these principles are true, and therefore the apostle concedes them, but at the same time corrects the practical inferences which the Gentile converts drew from them. There were really two distinct questions relating to this subject. The first was, whether eating such sacrifices was lawful ? the other, whether it was lawful to eat them within the precincts of the temple? The apostle does not distinguish these questions until the tenth chapter. Here he speaks of the subject only in its. general aspects.
Now as touching things offered unto idols. Literally, JSut^ concerning idol-sacrifices. The particle (8c,) hut^ serves to in- troduce a new topic. As the fourth verse begins, concerning therefore the eating things offered to idols, the intervening words are a logical parenthesis. This parenthesis may begin immediately after the word idols, or after the word know- ledge, so that the first two clauses of the verse are connected. " But concerning idol-sacrifices, we know we all have know- ledge." This claim to knowledge, though a claim of the Corinthians, and the ground on which they defended the eat- ing of those sacrifices, is not put forward as a point to be con- tested. The apostle adopts it, or makes it his own, and then proceeds to qualify and limit it, precisely as he did with the aphorism, " All things are lawful," in 6, 12; see also 10, 23. The subject of the two verbs know and have in this verse are not necessarily the same. The sense may be : ' I know we all have knowledge.' The knowledge intended is determined by the context. It is the knowledge concerning idols. In this verse Paul says, " We all have knowledge ; " but in v. 7, he says, " This knowledge is not in all." This apparent contra- diction may be explained by supposing, what is perfectly natural, that the apostle has reference to difierent classes of persons in the two passages. In v. 1 he may intend himself and his followers. We all, that is, aU the stronger or more enlightened class of believers. Whereas, in v. 7, he may refer to Christians generally, including the strong and weak. ' This knowledge is not in all, for the weak have it not.' Or the dis- tinction may be between theoretical and practical knowledge. All Christians admit, as a matter of theory, that an idol is nothing, but this knowledge is not in aU believers practical and controlling. This also is natural and satisfactory. It is analogous to the statements of this same apostle in reference to the heathen. In Rom. 1, 23, he says, 'They know God,' but in 1 Cor. 1, 21, he says, they 'know not God.' These