1 Corinthians 8
OGC**Butler’s Comments
Chapter Eight
THE PROBLEM OF CONSCIENCE (1 Corinthians 8:1-13)
IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:**
Why is Paul so antagonistic to knowledgeis he anti-intellectual?
Why were Christians having a problem with foods offered to idols?
If eating or not eating is irrelevant, why all the fuss?
Is it fair to hold me responsible for someone else’s weak conscience?
APPLICATIONS:
Are there today articles or commodities or things used in or associated with ungodliness which might be neutral in themselves but injurious to a Christian’s conscience? Name some.
Would Paul’s instruction about things sacrificed to idols apply today in some foreign countries? Where? Why?
What should a Christian do in a foreign country where idols are worshiped?
If there are brethren in a congregation who seem to be too scrupulous about some things, what should the congregation do?
If there are brethren in a congregation who seem to be insensitive to other’s scruples, what should the congregation do?
Would you classify yourself as weak or strong?
Where would you classify a Christian who thought attending movies was wrong?. Who thought playing cards was all right?
Do you think one Christian should give up any right he has just because another Christian thinks it is sinful?
Do you think Christian liberty is a threat to Christian unity?
- Do you think the weak Christian brother is a threat to Christian unity?
APPREHENSIONS:
Why did some Christians know that an idol was not a god, and others did not know?
How pervasive was idolatry in ancient Corinth?
What kind of knowledge was Paul talking about?
Is it knowledge Paul objects to, or is it the misuse of knowledge?
How is knowledge to be used?
What is man’s highest obligation?
What is the ultimate object of knowledge?
Who are the strong?
Who are the weak?
Why do some Christians think an idol is really a god?
Would a Christian who knows an idol is not a god be superior in his spirituality in the eyes of God?
How serious is it to do something that causes a weaker brother to feel guilty?
When would a strong Christian be obligated to resist the demands of a weaker brother?
In what areas of modern life does Paul’s principle of liberty versus love apply?
**Applebury’s Comments
CHAPTER EIGHT**
Analysis
A.
Paul now considers the second question which the Corinthians had asked in their letter: The question of using meats that had been sacrificed to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1-3).
Since such meats were sold in the markets, their question may have been, Can we as Christians use this meat? Or they may have put it in a declarative form, We know that we all have knowledge about this matter.
The apostle’s answer indicates an important distinction between knowledge and love.
a)
The principle involved:
(1)
Knowledge puffs up.
(2)
Love builds up.
b)
The application of the principle to their problem:
(1)
The one who may suppose that he has correct knowledge about such meats does not know all that he should know, that is, that knowledge is to be regulated by love.
(2)
If one loves God, he is known by Him. To be known by God is more important than to know about meats, especially, when the guiding principle of love for fellow man is forgotten.
B.
Paul explains the truth about idols and about God (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
What we know about idols and about God (1 Corinthians 8:4).
a)
Nothing is an idol in this world.
b)
No one is God except One, that is, there is only one true God.
He explains what he meant by the remark about idols and about God (1 Corinthians 8:5-6).
a)
He acknowledges that there are those that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth.
b)
Consequently, there are in the thinking of some, gods many and lords many.
c)
It is different, however, with the Christian.
(1)
For us, there is one God, the Father.
(a)
He is the creator of all things.
(b)
We, as new creatures, are created for His glory.
(2)
For us, there is one Lord, Jesus Christ.
(a)
Through Him all things are created.
(b)
And we are made new creatures through Him.
C.
He discusses the problem of those who do not have this knowledge
It raises the problem of conscience (1 Corinthians 8:7).
a)
Some, because of what they have been accustomed to think and because they do not have this knowledge, will, in eating this meat, consider it a sacrifice to an idolthat is, idol worship.
b)
By thus doing what they believe to be wrong, their weak conscience is defiled.
He points out the truth about food (1 Corinthians 8:8).
a)
Eating food does not commend us to God.
b)
If we eat it, we are no worse off; if we do not eat it, we are no better off.
This right to eat food sacrificed to idols is limited (1 Corinthians 8:9-11).
a)
He gives a warning about using this liberty which might become a stumblingblock to the weak.
b)
He explains what he has in mind:
(1)
He points to a situation in which a weak man may see someone eating in an idol’s temple but who knows that he is not worshiping an idol in doing so.
(2)
He raises the question: Will not the weak one be emboldened to eat the meat and in doing so believe that he is actually worshiping the idol?
c)
He points out the tragedy that is involved in this lack of consideration for the weak brother.
(1)
The weak brother for whom Christ died is led to sin against his conscience and, as a result, he perishes.
(2)
By thus sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
D.
The principle of limitation of Christian liberty (1 Corinthians 8:13).
The condition: If meat causes my brother to stumble.
The resolution: I will eat no flesh forever.
The reason: That I cause not my brother to stumble.
Questions
What is the significance of the phrase, Now concerning?
What was done with the meats after they had been sacrificed to idols?
How had the converts from paganism been accustomed to think about the use of such meats?
Why was this a real problem to some Christians?
What information does Luke give about idolatry in Athens?
Why was idolatry an inexcusable sin?
What does man do to the glory of the incorruptible God by making idols?
What does Paul say about the sins that accompanied idol worship?
What are some of the points of contrast between idolatry and Christianity?
What may have been in the mind of those who offered sacrifices to idols?
What suggests that the idolater may not have considered the reason for his offerings to idols?
Do Christians always think of the meaning of their acts of worship?
What are the two views as to the authorship of the statement, we know that we all have knowledge?
What is meant by the expression, Knowledge puffeth up?
How must knowledge be controlled?
How does love build up the body of Christ?
How was the knowledge of the one who knew that there was nothing to an idol inadequate?
What is the relation between loving God and knowledge?
What bearing did this have on the problem of the Corinthians?
How are we to understand the expression, no idol is anything in the world?
What are some of the things in creation that men have been known to worship?
