A verse-by-verse explanation of this section.
An overview of the principles and applications from this section.
Tying the section to life with God.
Historical, geographical, and grammatical enrichment of the commentary.
Suggested step-by-step group study of the section.
Zeroing the section in on daily life.
“Liberty of conscience is not without restrictions or qualifications. There is an over-ruling principle delimiting Christian freedom—the concern one ought to have for a fellow-believer who is weaker in the faith.”
John Currid
Christ has given his followers much freedom in many areas of life, but this freedom was never intended to be used to harm others. Paul applied this principle to a controversial question in the Corinthian church: Should Christians eat food sacrificed to idols?
R alph had grabbed the guitar and microphone twenty minutes ago and he would not let go of them. At first, everyone at the party was polite enough, maybe just a little too polite. But now patience was wearing thin.
“Go tell him!”
“No, you tell him.”
“I can't… you.”
“What am I supposed to say? ‘Ralph, sit down; you're making a fool of yourself'?… He thinks he's really good.”
So everyone kept silent as Ralph continued to play and sing. Horrifying sounds came from his mouth. He could not get a single tune right; none of his chords fit. It was all everyone could do not to laugh him out of the room. But Ralph went on, so full of himself, so confident of his musical talent that he thought he was the life of the party.
In this chapter Paul addressed some of the Corinthian believers who acted like Ralph. They had learned a few things about Christian theology. But in their self-assurance they insisted that doctrinal exactitude was all that mattered. They became so full of spiritual pride that they lost sight of more important teachings, such as the responsibility to love and edify others. Paul, however, could not let them continue. As one who cared for them, he had to tell them.
Food for Other Gods
MAIN IDEA: Should Christians eat meat that has been offered to idols? Paul dealt with this controversial matter forthrightly, saying that eating such meat was acceptable because pagan gods actually amount to nothing. Yet, he added that Christians ought not to eat such meat if it caused other believers to sin against their consciences.
Love, Not Knowledge (8:1–3)
SUPPORTING IDEA: Before dealing with the question of food sacrificed to idols, Paul commented on related matters: the danger of knowledge about such things, and the primacy of love over knowledge as the guiding principle of Christian behavior.
8:1. Paul plainly stated another topic about which the Corinthians had questioned him (the formula now about indicates a response; see also 7:1,25; 12:1; 16:1,12): food sacrificed to idols. In the Greek culture of Paul's day, families often participated in religious sacrifices, offering sacrificial animals in pagan temples. In many rituals only part of the meat was burned. The priest and the family making the sacrifice took the rest. This consecrated meat was taken home and eaten, or sold in the marketplace.
The Jerusalem council had forbidden Christians to eat these foods (Acts 15:29). Yet, controversy still existed in the Corinthian church over whether believers could participate in these meals or eat the consecrated meat sold in the market. This particular chapter deals primarily with meals actually eaten in idols’ temples. Given the famines in Greece at the time, the Corinthians’ interest was probably more than a casual inquiry.
It is likely that Paul first quoted the Corinthians themselves, perhaps from their earlier letter to him. We all possess knowledge, they have said to Paul. Verse 4 indicates the content of their knowledge: they knew idols were nothing and that there is only one God. But not everyone understood these truths. Therefore, Paul warned the knowledgeable ones that knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Paul forbade arrogance in his other writings and in this letter and set up edification of the church as a high goal (Rom. 15:2; Eph. 4:29). In effect, the apostle asserted the superiority of love over knowledge because the latter so often leads to sin if not handled carefully.
In making this comment, the apostle did not reject the importance of sound doctrine and knowledge of the things of Christ. He asserted that knowledge is not a good thing in and of itself. Knowledge can result in humility and love, but often it produces unsympathetic arrogance. In a word, knowledge—even of holy things—is not all that Christians must pursue.
8:2. Paul countered the tendency toward pride through knowledge by revealing the true nature of the person who thinks that he knows something. He did not oppose people thinking themselves to have a measure of knowledge or insight. Rather, he warned that those who believe they have mastered a subject may become prideful. Paul said that such people do not yet know as they ought to know. They have not realized that all human knowledge is faint and fragmentary—hardly the kind of knowledge from which they should take arrogance and pride.
