this world”.
...for though we no where else find him called the god of this world, yet our Saviour twice calls him the prince of this world, John 12:31 14:30; and our apostle, Ephesians 2:2, calls him the prince of the power of the air.
It follows from Poole’s statements that “the devil” is the “prince of this world” and he is the “prince of the power of the air.”
The effect also doth more properly belong to the devil, than unto God, who no otherwise blindeth the eyes of them than either permissively, by suffering them to shut their own eyes, or judicially. And the apostle declares, that those who are so blinded are such persons as believe not.
He further declareth the end of the devil’s agency in blinding men’s eyes with errors, malice, and prejudice,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, the express image of his person, (considered as to his Divine nature),
should shine unto them, that is, into their hearts.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
In whom the god of this world hath blinded...
The description of the persons to whom the Gospel is hid, is here further carried on; in which the character of Satan is given, who is here styled "the god of this world"; just as he is by Christ, "the prince of this world", John 12:31 not because he had any hand in the making of it, or has any concern in the government of it, or in the disposal of men or things in it…
Concern: As a verb [1] “relate to; be about.” [2] “worry (someone); make anxious.”
As a noun [1] ‘anxiety; worry.’ [2] “a matter of interest or importance to someone.”
Gill agrees that Satan is “the god of this world” and “the prince of this world”, although Satan did not assist in making this world nor does he have concern over its governance nor concern in the disposal of men or the things in it. Satan, as explained by Gill, is a strange god.
Yours Truly has no recollection of assisting in the formation of the cosmos nor are we concerned with its governance nor of the things in it, although we do take an interest in certain individuals known to us who possess our highest virtue. The reason for our general lack of concern is that our control over these things ranges from minuscule to nothing and to worry or be anxious about matters we cannot affect is not reasonable. As we partake of Gill’s attributes of the god of this world and having been chrismated, we are in the seemingly contradictory position of being both a Satan and a Christ.
[But] because of his influence over the worst, and greatest part of the world; which lies in wickedness... who have voluntarily given themselves up to him, and whose lusts they will do; and so declare themselves to be his children, and him their Father, yea, their god: the influence he has over them is…
Satan has no concern for the world, yet influences the greatest part of the wicked world.
…he hath blinded the minds of them that believe not.
The apostle [Saint Paul] here seems to refer to one of the devils, which the Jews (l) frequently speak of "Samael"; who they say is the head of all the devils… and who deceived our first parents...
The Jews believe that one of the devils, Samael by name, deceived Eve.
[The] word is compounded of "god", and "to blind"; him they call the angel of death, and say (m), that he hath, "brought darkness upon the face of the world", or the creatures, the Gentiles: agreeably to which the apostle [Saint Paul] calls the devil, "the god that hath blinded"; what he blinds in men, is "their mind": the more excellent and knowing part of man; not the eyes of their bodies, but of their understandings; which shows the near access Satan has to the souls of men…
Satan can “nearly approach or enter” into the souls of men.
[He] penetrates into their very hearts and minds, and has an influence there: the persons whose minds he blinds, are those "who believe not"; which distinguishes them from others that perish, who never enjoyed the Gospel, and therefore he says, "in", or "among whom"; and from true believers, on whom Satan can have no such influence; and is a reason of these men's perishing, and of Satan's influence over them; and must be understood of reprobates, and final unbelievers: the influence he has over them is expressed by "blinding" them; which he does, by diverting them from hearing the Gospel, and by stirring up the enmity of their minds against it, and by increasing their natural darkness and blindness with respect to it. The end which Satan has in doing this is,
lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them;
here many things are hinted, in commendation of the Gospel, as that it is the Gospel of Christ... The Jews (n) call the Messiah, "the image of God"; some copies... and the Arabic version, read, "the image of the invisible God"... So Christ is as the Son of God, being the natural, substantial, essential, eternal, not created, and perfect image of his Father; and so he is as man and Mediator: further, the Gospel is said to be the "glorious" Gospel of Christ, as it must needs be, since it so clearly and illustriously sets forth the glory of Christ; contains such glorious doctrines and promises in it, and is attended with such glorious effects, where it comes with power: add to all this, that "light" is attributed to it; the Jews (o) speak of the "light of the law", and the law is called light;… [saying] "there is no light but the law"; but this may be more truly said of the Gospel, by which not only persons may be notionally enlightened, who never were made really partakers of the grace of God, but is the means of spiritual and saving illumination to thousands, when it is attended with the demonstration of the Spirit: now all these excellent characters of the Gospel serve to enhance the spite and malice of Satan,
Christ is “not created”, as the Nicean Creed states: He was “begotten, not made”; “genitum non factum”.
Satan acts with “spite” and “malice”.
in endeavouring all he can to kinder the bright shining of this glorious Gospel, to and upon any of the sons of men; and his reason for so doing is, because he knows, that should the Gospel shine unto them, the interest and glory of Christ would be advanced, and his own would decline.
The interests between Satan and Christ is a zero sum game.
(l) Targum Jon. ben Uzziel in Genesis 3.6. Zohar in Gen. fol. 37. 2. Vajikra Rabba, fol. 162. 3. Debarim Rabba, fol. 245. 3. Tzeror Hammor in Gen. fol. 6. 2. & 7. 3. Vid. Irenaeum. adv. Haeres. l. 1. p. 136.
(m) Zohar in Gen. fol. 31. 1. Tzeror Hammor, fol. 93. 3.
(n) Zohar in Gen. Fol. 31. 1.
(o) Targum in Job 3.16. T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 7. 2. Tzreor Hammor, fol. 89. 4.
Geneva Study Bible
In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the {d} light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the {e} image of God, should shine unto them.
(d) The light of plain and enlightening preaching, which shows forth the glory of Christ.
(e) In whom the Father sets himself forth to be seen and beheld.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
2 Corinthians 4:4. A statement to establish the ἐν τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. ἐστι κεκαλ., so that ἐν οἶς is equivalent to ὅτι ἐν τούτοις (comp. on 2 Corinthians 3:6): in whom the devil has made blind, i.e. incapable of the perception of the truth, the thoughts of the unbelieving (νοήματα, as in 2 Corinthians 3:14[189]). It is his work to make the unbelieving blind, as respects the bringing forward their power of thought to confront the light of the gospel;
The devil has the joyless task of making the “unbelieving blind” to the gospel. It is joyless because, as the unbelieving are synonymous with the blind, there is nothing to do.