What did Paul say to the men of Athens about making idols of gold?
Why is an idol really nothing?
What is the basic issue of Christian theology?
What had the Jews been taught about God?
What does the New Testament teach about the deity of Jesus?
What was the pagan view as to the number of gods and lords?
What term describes the one true God of the Christians?
What bearing does the fact that God created all things have on the folly of man who makes an idol?
What was God’s purpose in creating man?
How does the word Lord indicate the deity of Jesus?
What is the function of Christ in Creation?
What is God’s purpose in bringing into being the new creature in Christ?
What difference in the level of comprehension of revealed knowledge must be recognized?
What is the meaning of the word conscience?
What is the function of conscience?
What is the standard by which the Christian’s conscience is to be guided?
What of the sense of guilt on the part of the one who believes he had done wrong even though no wrong was actually done?
How is conscience defiled?
What is a weak conscience? How can it be strengthened?
Since food in itself does not commend us to God, what attitude toward others may do so?
What did Jesus say about the things that defile a man?
What is the basic idea in the word translated liberty in this chapter?
What limit did Paul put on the liberty of the one who possessed knowledge about idols?
Why should a Christian be concerned about the weak brother?
Against whom do we sin when we sin against a weak brother?
How were they wounding the conscience of the weak brother?
How did Paul sum up his teaching on meats sacrificed to idols?
Did Paul say that he would eat meat under no condition?
What was his principal concern in this matter?
For Discussion
The power of example in teaching.
Some things Christians should forego today.
1 Corinthians 8:1-3
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 1
The Principle** (1 Corinthians 8:1-3)
8 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that all of us possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. 3But if one loves God, one is known by him.
1 Corinthians 8:1 a Provocation of Idolatry: Idolatry was a way of life. Greek cities were full of idols (Acts 17:16-34). In Corinth an inscription has been unearthed by archaeologists marking the location of a meat market in the probable vicinity of the temple of Apollo. The well of one of the shops along the south stoa has yielded a stone fragment reading, Lucius, the butcher. In Pompeii archaeologists have found a configuration of buildings including both a chapel of the imperial cult and a counter for the selling of sacrificial meat. In the ancient world it was almost impossible to secure meat which had not been offered to an idol. Some of the pagan temples appear to have provided auxiliary clubrooms which offered social dining as well as the more religious cultic meals. The cultic meals, according to William Baird, were held in recognition of a host of public occasionsmarriage, victory in battle, honor to a hero. The prominence of such dining customs made it difficult for the Corinthian citizen to avoid sacrificial meat. When he was invited out to dinner, it was inevitably served as the main course. If his host were a devotee of Artemis, a successful hunt would be consummated by an elaborate banquet after the animal had been sacrificed to the patron deity. Could a Christian attend such a party? If he attended should he eat the sacrificial meat? Please study Romans, chapter 14, in connection with 1 Corinthians 8:1-13; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27; 1 Corinthians 10:1-33.
Helenistic banquets were fabulous affairs. Petronius writes in The Satricon:
Let’s see, first off we had some roast pork garnished with loops of sausage and flanked with more sausages and some giblets done to a turn. And there were pickled beets and some whole-wheat bread made without bleach.. Then came a course of cold tart with a mixture of some wonderful Spanish wine and hot honey.. Then there were chickpeas and lupins, no end of filberts, and an apple apiece.. The main course was a roast of bear meat.. It reminds me of roast boar, so I put down about a pound of it. Besides, I-’d like to know, if bears eat men, why shouldn-’t men eat bears? To wind up, we had some soft cheese steeped in fresh wine, a snail apiece, some tripe hash, liver in pastry boats and eggs topped with more pastry and turnips and mustard and beans boiled in the pod andbut enough’s enough.
Besides the Greek idols, the Roman emperors were attempting to insure allegiance by enforcing emperor worship. It was not participation in formal rituals of idol worship that bothered these Corinthians. That was strictly forbidden by apostolic command (cf. Acts 15:20; Acts 15:29; 1 Corinthians 10:14; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Galatians 5:20; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Peter 4:3; 1 John 5:21; Revelation 9:20-21). But the worship of idols had so thoroughly saturated the culture of the first century everyone was brought directly into contact with it one way or anothereven the Jews.
Practically every morsel of meat sold in public markets (1 Corinthians 10:25) of Greek and Roman cities had, in one way or another, been part of a sacrifice to an idol. There were public, formal worship services in pagan temples at which foods were offered; there were private, home services in honor of idols at which foods of all kinds were dedicated to the gods. So completely was this the case, the word in Hellenistic Greek to sacrifice had come to mean simply to kill or to butcher. A native citizen of a Greek city like Corinthespecially if he were poorwould consider himself unfairly deprived if he were forbidden to participate in the public festivals at which idol sacrifices were served because it might be his only opportunity to eat meat for several months. These public festivals were probably held in the courts of the idol temples where tables were set up (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:10; 1 Corinthians 10:14-22) for the public. The citizen of Corinth who became a Christian would have a very difficult time trying to continue social amenities among neighbors and relatives who were not Christian. It was a tradition practiced by many pagans to take some of their sacrificial animal’s carcass home with them from the ritual and serve it on their own tables to friends and relatives.
Idol worship, feasting, and the immorality that went along with it were part of the very essence of Corinthian social life and culture. It was all part of everyday living. Some Christians easily settled the issue in their own minds. They knew, an idol is no god. Actually, some non-Christians had also decided, philosophically, that idols were not gods. The Epicureans considered the worship of idols to be nonsense. One Hellenistic writer says of the gods that they are far away, or they have no ears, or they do not exist, or they pay not the least attention to us. The Stoics, also, abandoned polytheism for a kind of pagan monotheism or pantheism. These pagan atheists practiced the forms of idolatry for practical political reasons but did not believe the myths. The majority of non-Christians, however, did eat such foods as really offered to an idol (1 Corinthians 8:7). And some Christians had not settled in their minds that an idol was not a god. Some Christians, especially those from Jewish backgrounds, abhorred all the trappings associated with idolatry and felt as if they had sinned if they even touched such things or looked upon them.
