article28

§23 Valid Christian Relations (1 Cor. 8:7–13)

Two distinct groups emerge among the Corinthians as Paul continues, now more pointedly, to discuss the eating of food that had been offered to idols. Moreover, the basic issue of eating such foods becomes more complex as Paul mentions the practice of some of the Corinthian Christians’ eating in an idol’s temple. The matter is more than a question of customs and manners, as the overtly theological cast of Paul’s language reveals.

Those who deny the idols insist their knowledge frees them to eat meat that had been previously sacrificed to idols (as most meat for sale had), despite the objections of other believers who associated idols with false deities or demons and were scandalized by the eating of idol meat. Paul teaches that freedom is not abstract, but concrete. Real freedom is being freed from the necessity to assert only, or primarily, one’s own rights. Knowledge alone is dangerous. What ultimately matters is that believers desire the well-being of others rather than insist on their own rights and privileges.

8:7 / Paul bluntly refutes the claim of some of the Corinthians that they possessed special knowledge, saying, But not everyone knows this (referring to some Corinthians’ denial of the relevance of idols). Paul refers to the pagan background from which certain Corinthian Christians came and indicates that every believer did not share the conviction that idols are not real. Paul’s aim is to correct the arrogant behavior toward their fellow Christians of those denying idols. He labors in behalf of weak believers who assumed the idols were real and acted accordingly. Paul still does not concede the reality of these idols, but he makes plain that those who believe in such entities are bound by their convictions to act in a congruent way. His central concern, however, is the negative impact of the controversial behavior of the free ones on those who had religious scruples about so-called idol meat. While these weak people have the problem of defiled or defiling consciences, Paul does not address this group and suggest a remedy or cure. Rather, he takes the discussion to those who are eating idol meat and possibly encouraging others to do the same. The problem of the weak becomes a problem for Paul, and he takes the problem to their fellow Christians who apparently considered themselves to be above the matter.

8:8 / Paul offers a pair of statements that went against the contention of some of the stronger Corinthians. The ring of these lines is memorable, so Paul may have offered such remarks as counterslogans to the declared positions of some of the Corinthians. With all the uproar in Corinth over food, particularly over the eating of food sacrificed to idols, Paul states what should have been self-evident, Food does not bring us near to God. From the discussion of this topic in chapters 8 and 10, one suspects that some members of the Corinthian congregation thought that their cavalier disregard for what and where they ate demonstrated their superior knowledge and religious freedom. Such aims did not edify either the relationships among the believers or the relationships between the carefree diners and God.

In a balanced set of rhetorical phrases Paul makes and repeats one point: We are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do (lit. “neither by not eating do we lose, nor by eating do we gain”). These phrases underscore the last statement regarding being brought closer to God. Food does not do the job, because displaying or practicing this controversial freedom does not draw the believer closer to God.

8:9 / Paul turns directly to those insisting on eating idol meat and issues a strong directive, even an order, in the form of a warning. The NIV smoothes the statement, which more literally reads, “See that this right of yours doesn’t become a stumbling block to the weak.” Paul writes to the group in the community that was flaunting its freedom. By insisting on their liberty, they made the exercise of rights their ultimate concern. Paul perceives this insistence to be a threat, for it was self-serving and short-sighted. Nowhere in such exercise of personal freedoms is priority given to others over self. No consensus is sought in such arrangements. So Paul says that when one group’s exercise of freedom or pursuit of rights becomes a scandal to another group’s sensibilities, then the free people should be aware of the problem they are creating. His statement stings; it does not gently raise a hesitation. The force of the statement is so direct that no one should miss Paul’s point.

8:10 / This verse creates complications for interpretation, because Paul specifically mentions the possible presence of believers in the temple of pagan deities. Whether Paul is discussing a possibility, a probability, or a reality is impossible to determine; he may be overstating the case to make his point with indisputable clarity. Interpretations that attempt to read the situation behind these remarks do not find sufficient evidence in the wording to make a definitive case. Moreover, a preoccupation with background can distract from the central concern Paul registers. Whatever kind of meat and wherever someone may eat it, Paul’s point is this: if Christians give no thought to their actions when those actions are controversial, then although their actions are seemingly correct for them, others who do not share their convictions may misunderstand and be led astray.

Paul is not encouraging hypocrisy. Nor is he attempting to impose legalistic limits. By once again mentioning conscience, Paul deals with a concept of awareness that his readers would easily grasp and recognize as being emphasized. The ancient and the contemporary notions of conscience are different, however, and readers today may misunderstand Paul’s argument (see Additional Notes for further information).

In essence, Paul’s concern is that Christians give thought to others before they act in behalf of themselves, especially when they engage in activities that may produce needless controversy and undesirable results. According to Paul other believers are more important than the exercise of personal rights and freedom; thus, when pursuit of a supposed right becomes the first priority, then values have become imbalanced.

8:11 / The fire of Paul’s rhetoric comes into full play in this declaration. The deep irony that Paul identifies is that knowledge, which some Corinthians contend produces freedom, can also destroy. By insisting on their rights because of knowledge, they may not only ignore but also harm the well-being of others. Paul reminds those who are in pursuit of their rights that the other believers—with whom they have a disagreement and for whom they may have mild disdain (calling them weak)—are those for whom Christ died! The believing community, with its various personalities, sensibilities, and disposition, is a community of persons for all of whom Christ died. The believers, with their many differences, are alike in one way that should relativize their distinctions: each and every one of them are persons whose lives were given and sustained through Christ (8:6). The mention of the death of Christ serves to level the status and differences among believers by holding them together in the context of the gracious, mysterious, saving power of God at work in the death of Jesus Christ.

8:12 / Paul actually labels the behavior of those eating and scandalizing others who did not share their convictions as sin. To offend others through self-satisfying behavior is to wound them, to inflict harm. Yet the severity of the situation goes beyond even that level of gravity, for Paul writes that in this way … you sin against Christ. We see the corporate nature of Christian life. As Paul will later identify the body of believers to be the body of Christ, so here he recognizes that for one believer (member of the body) to harm another believer (another member of the body) is to inflict harm on Christ. Those insisting on their personal rights are in peril of violating the will and damaging the work of Christ in the world.

8:13 / Real freedom, Paul insists, is being freed from the necessity to assert only, or even primarily, one’s own or a group’s own rights. An ultimate concern for the well-being of others—here one’s fellow believers—must inform and direct the behavior and practices of all believers. Thus, while Paul apparently had no problem with eating meat (eat meat again implies that he had eaten it already), he offers an illustrative personal example as the solution to the situation in Corinth, saying that he would refrain from eating meat (possibly idol meat) if his eating caused his brother to fall into sin. The sin mentioned here, in the context of the discussion of verse 12, is a violation of conscience, doing what others do rather than what one understands to be right.

While Paul’s rhetoric is formed in negative statements (I will never … I will not …), his aim is a positive result: putting others before one’s self or rights. While Paul never uses the word “love” in this portion of the discussion, the values and actions he encourages are the natural outcome of a life defined by love (see 8:1, 3; ch. 13). Finally the personal cast of Paul’s language in making this argument leads to an even more personal and general discussion of rights and responsibilities in the next chapter of the letter. Remarkably, Paul seems to agree with the supposedly knowledgeable Corinthians about idol meat; however, he disagrees with the way they have been acting. Paul’s comments reveal that he regards such behavior as misconduct both in and against Christ.