...and this his characteristic ἔργον he has carried out in the ἀπολλύμενοι; in their souls he has succeeded in his devilish work of blinding the thoughts of the unbelieving.
The devil succeeds in blinding the thoughts of unbelievers.
Observe... that the conception of the ἀπολλύμενοι [apollymenoi, “destroyed”, once in the KJV] is a narrower one than that of the ἄπιστοι [apistoi,”unbelievers”, once in the KJV]. Not with all ἄπιστοι does the devil gain in presence of the preaching of the gospel his object of blinding them and making them ἀπολλύμενοι; many so comport themselves towards this preaching that they become believing and σωζόμενοι [sōzomenoi, “that be saved”, once in the KJV]…
Hence τῶν ἀπίστων [ton apiston] is neither aimless... nor is it… to be referred to a negligence of expression, so that Paul would, in order to round off the sentence and to make his opinion quite clearly prominent, that the ἀπολλύμενοι are the ἄπιστοι, have appended the appositional clause ungrammatically and tautologically. Fritzsche [AD 1776–1850]... takes τῶν ἀπίστ. proleptically: “hoc effectu ut nullam haberent fidem.” But the proleptic use of adjectives... is nowhere found with the genitive of an adjective used substantively; it must have run ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα ἄπιστα.[190]... Quite arbitrarily, most of the older expositors… explain it in such a way that ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ fills the place of an apposition to ἘΝ ΟἿς. In that case it must have run: ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἈΠΊΣΤΟΙς... According to Ewald [AD 1803– 1875], Paul has inserted the addition τῶν ἀπίστ., as if he meant thereby merely to say: “the Gentile thoughts,” because the Jews regarded the Gentiles only as the unbelievers.
We now know where protestants derive their opinion that certain Christians are unbelievers.
But such a reference would have needed all the more a precise indication, as the reader had to find in τοῖς ἀπολλυμ. Gentiles and Jews, consequently in τῶν ἀπίστ, no special reference to the Gentile character. According to Hofmann, ἐν οἷς is intended to be the domain within which, etc., and this domain is in view of the preaching of the apostle the Gentile one, in which there has taken place that which this relative clause asserts of the unbelieving. To this the context is opposed, which gives no justification whatever for limiting the ἀπολλύμενοι to the sphere of the Gentile world; they form, in general, a contrast to the σωζόμενοι… and to the ἩΜΕῖς ΠΆΝΤΕς, 2 Corinthians 3:18, who are just the σωζόμενοι. Finally, it is to be observed as a mere historical point, that Irenaeus..., Origen, Tertullian..., Chrysostom, Augustine..., with a view to oppose the dualism of the Marcionites and Manichaeans, joined τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου with ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ (infidelium hujus saeculi).
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτ.] the God of this... period. On the subject-matter… The devil, as ruling principle, is called god. Among the Rabbins, also, it is said: “Deus primus est Deus verus, sed Deus secundus est Samael, [“The first God is the true God, but the second God is Samael”, our translation]”… where he is called the strange god and the other god. There is not something ironical in the expression here... for that would be quite alien to the connection...
Irony: “the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.”
Because something would be alien to the connection does not prevent it from partaking of irony.
The second God is the “strange god”, the “other god”, and the “blind god” who may inhabit the Holy of Holies which was entered only once a year. The high priest wore bells to announce his presence in the Holy of Holies and even then there was the possibly that he may be struck down. In the unfortunate event of the demise of the high priest, a rope was tied to his ankle so that the body could be pulled from the Holy of Holies, without the need for anyone else entering it.
[On] the contrary, with the utmost earnestness the great anti-Christian power of the devil is intended to be made palpably evident.
“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.] Purpose of the devil: in order that the illumination should not shine, etc. For that which illumines does not shine for the blinded.[191] Hence it is... unnecessary to explain αὐγάσαι [augazó,”to shine forth”, once in the KJV] to see, or to have an eye upon… which signification... undoubtedly occurs in Greek poets..., but is foreign even to the LXX… the simple αὐγάζειν does not occur in the classic writers with the neuter meaning fulgere (though the compounds καταυγάζειν and διαυγάζειν, which are the readings of several uncials, do so occur), but only in the active sense: irradiate, illumine...
φωτισμός] illumining, is found in Sextus Empiricus... more often in the LXX…. Without figure, the meaning is: in order that the enlightening truth of the gospel might not he known and appropriated by them.
τῆς δόξης τοῦ Χριστοῦ] The glory of the exalted Christ... is here denoted as the contents of the Messianic preaching; elsewhere (1 Corinthians 1:18) it is the word of the cross. Both meanings are used according to the requirement of the context, and both rightly... for the δόξα [doxa] is the consequence of the death of the cross, by which it was conditioned… and it conditions the future completion of the work of the cross…
ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τ. θεοῦ] for Christ in the state of His exaltation [192] is again, as He was before His incarnation… fully ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ and ἴσα θεῷ (Php 2:6), hence in His glorified corporeality (Php 3:21) the visible image of the invisible God… It is true that in the state of His humiliation He had likewise the divine δόξα, which He possessed κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1:4), which also, as bearer of the divine grace and truth.
Expositor's Greek Testament
2 Corinthians 4:4. ἐν οἷς ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος:
among whom the god of this world, sc., Satan. αἰών is an “age,” a certain limit of time, and so ὁ αἰὼν οὑτός… is “this present age,” over which the devil is regarded as having power… We have the expression αἱ βασιλεῖαι τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου in Ignatius… Wetstein [AD 1693–1754] quotes a Rabbinical saying, “The true God is the first God, but Sammael (i.e., the evil angel who was counted Israel’s special foe) is the second God”. Many early writers… through dread of Gnostic speculations, dissociate ὁ Θεός [the God] from τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου [this age], which they join with τῶν ἀπίστων [the unbelieving]. But this is a mere perversity of exegesis, suggested by controversial prejudice.