Some idolatrous rituals pronounced holy formulas over the sacrificial animals which allegedly turned the sacrifices into the god who was to receive it. In this ritual the god himself was allegedly sacrificed and when the priests and the worshipers ate the meat of the sacrifices, the strength and glory of the god supposedly passed into the worshipers. Many pagans also believed one way to protect themselves from having demons come inside them through their mouths was to eat meat sacrificed to a good god (whose presence would be in the sacrificial meat) and this would put up a barrier against the evil god who might come into them through some food.
This presented a very serious problem for the infant church. It involves the most crucial elements of Christian communitylove, liberty, conscience, temptation, knowledge and spiritual maturation. The apostolic resolution of the question was, and is, of immense importance. If it were a prohibition of Christianity under any circumstances to eat meat sacrificed to idols, then the Gentile convert becomes bound to a legal system as condemning as the Mosaic law and a legalism as impossible as the Jewish rabbinical traditions. If, on the other hand, the Greek Christian was free to do as he pleased in every circumstance, he was given license to carelessly trample upon the tender scruples of a weaker brother and probably cause him to sin.
Paul suffered slanderous misrepresentation and hateful persecution as a consequence of his teaching concerning Christian liberty (see Acts 21:21-24). Although Paul was in full accord with this teaching, it was not merely his but the Holy Spirit’S. And anyone who opposed it was severed from Christ, fallen from grace (see Galatians 5:1-12).
1 Corinthians 8:1 b - 1 Corinthians 8:2: Problem of Intellectualism: Paul is not against knowledge or use of the intellect. He reasoned from the Scriptures (Acts 18:4; Acts 18:19). He appealed to logic and deductive processes as befitting Christians (Romans 12:1-2). He told the Philippians to think logically on Christian virtues (Philippians 4:8). His warning here is against intellectualism. Intellectualism is the arrogant doctrine that the ultimate principle of reality is human reason. Intellectualism holds that it is possible for the human mind to discover everything man needs to know. It thus dispenses with the need for a revelation from Godeventually dispensing with the need for God at all.
Paul uses two Greek words oida and ginosko interchangeably or synonymously for knowing and knowledge. Paul does not seem to be using these two words with as much difference as most commentators allege. It is apparent from the context that he is using irony when he says we know that all of us possess knowledge. In fact, he is probably quoting a statement from some of the Corinthians themselves. Some of them were enamored of knowledge (see 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 1 Corinthians 2:1-16; 1 Corinthians 3:18). These may have been intellectuals agreeing with the gnostic Christians who supposed that the acquisition of mystical, divine knowledge freed one from any moral qualms about participating in the expressions of pagan culture.
The trouble with intellectualism is that it inflates (Gr. phusioi) the human ego. Those who know better than others are always in danger of feeling superior. Knowledge which does that is not true knowledge. There is a wide distance between human knowledge and heavenly wisdom (cf. James 3:13-18). Intellectualism seeks to tear down those of inferior knowledge in order to inflate self. Love (Gr. agape) seeks to edify (Gr. oikodomei, build up) the intellectually inferior by denying self. Knowledge is necessary. It certainly is not all that is necessary in man’s relationship to God and his fellow man. Just because a person has something analyzed logically, scientifically and judiciously does not mean he is prepared on that basis alone to make an ethical decision about another man’s salvation or standing before God. Paul clearly admonishes Christians not to judge others on the basis of knowledge alone (cf. Romans 14:14-15). Knowledge must be tempered with love. Love is the motive that will make the right use of knowledge.
The apostle challenges the intellectualistic approach to Christian brotherhood by saying, If any one imagines (Gr. dokei, supposes, believes) that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought (Gr. dei, is obligated, necessarily, is required) to know. Egocentric knowledge falls short of God’s mark for man. There is more to ultimate truth than accumulation of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Man has a higher obligation than knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:1-13)that is to love!
1 Corinthians 8:3 Presentation of Ideal: The object of true knowledge is not human intellectual superiority, but a participation in the divine nature (cf. 2 Peter 1:3-4; 2 Corinthians 3:18; John 6:63) of God Himself. Paul puts it this way, But if one loves God, one is known by him. The object of true knowledge is not something but Some Onean experiential knowledge of God and Jesus Christ, His Son (cf. John 17:3). God cannot be reduced to fact or doctrines, although he cannot be known apart from his deeds. Paul is not referring to knowing about God. He is talking about the knowledge of God that only comes at the point where personal commitment in faith and love is made by the whole person of man to the whole Person of God. The ultimate method of knowing is agape (love)personal commitment which surrenders all of self to God. Paul’s view of ultimate knowledge rests on divine revelation wherein God’s knowledge of man has priority. No man can know God unless he first lets God know him. Man cannot even love God until he allows God to love him first (1 John 4:19). As long as a man elevates himself through pride in human reason, he will not humble himself to be ruled over by God. Unless Christ takes complete possession of us we cannot know him (see John 13:6-9) because we are not letting him know us. Paul uses this same idea in Galatians 4:9to be known by God is to know him. The point is this: when God knows us as his own, in a relationship akin to marriage (but deeper and surer), it is only then that we know the blessedness of being related to him. Certain aspects of the divine nature may be known factually from nature (cf. Romans 1:19-20), but experiential, intimate and personal knowledge of God comes only to those who do his will (John 7:17). Being known by and possessed by God, enables man to see things from God’s viewpoint (2 Corinthians 5:14-17). Only then does man begin to have proper knowledge of anythingmost of all, proper knowledge about whether he may eat food sacrificed to idols or not.
Man must love God with all his mind, soul, heart and strength, and his neighbor as himself. When that decision is made we will take everything we know about God’s revealed will, about the experiences of life, and about our neighbor and use it to build up the kingdom of God in people’s lives. To love God is to be known by Him (1 John 4:20). Love requires proper concern for a brother’s lack of understanding. It is love that controls the Christian from acting according to knowledge (even when such knowledge may be correct enough in itself) when it would tempt, alienate, or otherwise cause a brother to sin who does not see the issue as clearly or as innocently as I suppose I do.
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 8:1-3. Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but love edifieth. 2 If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet as he ought to know; 3 but if any man loveth God, the same is known by him.
Things Sacrificed to Idols (1-3)
*Commentary
Now concerning.*This phrase is taken as an indication of the fact that Paul continues to answer questions posed by the letter which he had received from the brethren in Corinth.
*things sacrificed to idols.*Some of the meats that were sold in public markets had been previously used as offerings to idols. Those who ate this food were in the habit of considering it a participation in idolatrous worshipif, indeed, they thought about its significance at all. The Christian was confronted with a very real problem: Should he continue to do according to his custom before becoming a Christian? There must have been some who did object to doing so, for they wrote to the apostle for further information on the subject.
*idols.*Luke describes Athens, the neighboring city of the Corinthians, as being a city full of idols (Acts 17:16). They even had an altar TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. This gives us a glimpse of the religious background of the early church with some of its converts coming from pagan backgrounds.
Idolatry was an inexcusable sin (Romans 1:20-21). Even the dim light that came from creation was sufficient to let men see something of the power and divinity of God. The vanity of man’s own reasoning filled his heart with darkness. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things (Romans 1:22-23). The sin of idolatry consisted not only in worshipping an image of some god man had created but also in the sins that accompanied such idolatrous worship. For a description of the unspeakable things that men practiced when they refused to have the knowledge of God in their minds, see Paul’s discussion of the subject in Romans 1:24-32.
Idolatry was the very opposite of Christianity. It was the worship of a god made by the hands of man, rather than the worship of the true God who created man. Idolatry was a system of worship of countless gods, rather than the worship of the one God as revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. It was accompanied by the most shocking sins, indicating the depth of degradation of man; rather than faith expressed in obedience to the gospel, indicating the heights to which man can go in his desire to glorify God, or, as Paul put it, to let their bodies be a temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Idolatry called for the offering of virtually every known thingeven human beingsas sacrifices to a god made by the hands of men, rather than presenting the body as a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God (Romans 12:1). Idolatry had its oraclespretended revelations from its godsand the writings of those who considered themselves to be wise, rather than the gospel that came through revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12). Idolatry had its many theories about the status of man after death, rather than the clear revelation of the Word of God as to the hell that will be suffered by those who refuse to obey the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8-10) and the heaven that is prepared for those who love the Lord (2 Timothy 4:8). It is little wonder that the conference at Jerusalem warned, abstain from the pollution of idols (Acts 15:20), and John earnestly appealed to the church, My little children, guard yourselves from idols (1 John 5:21).
In offering sacrifices to an idol, it is possible that some considered this as an expression of their own needs. For example, they brought food as an offering to a god because they realized their own need of food and in some way believed that the god could supply this need. In all probability, however, the average one who worshipped idols went through the ancient forms handed down from generation to generation without thinking anything about the meaning of his actions. The Jews who had the revelation from Godthe lawthat was to govern their worship soon reached the point where external ceremony without any consideration of the meaning their acts became the mark of their religion. See Matthew 23:1-36; Romans 2:17-29. We might ask, Do we as Christians ever find ourselves simply going through forms without letting the truth of the Gospel affect our lives? Perhaps we should not condemn the idolater for merely going through forms of worshipfalse worship though it waswhile recognizing our own inability at times to avoid this pitfall as we worship God through the Lord Jesus Christ in spirit and in truth.
*We know that we all have knowledge.*Commentators are in agreement that this was the declaration of the Corinthians as they wrote to Paul. In other words, as they faced the problem of food offered to idols as a sacrifice, they were confident that they had the knowledge they needed on the subject. It is possible, however, that some conscientious ones among them who thought of their background in pagan religions were really asking for information on the subject. It is possible that they had been discussing such a question as this: Can we as Christians eat this meat that we find in our markets knowing that it has been used in a pagan worship service to some idol? If this was their question, then Paul’s answer is a clear statement that we all have knowledge about idols and the meats used in their worship. But if the Corinthians had made this statement as their own declaration and not as a question, it may imply that their knowledge was imperfect and that it had a tendency to cause them to assume an arrogant attitude toward those who did not understand the issues involved. Hence Paul’s remarks about knowledge.
*Knowledge puffs up.*There is an arrogance about all knowledge. That individual or even nation that has knowledge about something that none other has tends to look with disdain upon the one who does not have that knowledge. This pride tends to create ill will, suspicion, and even hate. That is apparently what happened in the church at Corinth.
*love edifieth.*Knowledge needs to be regulated by love. Love, the opposite of arrogance, pride, and hate was necessary in order to prevent the brother who didn-’t have this knowledge from being led to sin and destruction. Love, rather than destroying, led to the building up of the weak brother in Christ until he too had the correct understanding of this problem of food that had been used in idolatrous worship.
*he knoweth not yet as he ought to know.*Even the one who thought that he possessed all knowledge about this problem was limited. The apostle points this out in order to overcome the spirit of arrogance. Knowledge without due consideration for those who did not have it could not be perfect.
*if any man loveth God.*To love God is to be known by Him. This is the knowledge that is needed. To be known by God requires one to love his brethren. John’s statement has a bearing on this matter: If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen (1 John 4:20).
Love of the brethren requires proper concern for their lack of understanding of such things as the use of food that had been sacrificed to idols. Knowledge without love could do great harm. It is love that makes one think of the brother who is not fully instructed. Love builds up the body of Christ rather than destroying it by sinning against the weak member. The important thing is to be known by God, and that depends on loving Him and expressing that love in a proper regard for the brother who is weak.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 8:4-6. Concerning therefore the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that no idol is anything in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords many; 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.
The Truth About Idols and About God (4-6)
*Commentary
Concerning therefore eating things sacrificed to idols.*After discussing love as the principle that is to regulate knowledge, the apostle comes to grips with the real issue about idols and the use of food that has been sacrificed to them. His remark tends to support the suggestion that the Corinthians had arrogantly stated their position on the matter rather than asking for information.
*we know that no idol is anything in the world.*The Greek, literally rendered, is as follows: We know that nothing idol in world. Obviously we must supply the verb and two articles to make sense in English: We know that nothing is an idol in the world. But the thought is clear: Nothing in the world is an object of worship. A tree is not an object of worship, nor a stream, nor a mountain, nor the heavenly bodies. And if these things are not gods, certainly no idol made by man’s hands is to be considered as an object of worship. Paul declared in his speech at Athens that we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and device of man (Acts 17:29). The God that made the worlds and all things therein, he being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands: neither is he served by men’s hands as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:24-25).
The idol, then, does not represent any real god. It is the projection, in some way, of man’s own concept of God. It is perhaps the expression of what man needs from God. Idolatry expressed this largely, though not exclusively, as materialistic needs.
*there is no God but one.*This is the basic issue of Christian theology. It is clearly stated in the Old Testament and upheld in the New Testament. Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah: and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might (Deuteronomy 6:4-5). Jesus upheld this view on various occasions. See Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:29-30; Luke 10:27. Speaking to the Samaritan woman, He said, God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and truth (John 4:23). John’s prologue gives us three basic thoughts on this issue: (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; (2) And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father) full of grace and truth; and (3) No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Paul wrote to the Colossians, in him dwelleth all the fulness of the God-head bodily (Colossians 2:9). Perhaps the clearest explanation of the Christian doctrine of the Godhead is given by Paul in his letter to the Philippians: Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and being found in fashion as a man; he humbled himself as a man, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross. Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave unto him the name which is above every name; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on-earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
This knowledge is essential to the understanding of the problem faced by the church at Corinth. To love God and to be known by Him is to be considerate of the brother who has not fully comprehended the doctrine of the Godhead.
*For though there be that are called gods.*In his teaching about the one true God, Paul is not unaware of the fact that many people believed there were many gods and many lords. As a matter of fact, almost everything was a god to the pagan. His was a religion of fear and works by which he hoped to gain favor with his god. Christianity, on the other hand, is the religion of grace and faithfaith expressed in obedience to the revealed will of Christ. Paul recognized the problem: What was the man who did not know the truth about God but thought that his idols were gods to do about such things as eating food that had been used in connection with the worship of idols?
*to us there is one God.*To the Christian, there is only one God, the Father. It is not surprising that many new converts from paganism did not fully understand this truth. Consequently, he did not understand about eating food sacrificed to idols. He had been used to thinking of almost everything in the heavens and on the earth as gods. It was difficult to grasp the essential teaching of Christianity about the only God.
*of whom are all things, and we unto him.*God, the Father, is the creator of the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, How is it possible for man to imagine that he can make a god?
God had a purpose in the creation of man: Man was created to glorify Him. As to the Christian, Paul declared that in Christ, God chose us before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved (Ephesians 1:4-6). God chose the believer in Christ; the believerand that means all who will, Jew or Greekchooses God the Father as He is revealed in Christ.
*one Lord, Jesus Christ.*The word Lord was used by the Jews instead of Jehovah, a name that refers to the eternal, living God. New Testament quotations from the Old Testament are usually from the Septuagint version, which accounts for the fact that the word Lord is found in the New Testament instead of Jehovah which is found in the Old. So when Paul calls Jesus Christ Lord, he is affirming in the most positive manner possible the deity of Jesus the Christ.
*through whom are all things, and we through him.*Christ is presented as the agent of creation, and the Father as the source of all things. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made (John 1:3). The same idea is given by the writer of Hebrews as he speaks of the Son through whom God made the worlds (Hebrews 1:2). Paul speaks of Him in the Colossian letter as the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; and he is before all things, and in him all things consist (Colossians 1:15-17).
We Christians are made new creatures through Him. Note Paul’s remark to the Ephesians: Even as truth is in Jesus: that ye put away, as concerning your former life, the old man, that waxeth corrupt after the lusts of deceit; and that ye be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, that after God hath been created in righteousness and holiness of truth (Ephesians 4:21-24).
1 Corinthians 8:4-7
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
The Persons** (1 Corinthians 8:4-7)
4 Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that an idol has no real existence, and that there is no God but one. 5For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earthas indeed there are many gods and many lords6yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 The Sure: After digressing toward the subject of true knowledge, Paul comes back to the question of eating meat sacrificed to an idol. He appeals to the validity of using empirical knowledge to establish that an idol is not a god. He uses an interesting idiom in Greek to say this. Literally it reads, oidamen hoti ouden eidolon en kosmo, or, we know that no an idol in the world (is). The RSV translated it, … we know that an idol has no real existence. Idols are out of this world. They do not exist.
Throughout Chapter s 8, 9, and 10 of this epistle, and in Romans Chapter s 14 and 15, Paul deals with the problems arising in the area of opinions because some Christians are strong and some are weak. The terms strong and weak are not referring to spiritual strength or weaknessnor to morality. Both categories of brethren, if they have not love, consider themselves spiritually superior to the other. Without love, the one who abstains (or the weak) will consider the other worldly. Without love, the one who partakes (or the strong) will categorize the scrupulous as Pharisaical. The terms weak and strong have to do with matters of opinion or individual preferences. They have to do with an individual’s cultural, psychological, traditional background and experience. The translation weak and strong is unfortunate. It would be better to translate, him who abstains and him who eats as in Romans 14:3; or, better yet, the sure and the suspicious as we have done in our outline.
Since Paul classifies the weak (1 Corinthians 8:7) as those whose scruples cause them to abstain from eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols; by inference, we classify the strong as those who could, with good conscience, eat meat sacrificed to idols because they knew that an idol was not a god.
It should be a matter of certain knowledge to every Christian that there is only one God. He is God of the whole universe, God of all men, Creator of everything that exists, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, co-equal with God. It was clear to every Jew (Deuteronomy 6:4). If there is only one God, it is clear that an idol has no real existence. Therefore, the worship of idols is sheer folly; it is the worship of nothing.
1 Corinthians 8:7 The Suspicious: But such knowledge was not so certain in the minds of some of the Christians at Corinth. To some of the Greek-Christians the images (idols) did represent something. In the pagan world there were many so-called gods and lords in the heavens and on earth. So, in the mentality, opinions, or suspicions of the Greek-Christians these images were real beings called gods. Paul repeats his admonition in chapter 1 Corinthians 10:19-20 that an idol has no real existence, but he warns there that eating meat sacrificed to an idol may endanger even a sure Christian of fellowship with demons!
The Greek phrase, All-’ ouk en pasin he gnosis, is literally, But not in all the knowledge. The RSV translation, possess, is not a good translation. No doubt, every Christian in Corinth had been taught that there was only one God, Jehovah, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. They undoubtedly acknowledged the teaching. But what they acknowledged was not in themthat is, not integrated into their willingness. The knowledge that there was only one God was something about which they still had emotional reservations. Paul wrote in Romans 14:23, But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from faith; for whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. These Greek-Christians had been taught there was only one Godthey had mentally acknowledged itbut they still didn-’t trust it! In Romans 14:5, Paul writes, Let every one be* fully convinced* in his own mind. The Greek verb there is plerophoreistho, meaning literally, completely carried. It is the same verb as in Hebrews 10:22, translated, full assurance of faith. In other words, unless the knowledge is carried fully by the mind, the weak or suspicious Christian should not engage in the action.
The question of urgency, however, is, why do not all Christians have full assurance that idols are nothing? Paul’s answer is, some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. The reason for their weakness is a life-time consciousness of idols as gods. RSV translates the Greek word sunetheia by the word accustomed, but it means literally, to know with. It would be better translated, consciousness. The word does not emphasize compulsion to do right, as we think of conscience. It emphasizes a conscious knowledge of what is right or wrong. Paul’s point is that these Greek-Christians had lived so long with idolatry in their every-day consciousness, they were simply conditioned or trained to accept the idea that an idol was really a god. People may live in an environment where what is false is so widely accepted and practiced as true, and never challenged, they grow up assuming it is true. Such attitudes become so deeply ingrained on the mind through constant exposure and the pressures of circumstance they are not easily wiped out of the mind. Jewish Christians had difficulties changing their minds about many things in the Mosaic system abrogated by the New Testament.
The Greek phrase, hos eidolothuton esthiousin, is literally, as an idol offering they eat.. They felt they were still partaking in the worship of the idol by eating food which had been offered in the pagan sacrifices. Missionaries today have similar experiences. A belief in witchcraft or voodoo long continues to lurk in otherwise well taught Christians and they allow themselves to be bothered by it. Plummer offers this comment: It is the force of habits which lasts.. They have been so accustomed to regard an idol as a reality, as representing a god that exists, that. in spite of their conversion, they cannot get rid of the feeling that, by eating food which has been offered to an idol, they are taking part in the worship of heathen gods; they cannot eat from faith (Romans 14:23).
The meat, in itself, was neither clean or unclean. It was indifferent. But since they could not help feeling it was defiled by having been offered to idols, they went against their own judgment of what was right and thereby judged themselves. While Paul plainly classifies this as a sign of intellectual weakness, he also makes it clear in the remainder of the chapter that such weakness was entitled to forbearance and respect from Christians who were not bothered by the weakness. Foods have nothing in themselves which will bring guilt upon a person (see Mark 7:18-19; Luke 11:41). When people do something they are convinced is wrong they bring condemnation upon themselves. God is greater than our mind, and if our own mind condemns us, we will stand condemned (cf. 1 John 3:19-21). An uninstructed mind may condemn what is not wrong, or allow what is; but in any case, it ought to be obeyed until it is instructed.
1 Corinthians 8:7-12
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 8:7-12. Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge: but some, being used until now to the idol, eat as of a thing sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God: neither, if we eat not, are we the worse; nor, if we eat, are we the better. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to the weak. 10 For if a man see thee who hast knowledge sitting at meat in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be emboldened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ.
Not All Have This Knowledge (7-12)
*Commentary .
there is not in all men that knowledge.*The complete revelation of all things that pertain to life and godliness is given in the Bible. But we are not all on the same level in the comprehension of that knowledge. Try to imagine the situation of those who had the background of idolatry with its attendant sins. It must have been a difficult adjustment for those to make who had been used to thinking that they were worshipping idols when they ate the meats that were sold in the markets.
*their conscience being weak is defiled.*Our word conscience is derived from the Latin and has the same root meaning as the Greek term. The prefix signifies with or together. The root word means to know. This suggests that conscience is the awareness of an act together with its moral implications, that is, the thing that is right or wrong about it. Conscience condemns us for doing what is wrong or commends us for doing what is right according to our accepted standard. For the Christian, that standard is the Bible.
The Christian whose background was pagan and who had been used to eating food that had been sacrificed to idols was aware that he was still using such food. His question was, Is it right for a Christian to do so? In many cases the answer was No for he did not have the knowledge that nothing is an idol in this world. His guilt, though not based on truth, was, nevertheless, real to him. The person who persists in doing what he believes to be wrong, even though it might not be wrong, is in danger of reaching the state in which his conscience no longer functions as a warning against wrongdoing. In this way the conscience is stained or defiled. The stain that sin leaves on the conscience can only be removed by the blood of the Lamb (Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:22-23).
A weak conscience is one that is not fully instructed. It permits one to do what he believes to be wrong. The weak conscience can be strengthened by the truth and by training it to function correctly. The trained conscience that has the truth to guide it will condemn what is wrong and commend what is right.
*But food will not commend us to God.*Literally, does not present us to God. The thought is that food, whether we eat it or not, is not the thing that presents us to God in a favorable light. The thing that does commend us to God is the proper consideration for the weak brother lest we cause him to sin.
Jesus had a word to say on this matter of defilement: Not that which entereth into the mouth defiles the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man (Matthew 15:11). But the things which proceed out of the mouth come forth out of the heart; and defile the man. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Matthew 15:18-20).
*this liberty of yours.*The apostle sounds a warning to those who have knowledge about food that had been sacrificed to idols. They are to consider the brother with a weak conscience, lest by their action he be led to sin.
The word translated liberty is usually translated authority in the New Testament. But there are places where it clearly means right as in this context and in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and perhaps also 1 Corinthians 11:10. In this sense it is closely related to freedomliberty as in 1 Corinthians 10:29.
The basic idea of the word is right to choose or liberty of action. It can mean authority, power, or right. See John 10:18 where Jesus speaks of His power or right to lay down His life. He had the right to do so for He had received the command from the Father. In John 1:12 He tells of the rightcertainly not the powerto become children of God which was given to the believer in Christ.
There was no question about one’s right to eat the food that had been used in the worship of idols. There were, however, some things that did limit this right. No one had a right to cast a stumblingblock before his brother.
*For if a man see thee who hast knowledge.*Paul supposes a possible situation to illustrate what he means. He thinks of the man who knows that meat sacrificed to an idol may be eaten by a Christian without his participation in the worship of an idol. But what of the brother with a weak conscience who sees you doing this? Will he not be encouraged by your example to do what he believes to be wrong? *the brother for whose sake Christ died.*A Christian’s conduct can cancel the cross of Christ. Christ died for the weak brother as well as for the strong. But should one who has knowledge do a thing that causes another for whom Christ died to be lost? We should think of this side of the matter when we face similar situations today.
*sinning against the brethren.*This was being done thoughtlessly Undoubtedly, the strong Christian said to himself that there was nothing wrong in what he was doing, but he was not considering it’s effect on the one who did not know about idols.
*wounding their conscience.*This thing struck a blow that left a wound on the conscience of the weak brother. Even though it was right in itself, it became a sin, for it caused a brother to be lost.
*ye sin against Christ.*Were they really aware of this before Paul pointed it out? This is the real reason why a Christian should limit his personal liberty, for sinning against a brother is sinning against Christ. As Paul was writing this, was he remembering the voice he had heard on the Damascus road? Why persecutest thou me? Jesus takes an injury done to one of these least as an injury to Himself (Matthew 25:40).
1 Corinthians 8:8-13
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 3
The Practice** (1 Corinthians 8:8-13)
8Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol’s temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother’s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.
1 Corinthians 8:8-9 The Sanction: Those who because of their superior knowledge eat meat sacrificed to idols without guilt are not esteemed by God any higher than those who abstain because of guilt. While Paul is concerned here with the strong being careless toward the weak, it is clear (from Romans chapter 14) the weak are not relieved of obligation to understand the strong person’s liberties and, in love, allow him freedom to exercise his knowledge (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:29). The abstainer is as responsible to love as the non-abstainer! But here in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, Paul is addressing his admonition to the non-abstainers. They were apparently contemptuous of the abstainers and continuing to eat meat sacrificed to idols with the attitude that they did not care how their actions affected their brethren. Food, no matter what it is, is a matter of indifference. Peter had to be given a divine revelation about this matter (cf. Acts 10:9-16). Paul says, We gain nothing by eating; we lose nothing by not eating. The issue is not eating or abstaining from any particular food. Food has nothing to do with the spiritual in man. It sustains the body only. Paul is not, of course, dealing with gluttony, or taking poisonous substances into the body which would do physical harm. He is dealing with all foods as to where purchased and what association they may have had prior to the Christian’s contact with them.
The issue is: how much do you love your brother! The admonition is that we must be prepared to sacrifice any liberty we have concerning things to save a person. The sanction is not against food of any kind. It is against an unloving attitude.
In 1 Corinthians 8:9 Paul uses the Greek word exousia and it is translated, liberty. It is the word most commonly translated, authority, right, power. The most common Greek word for liberty is eleutheria; also often translated, freedom. Paul is evidently emphasizing the rights the knowledgeable Christian has because of a clearer understanding. Such a one has the right to eat anything he pleases without guilt. But just because it is an inalienable right does not mean it cannot be willingly surrendered out of love. The Christian brother whose knowledge (cultural, experiential, or scriptural) permits him to be free of guilt in some matter of opinion, dare not practice it if it will cause another brother (who understands the practice from a different cultural or moral background) to stumble and fall in his spiritual journey. Paul uses the Greek word proskomma for stumbling-block; it means, an obstacle against which one may dash his foot, or a hindrance over which one trips and falls. That which one Christian may do with freedom from guilt may, because of the doing, produce a serious failure in another Christian who may be encouraged to do what he considers wrong.
1 Corinthians 8:10-11 The Sin: To lead someone by your liberty to do something he believes he is not free to do, causes him to sin, to incur guilt, and destroys his union with Christ. The exercise of rights by the strong may destroy the fundamental moral resolve of a weaker brother against sinful practices so that he may be led to engage in practices clearly prohibited in the scriptures. Paul wrote to Roman Christians, … it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats (Romans 14:20).
It is sinful to do anything that would cause anyone else to violate his own conscience. It is a sin to carelessly flaunt one’s Christian liberty and undermine the moral decisiveness of another. Too many think of their own rights first. Paul said we ought to endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:12). It is a sinful attitude that does not think first of pleasing one’s brother for his good to edify him (Romans 15:1-2) because our Lord did not please himself (Romans 15:3). These principles apply to things Christians may have every right to do; things the knowledgeable Christian is certain are not at all sinful in themselves; things the Christian may do without any guilt. If, through any right we may have, a brother may be morally injured we must suspend that right for his salvation.