8:3. Paul wanted the Corinthians to place a premium on love, not on knowledge. He indicated the superiority of love by reminding them that the one who loves God (God himself and the kingdom of God) is known by God. The expression “known by God” appears elsewhere in Paul's writings (Gal. 4:9) as a description of redemption. Paul meant that, unlike the prideful people who center their religious lives around knowledge, those who focus on love demonstrate that they have been redeemed. This warning against prideful knowledge and this encouragement to love undergird Paul's entire discussion of food offered to idols.
Believers’ Knowledge (8:4–6)
SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul affirmed the Corinthians’ position that food sacrificed to idols was not corrupted by the act of sacrifice. Such meat escaped corruption because the idols to which it was offered did not exist.
8:4. Paul returned to the main topic of concern: eating food sacrificed to idols. He acknowledged what he and the informed ones at Corinth understood (we know). They knew that idols are nothing at all and that there is no God but one. With these statements he resolved the issue of meat dedicated to idols on a technical, factual level. There could be no problem with eating this meat since it had been offered to something that did not exist.
Now we have to be careful here not to misunderstand Paul's intentions. Paul believed in an evil spiritual reality behind pagan idolatry. In accordance with other portions of Scripture he believed that idolators worshiped demons (Deut. 32:16–17; Rev. 9:20). Later in this epistle he acknowledged as much when he said that “the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons” and warned against participating too closely with demonic rituals (10:18–22). For this reason, we can be sure that when Paul said that idols are nothing at all in this verse, he did not make a straightforward assertion. Instead, he spoke by way of comparison with the glory and honor of the true God of Israel.
In comparison with the Creator and his divine Son Jesus, the demons are nothing. They need not be feared; Christians have no reason for superstitious avoidance of things associated with idolatry such as meat offered to idols. As the apostle John put it in 1 John 4:4, “The one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.” For this reason, Paul felt free to permit the Corinthians to eat meat sacrificed to idols.
8:5–6. Of course, it would have been easy for Paul's opponents to argue that there was a sense in which other gods exist. Paul admitted this himself in 8:5 where he said that there are so-called gods… indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” which people all over the world worship. Even so, for Christians there is but one God. This one God is the Father who is the source and goal of all things. Moreover, there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ. These verses take the form of an early catechism or hymn of praise to the Father and Christ.
To emhasize the singularity of the true God, this hymn of praise attributes similar qualities to both the Father and the Son: all things have their origin in them; and we live in and through them. Simply put, the God of Christianity so overshadows all others who may be called “gods” or “lords” that those others are entirely insignificant.
With this kind of knowledge in hand, it is easy to understand why some believers at Corinth did not hesitate to eat food that had been dedicated to idols. As far as they were concerned, these religious ceremonies were insignificant. Paul affirmed this theology and conclusion to a degree. The Corinthians surmised that Christianity's monotheism precluded the existence of other gods, and thus nullified the significance of the pagan sacrifices.
Dealing with Others’ Ignorance (8:7–13)
SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul agreed with those who were knowledgeable on this issue, but he insisted that their correct theological conclusions did not justify their practices. They sinned by eating meat sacrificed to idols—not because of the idols, but because of the damage done to their fellow believers.
8:7. While Paul agreed that idols are nothing, he pointed out that the Corinthians had wrongly assessed their own church. They thought that all possessed the knowledge that idols were nothing, but they were wrong. Apparently, a number of believers in Corinth were still so accustomed to idols that they had a hard time thinking in new ways about food offered to idols. Old superstitions died slowly. So, when these people ate, they still believed that the food had been devoted to a significant power or god, and they may have expected to benefit from the sacrifice as a result. Thus, when they ate, their conscience, being weak in this area, was defiled. They violated their sense of loyalty and devotion to Christ.