ἐτύφλωσε τὰ νοήματα τῶν ἀπίστων: hath blinded (the “ingressive aorist” again; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:2) the minds (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:14) of the unbelieving. Out of sixteen occurrences of the word ἀπιστος in the Pauline Epistles, fourteen are found in the Epp. to the Corinthians; it consistently means “unbelieving,” and is always applied to the heathen, not to the Jews (except, perhaps, Titus 1:15).--
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι κ.τ.λ.: to the end that the light (lit. “the illumination”) of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the Image of God, should not dawn upon them. This is the force of αὐγάσαι, even if... we omit αὐτοῖς from our text; αὐγή is the “dawn,” and αὐγάσαι is to be taken intransitively. The R.V. marginal rendering “that they should not see the light,” etc., does not suit the context so well. The A.V. “the light of the glorious gospel of Christ” is inadequate, as it does not bring out the force of the phrase τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τῆς δόξης. δόξης is the genitive of contents... the substance of the good tidings preached is the δόξα, the glorious revelation of Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:6 below). That Christ is the Image or εἰκών [icon] of God is the statement of St. Paul which approaches most nearly in form to the λόγος doctrine of St. John…
P. Ewald, who maintains that St. Paul was acquainted with a Johannine tradition of our Lord’s words, finds in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 reminiscences of conversations reported in the Fourth Gospel. Thus we have in consecutive verses (John 8:44-45) ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστὲ… οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι, and the expression ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου is comparable with ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου [the archon of this cosmos](John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11). The parallels are certainly interesting; cf. also the phrase εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ [image of God] with John 8:19; John 8:42.
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. John 8:44
Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world [ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου] be cast out. John 12:31
Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world [ὁ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἄρχων] cometh, and hath nothing in me. John 14:30
Of judgment, because the prince [ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου] of this world is judged. John 16:11
The translation of ἄρχων [archon] is consistently translated in these examples as “prince”.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
4. in whom the god of this world] i.e. the devil, who is called the prince or ruler of this world in John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11…
The King James Bible versions translates the masculine noun archōn [Strong's G758] as: ruler (22), prince (11), chief (2), magistrate (1), and chief ruler (1).
He is so called because for the present he has power in it, Revelation 12:12. The early fathers, in their zeal against the two gods (one good and one evil) of the Manichaeans and some sects of the Gnostics...
And, as we have learned, of the Jews.
...repudiate this interpretation, and render, in defiance of the plain meaning, ‘God hath blinded the understandings of the unbelievers of this world.’
A quote from Calvin is omitted.
hath blinded the minds of them which believe not] The meaning is either (1) that all were perishing alike (John 3:18), but that some believed and Satan blinded the minds of the rest, or (2) that all were formerly unbelieving, but that some, by rejecting the good tidings of salvation through Christ, passed over into the category of the perishing.
The word “perishing” is a technical term for those who reject the Gospel.
In support of (1) we may render ‘in whom’ by ‘among whom.’ The word here translated ‘them which believe not’ is used in 1 Corinthians 6:6; 7:12-15; 10:27; 14:22-24, of those who do not believe in Christ. The word translated ‘blinded’ is not the same as that used in ch. 2 Corinthians 3:14.
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ] Rather, lest the enlightenment (Rhemish, illumination) of the Gospel of the glory of Christ. The word translated ‘light’ in the A. V. signifies rather the result of light than light itself. The words translated ‘glorious gospel’ are so translated in virtue of the constant occurrence of Hebraisms of this kind in the N. T. But it seems impossible to doubt that there is here a reference to the ‘glory’ so frequently mentioned in the last chapter, as in the word ‘blinded’ there is an obvious reference to the vail.
who is the image of God] The word in the original is exactly equivalent to our word likeness. An image or likeness is a visible representation of an object. So Christ in His humanity... is a visible representation of the unseen God.
The Council of Nicea allows images of Christ to be created, due to his visible form resulting from the Incarnation. Additionally, images of Christ and the Saints can be venerated, but not worshiped, as protestants claim.
No revelation of the wisdom and power of God that man has received can compare with that made in the Life, Death and Resurrection of the Incarnate Son. Also as the ‘Mediator of the New Covenant’..., the glory of the Invisible God, streams from His Face, a glory far brighter than that with which Moses’ face shone after communing with God.
Bengel's Gnomen
2 Corinthians 4:4.
Ἐν οἷς, as concerns whom, [in whom])--
ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, the god of this world) A great, but awful description of Satan..., comp. Ephesians 2:2, respecting the fact itself: and Php 3:9, respecting the term. Who would otherwise think, that he could in the case of men obstruct so great a light [as that which the Gospel affords]? But there is somewhat of a mimesis [“representation or imitation of the real world in art and literature.”]; [19] for those that perish, especially the Jews, think, that they have God, and know Him.
Bengel identifies Satan as the “god of this world”.
Bengel [AD 1687-1752] categorizes the Jews with those who are perishing and we are surprised that they are not described by their historical slurs as either “Christ deniers” or “killers of Christ.” Of course, crucifixion was the Roman method of execution, while stoning was the manner of Jewish execution. Therefore, per the Gospel accounts, Jesus was killed by the Romans.
As it not disputed that the Jews are a tribe of Jehovah’s chosen people, the Israelites, and have the divine revelation of the Law, it is reasonable to state that they “have God” and “know Him”. In fact, we have learned they have a first God and a second God.
We now know why some researchers claim that Gnosticism has a Jewish origin. Previously, we only knew of the divine wisdom, or Shekhinah, that is feminine and corresponds to wisdom, or Sophia, of the Gnostics.
The ancients construed ΤΟῦ ΑἸῶΝΟς ΤΟΎΤΟΥ with ΤῶΝ ἈΠΊΣΤΩΝ, as if it were, the unbelievers of this world, in order that they might give the greater opposition to the Manicheans and the Marcionites.[20]--
τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, of this world) He says, of this, for the devil will not be able always to assail.--
ἐτύφλωσε, blinded) not merely veiled [ch. 2 Corinthians 3:14-15].--
The King James Bible version translates the verb typhloō [Strong's G5186] as: blind (3)
τῶν ἀπίστων, of them who believe not) An epithet,[21] by supplying the relative pronoun ἐκείνων, of them; for among those, that perish, are chiefly those, who, though they have heard, do not believe. The Gospel is received by faith unto salvation.--
By analogy, the modern Gospel is rejected by reason unto damnation.
εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι[22]) lest should shine.--
τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, Κ.Τ.Λ., the enlightening [illumination] of the Gospel, etc.)
He afterwards calls it the enlightening of the knowledge, etc.--
φωτισμὸς, enlightening, is the reflection or propagation of rays from those, who are enlightened, for the purpose of enlightening more. The Gospel and knowledge are correlatives, as cause and effect.--
τῆς δόξης, of the glory) 2 Corinthians 3:18, note.--
εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ, the image of God)
From this we may sufficiently understand how great is the glory of Christ, v. 6; 1 Timothy 6:15. He, who sees the Son, sees the Father, in the face of Christ. The Son exactly represents and reflects the Father.
[19] See Append. Allusion to an opponent’s words or sentiments.
[20] Both which sects regarded matter as essentially evil and under the power of the devil, which the rendering, god of this world, seemed to sanction.—ED.
[21] Beng. would make it thus, The unbelieving lost, spoken of above.
[22] The Germ. Ver. also exhibits the pronoun αὐτοῖς, which is more highly esteemed in the margin of the 2d Ed. than in the larger Ed.—E. B.
ABCD corrected, G Vulg. f Orig. Iren. omit αὐτοῖς. Except one passage of Origen there is none of the oldest authorities in support of it.—ED.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 4. - The god of this world; rather, the god of this age.
The King James Bible version translates the 128 occurrences of the masculine noun aiōn [Strong's G165] as: ever (71), world (38), never (with G3364) (with G1519) (with G3588) (6), evermore (4), age (2), eternal (2), and miscellaneous (5).
It is... "a great and horrible description of the devil." He is not, however, here called a god of the kosmos, but only of the olam hazzeh [“the everyday world”-GDO], the present dispensation of things as it exists among those who refuse to enter that kingdom in which the power of Satan is brought to nought. The melancholy attempt to get rid of Manichean arguments by rendering the verse "in whom God blinded the thoughts of the unbelievers of this world" is set aside by the fact that the terrible description of Satan as "another god" (El acheer) was common among the rabbis.
The devil, not Satan, is the “god of this age”.
Satan was described as “another god” among the Rabbis.
They knew that his power was indeed a derivative power, trot [sic?, though?] still that it was permitted to be great… In John 12:31 (John 14:30) our Lord speaks of him as "the ruler of the kosmos."
Hath blinded; rather, blinded. The verb here has no other meaning than "to blind," and is quite different from the verb "to harden," rendered by "to blind" in 2 Corinthians 3:14 with the same substantive. They are blind from lack of faith, and so being "unbelieving" they are" perishing"... seeing that they "walk in darkness"... and are in Satan's power… Blindness of heart," says St. Augustine, "is both [1] a sin and [2] a punishment of sin and [3] a cause of sin."
The light of the glorious gospel of Christ; rather, the illumination of the gospel of the glory of the Christ.
The word photismos in later ecclesiastical Greek was used for "baptism."
Who is the image of God (2 Corinthians 3:18; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3).
Should shine unto them; or, as in the Revised Version, should dawn upon them. The other rendering, "that they should not see the illumination," gives to the verb augazo, a rarer sense, only found in poetry, and not known to the LXX. 2 Corinthians 4:4
Vincent's Word Studies
The god of this world (ὁ θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου) The phrase occurs only here… Satan is called god in the rabbinical writings. "The first God is the true God; but the second god is Samael." "The matron said, 'Our god is greater than thy God; for when thy God appeared to Moses in the bush, he hid his face; when, however, he saw the serpent, which is my god, he fled."'
We are unsure who the “matron” is and we could only find this quote in online versions of Vincent’s Word Studies.
The light (τὸν φωτισμὸν) Only here and 2 Corinthians 4:6. Lit., the illumination, act of enlightening.
Image of God Christ's light is also God's. Compare Hebrews 1:3, Rev., effulgence (ἀπαύγασμα, compare αὐγάσαι shine, in this passage). Theodoret [AD 393-457], says: "The effulgence is both from the fire and with the fire, and has the fire as its cause, yet is not divided from the fire; for whence comes the fire, thence also comes the effulgence."
Shine (αὐγάσαι) Only here in the New Testament. From αὐγή brightness, which also occurs but once, Acts 20:11, daybreak. In classical Greek of the sun especially. Rev., dawn is legitimate as a translation, but hardly here, since Paul is going back to the figure of 2 Corinthians 3:18.
****
For there must be also heresies among you,
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
First Epistle to the Corinthians 11:19
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(19) For there must be also heresies.—Better, For there must be also sects. There have been many attempts to explain where lies the difference between the “divisions” of the former verse and the “sects” of this verse. From all that we know of the Apostolic Church it is clear that neither of these words can mean sects separated from the Church, but “parties” in the Church. Christ had foretold… that “stumbling-blocks,” or “scandals,” must arise in the Church, and it is possible that our Lord on some occasion spoke of these as “sects” (Justin Martyr [AD 100-160] attributes the use of this very word to our Lord); and St. Paul, possibly, uses the word here because it was the one traditionally reported as having been used by Christ in some of His unrecorded utterances.
For Saint Paul to quote “unrecorded utterances” of Christ contradicts his express statement that he only wants to know Christ crucified [1 Corinthians 2:2].
Christ has foretold that in the divine economy of permission such divisions will arise. They are allowed because this is a state of continual judgment; and the existence of such “offences” will be God’s means of manifesting those who are void of offence, and those who are not.
It is not certain what is meant by the wording “void of offence”, as all sin and come short of the glory of God [Romans 3:23].
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
11:17-22 The apostle rebukes the disorders in their partaking of the Lord's supper. The ordinances of Christ, if they do not make us better, will be apt to make us worse. If the use of them does not mend, it will harden. Upon coming together, they fell into divisions, schisms. Christians may separate from each other's communion, yet be charitable one towards another; they may continue in the same communion, yet be uncharitable. This last is schism, rather than the former. There is a careless and irregular eating of the Lord's supper, which adds to guilt.
Since the “Lord’s supper” is only symbolic or “a conventional representation of an object, function, or process”; not Christ’s body and blood, it is uncertain how eating this can add to guilt.
Many rich Corinthians seem to have acted very wrong at the Lord's table, or at the love-feasts, which took place at the same time as the supper.
Henry offers his speculation on the behavior and the various economic statuses of Christians in the ancient church at Corinth.
The rich despised the poor, and ate and drank up the provisions they brought, before the poor were allowed to partake; thus some wanted, while others had more than enough. What should have been a bond of mutual love and affection, was made an instrument of discord and disunion.
Henry provides a plausible backstory between opposing social groups to Saint Paul’s letter to Corinth.
We should be careful that nothing in our behaviour at the Lord's table, appears to make light of that sacred institution. The Lord's supper is not now made an occasion for gluttony or revelling, but is it not often made the support of self-righteous pride, or a cloak for hypocrisy? Let us never rest in the outward forms of worship; but look to our hearts.
Symbol: “a mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process.”
It is not clear how the Lord’s supper, which is symbolic and can only a representation, not an authentic version, can be described as sacred.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
For there must be- It is necessary (δεῖ dei); it is to he expected; there are reasons why there should be.
What these reasons are he states in the close of the verse; compare Matthew 18:7; 2 Peter 2:1; 2 Peter 2:2. The meaning is, [1] not that divisions are inseparable from the nature of the Christian religion, [2] not that it is the design and wish of the Author of Christianity that they should exist, and [3] not that they are physically impossible, for then they could not be the subject of blame; but that such is human nature, such are the corrupt passions of men, the propensity to ambition and strifes, that they are to be expected, and they serve the purpose of showing who are, and who are not, the true friends of God.
Blame: “assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.”
Through human understanding, the false friends of God can be distinguished from “the true friends of God”.
Heresies- Margin, "Sects." Greek Αἱρεσεις Haireseis see the note at Acts 24:14. The [English] words "heresy" and "heresies" occur only in these places, and in Galatians 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1.
The King James Bible version translates the 9 occurrences of the feminine noun hairesis [Strong's G139] as: sect (5), and heresy (4).
The Greek word occurs also in Acts 5:17 (translated "sect"); Acts 15:5; 24:5; 26:5; 28:22, in all which places it denotes, and is translated, "sect." We now attach to the word usually the idea of a fundamental error in religion, or some "doctrine" the holding of which will exclude from salvation.
It is possible for one to have beliefs that contradict the beliefs of others and, by maintaining these beliefs, one will be excluded “from salvation”; Divine Will and Divine Mercy be damned.
But there is no evidence that the word is used in this signification in the New Testament. The only place where it can be supposed to be so used... is in Galatians 5:20, where... the word "contentions" or "divisions," would be quite as much in accordance with the connection. That the word here does not denote error in doctrine, but schism, division, or "sects," as it is translated in the margin, is evident from two considerations:
(1) It is the proper philological meaning of the word, and its established and common signification in the Bible.
Strong’s G139 is derived from Strong’s G138. The King James Bible version translates the verb haireō [Strong's G138] as: choose (3).
(2) it is the sense which the connection here demands. The apostle had made no reference to error of doctrine, but is discoursing solely of "irregularity" in "conduct;" and the first thing which he mentions, is, that there were schisms, divisions, strifes. The idea that the word here refers to "doctrines" would by no means suit the connection, and would indeed make nonsense. It would then read, "I hear that there are divisions or parties among you, and this I cannot commend you for. For it must he expected that there would be "fundamental errors of doctrine" in the church." But Paul did not reason in this manner.
Barnes seems to understand Saint Paul’s reasoning better than Saint Paul himself. Of course, thinking, understanding, and forming judgments by a process of logic is not necessarily an aspect of Pauline doctrine.
The sense is, "There are divisions among you. It is to be expected: there are causes for it; and it cannot he avoided that there should be, in the present state of human nature, divisions and sects formed in the church; and this is to be expected in order that those who are true Christians should be separated from those who are not."
The foundation of this necessity is not in the Christian religion itself, for that is pure, and contemplates and requires union; but the existence of sects, and denominations, and contentious may be traced to the following causes:
Since the Christian religions is pure and requires union, divisions and sects are the expected result as adherents shun “false Christians” and have fellowship with “true Christians”.
(1) The love of power and popularity. Religion may be made the means of power; and they who have the control of the consciences of people, and of their religious feelings and opinions, can control them altogether.
We agree that religion is made the means to power, as the intended audience is designed to appeal to the vast majority, unlike philosophy, which is the domain of the few. Religious leaders can control the consciences and the opinions of people, especially when the simple faithful are threatened weekly with eternal damnation for alleged disobedience.
(2) showing more respect to a religious teacher than to Christ;
It is more difficult, nay, nearly impossible, to respect an amalgamation of contradictory sayings and behaviors of an imagined being than to respect a know individual. As always, showing more respect to anyone, even a religious teacher, is a sin [James 2:9].
(3) the multiplication of tests, and the enlargement of creeds and confessions of faith. The consequence is, that every new doctrine that is incorporated into a creed gives occasion for those to separate who cannot accord with it.
We understand “confessions of faith” as protestant communities. We note that Barnes acknowledges that new doctrines or new teaching are created in protestantism and these cause separations.
One wonders how novel teachings are found in a book that has remained unchanged for 500 years.
(4) the passions of people- their pride, and ambition, and bigotry, and unenlightened zeal. Christ evidently meant that his church should be one; and that all who were his true followers should be admitted to her communion, and acknowledged everywhere as his own friends.
Bigotry: “obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction”.
It is only evident from church history that the church was unified; the Romans separated in AD 1054 and the protestants began to leave the Roman church in the sixteenth century. While the Roman Church states that the schismatic Orthodox church left in AD 1054, the Orthodox church has not added any new doctrines since the separation, unlike the Roman Church. We assign no moral judgments to new revelations, whether from Rome or from protestantism, we only bring these developments to the reader’s attention.
From the practice of modern Christians, it is evident there is no objective standard to determine Christ’s “true followers”.
That they which are approved- That they who are approved of God, or who are his true friends, and who are disposed to abide by his laws.
Barnes usage of “his laws” is vague and may include all, some, or none of the 613 Old Testament Laws.
May be made manifest- May be known; recognized; seen. The effect of divisions and separations would be to show who were the friends of order, and peace, and truth. It seems to have been assumed by Paul, that they who made divisions could not be regarded as the friends of order and truth; or that their course could not be approved by God.
The effect of these divisions would be to show who they were. So in… all splitting into factions, where the great truths of Christianity are held,... such divisions show [1] who are the restless, ambitious, and dissatisfied spirits; [2] who they are that... follow the things that make for peace, and the laws of Christ enjoining union; and [3] who they are who are gentle and peaceful, and disposed to pursue the way of truth, and love, and order, without contentions and strifes. This is the effect of schisms in the church; and the whole strain of the argument of Paul is to reprove and condemn such schisms, and to hold up the authors of them to reproof and condemnation; see Romans 16:17, "Mark them which cause divisions, and avoid them."
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
19. heresies— Not merely "schisms" or "divisions" (1Co 11:18), which are "recent dissensions of the congregation through differences of opinion"... but also "heresies," that is, "schisms which have now become inveterate"… At present there were dissensions at the love-feasts; but Paul, remembering Jesus' words (Mt 18:7; 24:10, 12; Lu 17:1) foresees "there must be (come) also" matured separations, and established parties in secession, as separatists.
Paul was not present during Christ’s ministry, so he cannot remember the Redeemer’s words.
The "must be" arises from sin in professors necessarily bearing its natural fruits: these are overruled by God to the probation of character of both the godly and the ungodly... "Heresies" had not yet its technical sense ecclesiastically, referring to doctrinal errors: it means confirmed schisms. St. Augustine's rule is a golden rule as regards questions of heresy and catholicity: "In doubtful questions, liberty; in essentials, unity; in all things, charity."
that … approved may be made manifest—through the disapproved (reprobates) becoming manifested (Lu 2:35; 1Jo 2:19).
Matthew Poole's Commentary
There must be; it is not simply… necessary that there should be such divisions amongst you, (they are caused from the free acts of men’s corrupt wills), but yet these things do not fall out by chance, but through the providence of God, who hath... ordered and decreed, to suffer Satan to show his malice, and men to discover the lusts and corruptions of their own hearts.
The corrupt wills of humanity or corrupt humanity is not due to “chance” or “the occurrence and development of events in the absence of any obvious design”, but through the providence of God.
[Heresy is] a term that, by ecclesiastical usage, is restrained to signify perverse opinions in matter of doctrine, as to which men are stubborn and tenacious; yet it is manifest, that the word is not natively so to be restrained, neither can it reasonably be here so interpreted, but signifies the same thing with schisms and divisions before mentioned: for though... there were corrupt opinions amongst them in matters of doctrine, yet it is unreasonable to understand... these words being brought as a reason why he was inclined to believe that there were such schisms or divisions amongst them, because there must be heresies.
That they which are approved may be made manifest among you:
God hath his wise end in suffering breaches and divisions, that such as are true and sincere Christians, opposing themselves to such violations of charity, might appear to you to be true and sincere…
One can be sincere either “free from pretense or deceit; proceeding from genuine feelings” or “saying what they genuinely feel or believe; not dishonest or hypocritical” and still be incorrect.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
For there must be also heresies among you… This is a reason why he [Saint Paul] was ready to believe there might be... divisions among them; for if there were heresies... such as were subversive of the fundamentals of Christianity, as the denial of the resurrection of the dead, &c.
Some people do not deny the resurrection, but erroneously state it happened in the past and subvert the faith of some [2 Timothy 2:18].
[It] was no wonder that there were schisms and factions among them, since heresies generally issue in them. These... "must be"; because God has decreed they shall... and since this always was the case, that there were false prophets under the former dispensation, it must be expected that false teachers will arise... bringing in damnable heresies; and since Satan is always busy to sow the tares of false doctrine; and human nature, being... easily… deceived, it cannot be thought that it should be otherwise…
We offer a potentially damnable heresy, that is, the resurrection has occurred in the past:
[Hymenaeus and Philetus, v.17] Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 2 Timothy 2:18
that they which are approved: who sincerely believe in Christ, are sound in the faith, and have a well grounded experience of it... and have been tried by others, and found to be sincere, upright, and faithful, and are approved of God and good men:
One can be sincere and be mistaken.
One must have an “experience” of sound faith. The importance of being “approved of God and good men” is stressed. In the long term, seeking external validation or approval cannot be beneficial.
may be made manifest among you; by their steadfastness in the faith, their zealous attachment to it... and warm and honest vindication of it; and by the departure of those from them who oppose it, and go on the side of error and heresy; by which means it is known who are the sincere followers of the Lamb, in doctrine, discipline, and conversation, and who [are] not.
Steadfastness or conviction does not prevent one from being mistaken.
Geneva Study Bible
{16} For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are {f} approved may be made manifest among you.
(16) Although schisms and heresies proceed from the devil, and are evil, yet they come not by chance, nor without cause, and they turn to the profit of the elect.
(f) Whom experience has taught to be of sound religion and godliness.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Expositor's Greek Testament
1 Corinthians 11:19.
Paul is prepared to believe what he thus hears; these divisions were inevitable: “For indeed parties must needs exist among you”.--
δεῖ affirms a necessity lying in the moral conditions of the case… --
αἵρεσις ... is more specific than σχίσμα, implying mental tendency—... “Heresy is theoretical schism, schism practical heresy”. These words... verge toward their ecclesiastical use.--
[There] is a true purpose of God fulfilled in these unhappy divisions; they serve to sift the loyal from the disloyal. “in order that also the approved may become manifest among you”.
Xxxxxloycalty
One wonders of the nature of a false purpose of God is and how it would be fulfilled.
It is uncertain if the “approved” are, or would be, the minority or the majority of the congregation.
These αἱρέσεις are a magnet attracting... unsettled minds, and leaving genuine believers to stand out “approved” by their constancy;.., ἡ ὑπομονὴ κατεργάζεται δοκιμήν…
Unsettled: “lacking stability.”
The “approved” are the authentic or “genuine believers” who are consistent or “enduring and unchanging”. Of course, change is the byword of protestants, as they continually create new teachings with their innovative insights into an unvarying text.
As the approved stand out by their constancy, we mention the Orthodox church, as it has not added to or modified their doctrines since long before the Reformation.
For δόκιμος,... those approved with God thus “become manifest” to men…
[1693] Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans.).
[1694] ert. Tertullian.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
19. heresies]
In the Acts... it is usually translated sect. But in Acts 24:14 and in Galatians 5:20. so and 2 Peter 2:1, it is rendered... heresy. It signifies the deliberate choice of a doctrine or line of conduct, as opposed to receiving it on authority.
Those who do not accept the tradition of authority are heretics. Yet, uncertainty remains in the various branches of protestantism as to which traditions are authoritative, or God given, and which traditions are without authority, or originates with man.
[St Paul says] that not only will there be... division among Christians, but that some of them will go their own way in spite of the instructions both in doctrine and practice delivered to them by Christ’s Apostles.
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you] The Greek is not simply [“]so that[“], but [“]in order that[“], as though God had permitted these evils to arise in order to test the faith... of Christian men.
Like Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of the New Testament tests humanity. It is evident that omniscience is not a characteristic of the Divinity found in the protestant Bible.
approved] δόκιμος, he who has stood the trial. It is the opposite of ἀδόκιμος, reprobate, rejected… Δοκίμιον... is translated trial in the passages cited in the last note.
Bengel's Gnomen
1 Corinthians 11:19. Καὶ αἱρέσεις, also heresies) Schisms and heresies are here applied to one thing; nor is the also intended to make a distinction; but this is its meaning: not only many good things, not merely small stumbling-blocks,... are found among you, but there must be also heresies, or different opinions and schisms, which generally arise out of them. A schism is a mutual separation; heresy is the separation of one party from the unity of the Church, in regard either to faith, or worship.--
By applying Bengel’s definition of “heresy”, that is, “the separation… from the unity of the Church in regard… [to] worship”, it is a true statement that protestants are heretics.
οἱ δόκιμοι, those approved) Therefore there were at least some such persons among them. A conciliatory (ἀστεῖος) mode of expression; for what he really meant to say, was, that those less approved should be openly manifested.
The usage of “less approved” is not synonymous with “unapproved”. It seems that all heresies are equal, but some are more approved than others.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 19. - There must be also heresies among you. Heresies. The word does not mean "erroneous opinions," but party factions. Originally the word only means "a choice," ... but since the opinionativeness of men pushes "a choice" into a "party,"... the word soon acquires a bad sense…
Approved; standing the test (dokimoi), the opposite of the "reprobate" (adokimoi) of 1 Corinthians 9:27. 1 Corinthians 11:19
Vincent's Word Studies
Heresies (αἱρἐσεις)
See on 2 Peter 2:1. In Paul only here and Galatians 5:20. Better, parties or factions, as the result of the divisions.
****
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other:
for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
First Epistle to the Corinthians 10:29
EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(29) Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.— Of course (says St. Paul) I mean his conscience, not yours. For no other man’s scruples are to bind my conscience. While the opinion or weakness of another is never to make my conscience waver from what it knows to be true, it may often be a reason for our sacrificing in act some personal indulgence.
Ellicott does not provide a value system clarifying the reasoning regarding the circumstances of when one would forgo a “personal indulgence” without deferring to another person’s “scruples” or “a feeling of doubt or hesitation with regard to the morality or propriety of a course of action.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
10:23-33 There were cases wherein Christians might eat what had been offered to idols, without sin. But a Christian must not merely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and to edify others.
Henry adds to the meaning of how a Christian is to behave; a Christian must not only consider what is “lawful”, but must “edify others.” We wish all the best to those who have a sense of obligation to “instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually.” As the Master teaches, when the blind lead the blind, they will both fall into a pit [Matthew 15:14]. Of course, falling into a pit can be interpreted as an allegory of falling into the pit; the pit of Hell.
Christianity by no means forbids the common offices of kindness, or allows uncourteous behaviour to any, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices.
Henry [AD 1662-1714] has an unrealistic view of historic western Christianity, wherein it does not allow “uncourteous behavior to any”.
But this is not to be understood of religious festivals, partaking in idolatrous worship.
And Henry adds a disclaimer that, no doubt, not only allows for discourtesy, but for persecution, violence, and murder of those who indulge in “idolatrous worship”, that is, the veneration of images of Jesus and the Saints.
According to this advice of the apostle, Christians should take care not to use their liberty to the hurt of others, or to their own reproach.
Henry states that Christians should not behave in such a manner that onlookers would express “disapproval or disappointment.” However, Henry does not explain why one’s liberty in Christ should be constrained by the conscious or the opinion of another.
[Aiming at the glory of God]... is the great end of all religion, and directs us where express rules are wanting.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Conscience, I say, not thine own - I know that you may have no scruples on the subject. I do not mean that with you this need be a matter of conscience. I do not put it on that; ground, as if an idol were anything, or as if it were in itself wrong, or as if the quality of the meat so offered had been changed; but I put it on the ground of not wounding the feelings of those who are scrupulous, or of leading them into sin.
For why is my liberty...- There is much difficulty in this clause; for... it seems to be entirely contradictory to what the apostle had been saying. He had been urging them to have respect to other people's consciences, and in some sense to give up their liberty to their opinions and feelings. The sense may be thus expressed:
"I am free; I have "liberty" to partake of that food, if I please; there is no law against it, and it is not morally wrong: but if I do, when it is pointed out to me as having been sacrificed to idols, my liberty - the right which I exercise - will be "misconstrued, misjudged, condemned" (for so the word κρίνεται krinetai seems to be used here) by others. The weak and scrupulous believer will censure, judge, condemn me as regardless of what is proper, and as disposed to fall in with the customs of idolaters; and will suppose that I cannot have a good conscience.”
Since we cannot be responsible for people’s misconstruing and misjudging our actions, we can not live a healthy life and a fulfilling existence by being continuously concerned about the erroneous opinions of others.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
29. Conscience… of the other—the weak brother introduced in 1Co 10:28.
for why is my liberty judged off another man's conscience?— The Greek terms for "the other" and "another" are distinct. "The other" is the one with whom Paul's and his Corinthian converts' concern is; "another" is any other with whom he and they have no concern. If a guest know the meat to be idol meat while I know it not, I have "liberty" to eat without being condemned by his "conscience" [Grotius].
One’s liberty to eat is a result of one’s ignorance of the provenance of the food.
[I] am to abstain only in the case of liability to offend another's conscience; in cases where my own has no scruple, I am not bound, in God's judgment, by any other conscience than my own.
It is not clear how eating or not eating or, for that matter, any action or inaction in the material world by a finite physical creatures tends to the glory of God.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
[It] is most reasonable to interpret those words [“]not thine own[“] in this verse, [“]not thine own only[“], there being frequent instances in Scripture where the negative particle must be so restrained, as John 4:42 6:27,38.
For why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? For why should my practice in a thing wherein I have a liberty, be censured or condemned by the conscience of another, he being persuaded that what I do, and judge that I have a liberty to do, and may do lawfully, is done by me sinfully, and I by him accounted a transgressor for it…
The concern given to how people perceive one’s actions is misplaced. The most we can expect is that our actions are proper and correct at all times, which will not transpire, and for us to be expected to take into considerations how people think, if they do think at all and not simply react emotionally, is neither reasonable nor necessary. This is an impossible yoke limiting our liberty in Christ.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Conscience I say, not thine own… Which is well informed about these things, and is fully persuaded that an idol is nothing, and that things sacrificed to idols are nothing; and as they cannot profit a man, or help forward his comfort, peace, and happiness, so they cannot hinder them:
Whenever protestants broach the subject of idolatry of statues in the Roman Church and icons in the Greek Church, we will do well if we recall the Apostle’s words that “an idol is nothing”.
[But] of the others; either the weak brother, or the unbelieving master of the feast; it is for the sake of their consciences such food must not be eaten, lest either the one should be grieved, or the other reproach:
for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? [They] are the words of the apostle... that it was not right and fitting that he should make use of his liberty... and so his liberty should be condemned as sinful by another man's conscience; since the weak believer would be apt to censure, judge, and condemn him as a libertine, and the unbeliever as an atheist, or one that had no regard to any religion at all; and therefore he reasons, that it was best to abstain from eating, rather than expose his liberty to such a censure and condemnation.
The proper role of man is not to live by the beliefs, censures, and condemnations of others. Gill provides a definition for an atheist: “one that had no regard to any religion at all”. Of course, “atheist” is a compound word from “a”, “without”, and “theos”, “God”, meaning “a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.”
Any censure or condemnation spoken in ignorance has merit only in appearance, not in reality, and can be rightly ignored.
Geneva Study Bible
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: {8} for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
(8) A reason: for we must take heed that our liberty is not spoken of as evil...
We cannot control what others say regarding ourselves, whether through malice or ignorance.
...and that the benefit of God which we ought to use with thanksgiving is not changed into impiety. And this is through our fault, if we choose rather to offend the conscience of the weak, than to yield a little of our liberty in a matter of no importance, and so give occasion to the weak to judge in such sort of us, and of Christian liberty. [The] apostle takes these things upon his own person, that the Corinthians may have so much the less occasion to oppose anything against him.
If a matter is of “no importance”, then it can be ignored. To be always concerned about matters “of no importance”, will lead one to neuroses and psychoses.
EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
1 Corinthians 10:29 f. Lest now any one should understand this last διὰ τ. συνείδ. as meaning one’s own conscience… and so misunderstand Paul with his high views of Christian freedom, he adds here this emphatic explanation, and the reason on which it rests (ἱνατί γάρ… 1 Corinthians 10:30).
τὴν ἑαυτοῦ] his own individual conscience,… [he] who was warned.
τοῦ ἑτέρου] of the other in the case, points back to the τὸν μηνύσαντα, whose conscience, too, is afterwards included under ἄλλης συνειδήσεως.
ἱνατί γὰρ κ.τ.λ [1720]] For why is my liberty, etc., that is: for it is absurd that another man’s conscience should pronounce sentence (of condemnation) upon my liberty (my moral freedom from obligation as regards such things, indifferent as they are in themselves). This is the reason, why Paul does not mean one’s own conscience when he says that to spare conscience one should abstain from eating in the case supposed (1 Corinthians 10:28), but the conscience of the other. One’s own conscience, the distinctive moral element in one’s own self-consciousness, does not need such consideration; for it remains unaffected by the judgment passed and slander uttered, seeing that both are without foundation.
One’s “distinctive moral element” is “unaffected by” unfounded judgments passed with slander and, on the other hand, one’s conscience should not affected by any external judgments that conflict with one’s morality.
But even apart from the fact that the text says nothing about “giving occasion,” or “letting it come to such a pass,” it is a very arbitrary proceeding to take a clause standing in such a marked way in the course of the argument as συνείδησιν… ἑτέρου, and to thrust it aside as something only incidentally appended. The connection... of the conditional protasis with the interrogative ΤΊ in the apodosis in 1 Corinthians 10:30, makes it clear enough that Paul wishes to bring out the absurdity of the relation between the two conceptions.
Observe the difference between ΤΟῦ ἙΤΈΡΟΥ (alterius) and ἄλλης (alius, i.e. alienae), by which any other conscience whatever is meant.
χάριτι] Dative of the manner: gratefully, with thanks. Comp Ephesians 2:5, where, however, the context shows that the meaning is by grace… It refers to the grace at meat. By understanding it as beneficio Dei…, we bring in Dei entirely without warrant, and overlook the parallel εὐχαριστῶ, the idea of which is the same with that of ΧΆΡΙΤΙ.
The twice-used ἘΓΏ is emphatic: I for my part.
μετέχω] The object of the verb is self-evident: food and drink. Comp ὙΠῈΡ ΟὟ.
ΕὐΧΑΡΙΣΤῶ] “Gratiarum actio cibum omnem sanctificat, auctoritatem idolorum negat, Dei asserit [“Thanksgiving sanctifies all food, denies the authority of idols, asserts God.”, Google Translate]…
[1720] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
29. why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?]
This and the following verse are a little obscure, but the sense appears to be that no man has a right to interfere with the liberty enjoyed by another, save so far as his own conduct and conscientious convictions are likely to be affected thereby.
A conviction is “a firmly held belief or opinion.” Convictions may be correct or incorrect.
An excerpt from a paraphrase of 1 Corinthians 10:28-30:
“No man has any such right You were doing no harm. You had a perfect right to eat what was set before you with gratitude to God for what He had given.”
Bengel's Gnomen
1 Corinthians 10:29. Τὴν ἑαυτοῦ, thy own) comp. the preceding verse; or rather, because he is there speaking in the plural, my own; comp. this with what immediately follows.--
ἑτέρου, of another) of whom, 1 Corinthians 10:28.--
ἡ ἐλευθερία μου, my liberty) i.e. [Why am] I, along with the liberty of my conscience [judged]; so immediately after... by another along with his conscience which is encumbered with scruples.--
κρίνεται, is judged) i.e., his weak conscience cannot deprive my conscience of its liberty.--
ἄλλης, another) This word has greater force, than if it had been said, of another [judged by ANOTHER conscience; not as Engl. V. another man’s conscience].
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 29. - Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.
You may be well aware that you intend no sanction of idolatry, but if the other supposes that you do, you wound his conscience, which you have no right to do. Your own conscience has already decided for itself.
One’s conscience is one’s distinctive moral element.
For why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?
These words explain why he said "conscience not thine own." The mere fact that another person thinks that we are doing wrong does not furnish the smallest proof that we are doing wrong. We stand or fall only to our own Master, and our consciences are free to form their own independent conclusion. Perhaps... we have an echo of the arguments used by… [those] who objected to sacrifice themselves to the scruples of the weak. The independence of conscience is powerfully maintained in Romans 14:2-5. 1 Corinthians 10:29.