1 Corinthians 8:12-13 The Seriousness: Paul uses the Greek present participle tuptontes which is translated wounding. In present, participial, form the word means a continuous, violent, beating. It is the same word used to describe the beating the soldiers gave Christ (Matthew 27:30; Mark 15:19). Earlier (1 Corinthians 8:11) Paul said causing a weak brother to sin against his own conscience was to destroy the brother for whom Christ died. Now (1 Corinthians 8:12) he says such sin against a brother is sin against Christ. That is serious. Destroy another human being and you are actually attempting to destroy God. Paul warned the Romans Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God (Romans 14:20). Trample upon another human being’s weaknesses and you are despising the work of God in that person’s lifeyou are despising God! It is that serious! To have one’s own way (even if that way is correct and guiltless in itself) at the expense of another person’s relationship to Christ is to commit a grevious sin against the Lord.
In 1 Corinthians 8:13 Paul uses the double negative in Greek ou me to state emphatically that if eating meat would cause a brother to stumble (Gr. skandalizei, be scandalized, trapped, ensnared), he would never eat meat again. The Greek text also includes the phrase, eis ton aiona, which would be translated, unto the end of the age, or world. In other words Paul is saying, I am ready to give up any practice of my life, even if it is harmless and enjoyable and may be done with a clear conscience, if it causes any brother to destroy his relationship with Christ. Only those who are willing to do the same are fit for the kingdom of God (Romans 14:15-21).
SECTION 4 THE PROVISO
The self-denial of the strong brother should be allowed a proviso (i.e., a qualification). This will be amplified at more length in Chapter s nine and ten. Suffice it to say here, the non-abstaining brother is not obligated to give up his Christian liberty in some cases: (a) there are definite scriptural examples (as well as commands) by both Jesus and Paul (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-13; Galatians 2:3-5; Galatians 2:11-14; Galatians 5:1-12; Colossians 2:16-23) that when certain brethren tried to bind on them traditions and opinions as necessary for salvation, the Christian is obligated to resist; (b) there are people, minutely scrupulous (nitpickers), who may try to use an appeal to their scruples against some area of liberty to serve their own selfish ends. This is also wrong. Christian judgment faces one of its most demanding tasks when the performance of some opinion might injure a tender conscience, while its non-performance would be surrendering to pharisaic traditionalism and harm the cause of Christian liberty. This is sometimes the case in the Christian struggle to promote liberty and Christian unity at the same time.
It would not be fitting to end comments here without suggesting some areas in modern society where the Christian love Paul is calling for may be practiced along with decisions to resist legalism:
a.
Entertainment, pastimes (movies, television, games, hobbies).
b.
Foods (Jewish kosher foods; Roman Catholic taboos; use of alcoholic beveragesalthough the Bible does not command total abstinence, this principle of stumbling blocks would make total abstinence the safest practice).
c.
Cultural traditions (dress and grooming; worship traditions; some economic practices; political preferences).
d.
Vocations (if a Christian works at a vocation which might cause someone to stumble, shouldn-’t the Christian find another vocation?)
1 Corinthians 8:12-13
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 8:12-13. And thus, sinning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble.
The Limitation of Christian Liberty (13)
*Commentary
Wherefore.*The apostle is ready for the conclusion of this part of his argument about meats sacrificed to idols. Christian love may cause one to give up a right for the sake of a brother in Christ. We may have a perfect right to do a thing, but if in doing so we wound another our right must be given up. This principle will solve many problems about what is right or wrong for the Christian.
*if meat causeth my brother to stumble.*Paul states a condition that is real. He does not say If some one should be found at some future time, making the condition general. He is saying what he would do when he faced the real problem. He has indicated all along that it was not wrong in itself to eat the meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. The whole problem had to do with causing a brother for whom Christ died to stumble. That he would never do.
*I will eat no flesh forever.*This did not bind Paul to become a vegetarian. It was only in the case of offending a brother. There is no particular point in his using flesh instead of food except that it is specific, referring to the flesh of the animal that had been sacrificed.
*that I cause not my brother to stumble.*This is the real reason for the course he had chosen and which he had recommended to the church. Do we really think of others as brothers in the family of God? Are we really concerned lest they stumble? Jesus died for them; Paul was unwilling to cause them to stumble and perish.
Summary
The eighth chapter which begins with the discussion of Things sacrificed to idols raises the question of the limitation of Christian liberty. This topic continues through chapter ten. Meats used in idol worship were not only eaten in the feasts connected with idol worship, but were commonly sold in the markets. Thus the Christian was confronted with a serious problem: Was he participating in idol worship by using such food? Paul says, We know that we all have knowledge. It is possible that this was an opinion of the Corinthians. More probably, it was Paul’s estimate of the situation in general. All know certain things about idolatry: there is really no such thing as a god represented by an idol. If, however, one assumes that this is complete knowledge, he is reminded that such knowledge only puffs up while love for God expressed in proper consideration for those who are not fully informed about idolatry builds up the church. The particular knowledge that God created all things and that we are to serve Him through Christ is not shared by some. The custom of eating at idol feasts caused some to believe that they were worshiping the idol. The conscience was defiled because it was weak. A strong conscience would have forbidden such eating by one who believed it to be idolatry. While Paul recognized that eating such food in reality neither commended nor condemned one, nevertheless, it was wrong to set an example that would lead a brother to do this who supposed that he was actually worshiping the idol. The one whose conscience isn-’t strong enough to keep him from doing what he believes to be wrong is destroyed by your knowledge. He is the brother for whom Christ died. Thus sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Relationship to Christ is the controlling principle that limits one’s liberty. Therefore Paul says, If food is causing my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh forever.