8:8. This verse is difficult to understand, unless it is another quote from the knowledgeable believers in Corinth. Neither the knowledgeable Corinthians nor the superstitious Corinthians would have thought that eating meat sacrificed to idols somehow brought them closer to, commended them to, or dedicated them to the real God. While the NIV translates the first part of the verse, But food does not bring us near to God, it is also possible (and more literal) to translate, “Food does not bring us near to the god” (i.e., the idol to which the food in question was offered). In light of the preceding context, this seems to be the better option. This verse probably represents the opinions of the knowledgeable ones in Corinth, whether actually expressed in their letter or anticipated by Paul as their response to his teaching that the weaker brothers’ consciences were defiled.
The phrase we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do probably expands the meaning of bring us near. It probably refers to the lack of prosperity an idol worshiper might anticipate if he failed to eat of the sacrifice, and to the abundance he would expect to receive if he did eat. Those of weak conscience in Corinth may have sinned partly by thinking that eating the food sacrificed to idols would give them a better chance for the material prosperity they needed to see them through the current famines.
The knowledgeable Corinthians who realized that idols were not gods at all and that idols did not control one's prosperity would have found the weaker Christians’ consciences downright culpable for their superstitions. As a result, they probably would have dismissed those of weak conscience as foolish and ridiculous.
8:9. Paul responded to this imagined objection, warning them to be careful. He did not dispute the facts; he did not object to the theological perspectives of the knowledgeable ones. Rather, his pastoral concern for those with weak consciences led him to restrain the knowledgeable Corinthians’ behavior. He warned that the freedom enjoyed by those who understood the situation might become a stumbling block to the weak.
Those who understand have freedom, but they also have the responsibility to use that freedom in service to others (Gal. 5:13) and to restrain that freedom when it threatens to damage others. Those who understand sound doctrine must also take into account the weaknesses of others around them. Their knowledge must not overshadow their love for the brethren.
8:10–11. Paul presented a potential scenario to illustrate his concern. If a knowledgeable Christian eats in an idol's temple and one with a weak conscience (i.e., misinformed) sees him eating there, then the misinformed one will be emboldened to eat. He will think that the knowledgeable one believes that eating the idol's sacrifice offers a real benefit, and that idolatry is compatible with Christianity.
Thus, the brother with the weak conscience will be emboldened to engage in idolatry himself. Whereas the knowledgeable Christian would not eat with idolatrous intent, the weaker one would, thereby being drawn into syncretism through the observation of his brother. As a result, the weak brother would be destroyed by the knowledge of his brother—by the act of freedom based on knowledge.
Paul did not explain in what sense this destruction would take place. He may have had in mind something as simple as discouragement and confusion, or something worse such as death, or even apostasy and judgment by God. The word translated “is destroyed” generally refers to death or absolute destruction. It is probably wise, however, to temper this passage with Paul's parallel statements, where he spoke of a defiled conscience (8:7), a wounded conscience (8:12), and falling into sin (8:13).
In any event, Paul reminded the knowledgeable ones that Christ died for those brothers and sisters of weak conscience. Therefore, knowledgeable believers should not be indifferent to weak ones. Weak Christians are so precious to Christ that he laid down his life for them. Therefore, they should be precious to other followers of Christ as well.
8:12. To drive home his perspective, Paul intensified the connection between these actions and Christ. Christ did more than die for these people. He united them to himself in such a way that Paul could say, When you sin against your brothers in this way… you sin against Christ. Sinning against believers who are in Christ, who are part of his body, is sinning against Christ himself. Safeguarding the conscience of weaker brothers is no small matter; it is a service of honor to Christ himself.
8:13. For this reason Paul drew a firm conclusion: out of love for fellow Christians and for Christ himself, he would never eat meat again if eating caused his brother to fall into sin. In Corinth at this time, most butchered meat would have been dedicated to some idol. So Paul may not have been exaggerating when he said, never eat meat again. The immediate context, however, refers more specifically to dining in idols’ temples. Further, Paul later wrote that believers should eat meat in certain circumstances (10:27).
Still, his point should not be blunted. Paul insisted that even drastic self-denial of all meat is worthwhile if it protects others from falling into sin. Protecting those in Christ takes precedence over exercising freedom.
MAIN IDEA REVIEW: Should Christians eat meat that has been offered to idols? Paul dealt with this controversial matter forthrightly, saying that eating such meat was acceptable because pagan gods actually amount to nothing. Yet, he added that Christians ought not to eat such meat if it caused other believers to sin against their consciences.
The apostle called for Christians to care about one another so much that they put the good of others over their own rights. Theological precision must be so extensive that it factors the personal and relational dimensions of church life in addition to theological facts.
PRINCIPLES
APPLICATIONS
The weary couple sat as far apart as they could, and the therapist's chair formed an equilaterial triangle with theirs. “I'm right about this. It's a matter of principle,” the husband insisted.
“No, I'm right about this, and I think it's a matter of principle too,” the wife retorted.
“Well,” the therapist interrupted. “I think we just discovered the problem. The problem is that principle is more important to you than the other person. Maybe we need to expand your strong commitments to principle to include kindness to one another.”
In this chapter Paul addressed a group of Corinthians who insisted on following a narrow set of principles. Paul did not want them to give up their strong commitments to principles. But he wanted them to expand their commitments to include a Christlike love and concern for others.
There are two common errors to which this understanding of Paul's teaching on this matter has led, and both must be avoided. First, some interpreters have determined from Paul's stance that the weak do not need to be educated. If this were true, Paul would not have referred to them as “weak.” He obviously considered the properly informed position superior (though he did not say the knowledgeable people were superior). If Paul believed that knowledge was insignificant, he would not have wasted his time trying to correct the fundamental understandings of the Corinthians on such areas as divisions and the resurrection of the body.
Second, many people have understood this chapter to teach that Christians should not do things that offend other believers. This is simply wrong. Paul's point was that Christians not cause other believers to sin, not that they refrain from doing things with which other Christians disagree. His fear was that the weak would sin by wrongly interpreting and copying the example of the strong, not that the weak would think less of the strong or take offense at their actions.
Finally, we need to hear again in this passage the same message that Paul taught throughout the letter thus far: believers are in Christ. Because of Christ's mystical union with all believers, Christ is one recipient of every action we take toward one another. When we hurt one another, we hurt Christ himself. We cannot attack Christ's body without also attacking Christ. We need to gain a greater respect for our fellow Christians, even for those who are foolish in their beliefs and prone to stumble into sin. We also need to love them more, just as we love Christ.
Lord Jesus, we are delighted that you were so principled that you cared about the lost, the weak, and the weary. We are so grateful for your tender mercy. Now, O Lord, grant us the same concern for others, that we may honor both you and them. Amen.
A. Worse, Better (8:8)
In keeping with the rest of the New Testament, Paul often used the word translated “we are worse” (hystereo ) to mean “to be lacking” or “to be in need” (cf. 2 Cor. 11:9; Phil. 4:12). The word translated “we are better” (perisseuo ) appears to carry the meaning “abound, overflow” in every other Pauline usage. In 8:8 these words most probably refer not to moral or spiritual benefit or damage, but to material prosperity. This corresponds well with the idea in the ancient world that sacrifices procured material blessings from the gods. This seems an even more likely reading in light of the famines in Greece at the time of this letter.
B. Destroyed (8:11)
In the New Testament, “destroyed” (apollumi ) generally refers to physical death or to final judgment. It is often also translated “perish” or “die.” Paul's usage of the word generally reflects this same range of meaning.
In light of the fact that Paul in 1 Corinthians 5:5 referred to the destruction of the “sinful nature” or “flesh” of the immoral man (perhaps referring to his physical death), in 8:11 he could have meant something as extreme as that God might physically kill the brother drawn into idolatrous eating. Like the immoral brother, if his spirit were truly saved, he would not perish eternally, but he would suffer the physical judgment of death. On the other hand, apollumi might simply be a strong metaphoric parallel to the statements in 8:7,12–13 regarding defiled/wounded consciences and falling into sin, or a statement of lostness similar to the gospel writers' depictions of those who go astray.
A. INTRODUCTION
B. COMMENTARY
C. CONCLUSION: A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE