Food Sacrificed to Idols, 1-13

8:1 With regard to food sacrificed to idols, we know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 8:2 If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know. 8:3 But if someone loves God, he is known by God.

Over the next three chapters, Paul will deal with the problems that have arisen due to some church members eating food which had been sacrificed in a pagan temple.  These believers knew that idols have no existence as valid objects of worship, 1 Cor 8:4-6.  But this behaviour had offended the consciences, and damaged the faith, of those who had not arrived at this understanding, 1 Cor 8:7,9,11f.  But, says Paul, such an attitude sins both against one’s brother and against Christ himself.  True knowledge of God expresses itself in a concern to build up, not tear down, the faith of others, 1 Cor 8:1.  This is so, even if it means denying some of our own legitimate rights, 1 Cor 8:1-3.

Paul illustrates this by reference to his own decision to support himself while in Corinth, 1 Cor 9:1-27, even though his apostleship was recognised there, and he left himself open to criticism for not claiming his right to support as an apostle, and this led to much hardship on his part (cf. 1 Cor 4:11-13).  Paul explains that he has given up his rights as an apostle for the sake of the gospel and for the reward that God himself will give him, 1 Cor 9:15-18.  He is willing to be a slave to all, in order for the gospel to succeed, 1 Cor 9:19.

This training in love is necessary for us all, if we are to persevere in love, 1 Cor 9:23-27.  Failure to persevere has dire consequences for those who use their knowledge and freedom as excuses for immorality and evil, 1 Cor 10:12.  Let them remember Israel, who perished in the desert, 1 Cor 10:1-10.  But God has provided a way of escape from overwhleming temptation, giving all an opportunity for faith to flourish in love, 1 Cor 10:13.

Paul gives, in chapter 10, teaching and advice for dealing with the issues of eating food that had been offered to idols.  Such food was cheap and readily available.  But, even though an idol has no reality, those who so eat were partaking of the table of demons, 1 Cor 10:14-20.

Paul then returns to his own experience, arguing that in not seeking his own advantage as an apostle, 1 Cor 1031f, he is setting an example for his readers to follow, 1 Cor 11:1.

Summary of Paul’s response:

(1) ‘Love requires us voluntarily to suspend freedom at times, lest an imperfectly educated Christian be drawn to sin against conscience. (1 Cor 8:1-3,9-13 9 10:28-29a,32-33)

(2) ‘Yet those with robust consciences have a valid point: idols do not spoil God’s good gifts, which may be enjoyed without scruple, subject to the exception above. (1 Cor 8:4-6,8 10:19,23,25-27, 29b-30)

(3) ‘Participation in an idolatrous festival, however, the purpose of which is to honor a pagan deity-by laying its statue on a couch at table, for example-is incompatible with the Christian Eucharist. There is this much reality to idols: they are tools of demons (1 Cor 10:1-22; cf. Rev 9:20).’

(DLNT)

Vang observes that Paul does not simply ‘lay down the law’.  Rather, he reasons with his audience, teaching them to think Christianly about matters which are not simply questions of ‘right’ versus ‘wrong’.

Thiselton notes that in the present chapter Paul adopts a relaxed view of the eating of meat that had been offered to idols.  In chapter 10, however, he regards it as near-blasphemy.  But the difference in tone is readily explained, suggests Thiselton, but the different circumstances being addressed.

v1-3 – Paul uses the same ‘Yes, but’ approach that he has employed in 1 Cor 6:12f and 1 Cor 7:1f.

The Corinthians had evidently been boasting of their superior knowledge and insight. But, says the Apostle, you are not the only ones who possess knowledge. And, in any case, knowledge is not the greatest thing; love is. Moreover, all the knowledge we have is partial and incomplete. But let our hearts rest in the fact, not just that we know God, but that God knows us.

On the contemporary significance of Paul’s teaching:

‘Believers in different times, places, and cultures may not share the Corinthians’ precise concerns. Still, the principles of the text are unchanging: in the everyday matters where Christian faith intersects with non-Christian culture, the gospel transforms us to pursue the glory of God (1 Cor 8:3; 10:31) and the good of our neighbor (1 Cor 8:1; 10:24) by laying aside our personal freedoms.’ (Gospel Transformation Bible)

Taylor notes that each of the three main sections of this chapter includes a statement that (probably) stems from the Corinthians themselves:

• 8:1-3 – ‘we all possess knowledge’.  Yes, but ‘knowledge puffs up, whereas love builds up.’
• 8:4-6 – ‘an idol is nothing in the world and there is no God but one.’  Yes, but not everyone realises the implications of this.
• 8:7-13 – ‘food does not bring us near to God’.  Yes, but my freedom to eat what I want may cause my brother or sister to stumble.

With regard to food sacrified to idols – This probably involved eating such food in social gatherings held in the temple preceincts as well as food brought home from the market.

‘There were two sources of meat in the ancient world: the regular market (where the prices were higher) and the local temples (where meat from the sacrifices was always available). The strong members of the church realized that idols could not contaminate food, so they saved money by purchasing the cheaper meat available from the temples. Furthermore, if unconverted friends invited them to a feast at which sacrificial meat was served, the strong Christians attended it whether at the temple or in the home. All of this offended the weaker Christians. Many of them had been saved out of pagan idolatry and they could not understand why their fellow believers would want to have anything to do with meat sacrificed to idols. (In Rom. 14-15, the weak Christians had problems over diets and holy days, but it was the same basic issue.) There was a potential division in the church, so the leaders asked Paul for counsel.’ (Wiersbe)

How does Paul’s teaching here sit alongside the decision of the Jerusalem Conference, that Gentile converts should abstain from eating food offered to idols (Acts 15:29)?  Some think that that edict was temporary.  Others think that Paul’s teaching in this chapter is a step on the way to a near-total prohibition that will surface in ch. 10.

Ancient Corinth had an abundance of gods.  According to Johnson, these included:

‘Aphrodite (two varieties, Isis and Serapis), Artemis, Dionysus, Poseidon, Apollo, Helius, Pelagrina (mother of the gods), Necessity, Fates, Demeter, Maid, Zeus, Asklepius, Hermes, Athena and Hera Bunaea. Additionally, there were edifices to the mystery religions, such as the Eleusinian mysteries (Yeo 1995:104–5), and to the Roman imperial cult worship (Winter 1995:170).’

Invitations to such meals in the temple precincts survive.  These show that such meals were religious, as well as social, occasions:

“Herais asks you to dine in the room of Serapheion (Asklepion) at a banquet of the Lord Seraphis tomorrow the 11th from the 9th hour.”

“The god calls you to a banquet being held in the Thoereion tomorrow …”

Meat sacrifices were offered on a daily basis.  Meat that was left over was available for diners in the temple precincts, or sold in the market.

We know that ‘we all have knowledge’ – As Fee observes, it is not, ‘We all know’, but, ‘We all possess knowledge:

‘Along with logos (“speech, rhetoric”; cf. 1:5, 17; 2:1–5) and sophia (“wisdom”; cf. 1:17–31), this is almost certainly an “in” word in Corinth.’

Barnett and others stress that this is not the esoteric, mystical knowledge that would later be associated with gnosticism, but rather the fundamental theological knowledge about God, Christ, salvation, Christian behaviour and so on.

Knowledge puffs up – or ‘inflates’.

Such a prideful attitude has already been mentioned in 1 Cor 4:6, 18f; and 5:2.  It will be mentioned again in 1 Cor 13:4.

Consider the limitations of knowledge: (a) none of us knows 1% about anything; (b) none of us knows what we don’t know; (c) a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; (d) much knowledge, without love, is even more dangerous; (e) knowledge has an inflationary tendency; (f) knowledge easily masquerades as mature wisdom.

We all know Christian brothers and sisters who take pride in their knowledge.  They like to have the last word.  They must always be right.  They have to win the argument.

As Taylor observes, Paul is by no means dismissive of knowledge per se:

‘In the letter opening Paul gives thanks to God for their enrichment in all knowledge (1:5). Paul affirms a “message of knowledge” as a gift of the Spirit (12:8) and the benefits of knowledge in the context of his discussion of prophecy (14:6). Furthermore, throughout the letter Paul reminds the Corinthians of what they “know.” Repeatedly he poses the question, “Do you not know?” (see 3:16; 5:6; 6:2–3,15–16,19; 9:13,24). Paul affirms things they know (8:1,4; 15:58; 16:15), certain things he wants them to know (11:3), and things made known by the Spirit (2:6–16).’

Garland:

‘Christian love is not blind (in contrast to the popular saying about love); it is to be informed by knowledge (cf. Phil. 1:9). But knowledge without love is barren (13:2).’

Again:

‘Paul is an enemy not of knowledge per se but of knowledge that is not informed by faith or directed by love, that inflates egos and wants to put itself on display and receive acclaim.’

Calvin, similarly, remarks that Paul’s case is not against knowledge itself, but against false or inadequate knowledge masquerading as complete knowledge:

‘Knowledge is good in itself, but because religion is the one and only basis for it, it becomes a futile, fading thing, so far as unbelievers are concerned…What you discover is something which is imagined to be knowledge, rather than knowledge itself, and that even in those who are looked upon as the most learned. But knowledge must no more be blamed for this, than a sword for falling into the hands of a madman. This may be said, because of certain extremists who furiously protest against all the liberal arts and sciences, as if their only function was to encourage men’s pride, and had no valuable contribution to make to our everyday life. But those very people who decry them like this are so vociferous in their pride, that they are living exemplars of the old proverb: “Nothing is so arrogant as ignorance.”’

Or, perhaps we should say that the ‘knowledge’ Paul is speaking of here is the sort that is accurate and true, but misapplied.  It is knowledge without wisdom, truth without love.

Love builds up – The word translated ‘build up’ occurs six times in this letter (1 Cor 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:4 [2x], 17).  See also 1 Cor 14:26.

This theme will reach its climax in chapter 13.  As Blomberg notes:

‘Love rather than knowledge remains the center of Paul’s ethics (cf. Gal. 5:14) and the highest of human virtues, without which all spiritual gifts prove worthless (1 Cor. 13).’

Plummer poses a question for today’s churches:

‘As we look at our modern churches, we need to ask ourselves if they are characterized by a concern to “build up” the church—to preserve and mature current believers, as well as include new converts.’

If someone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know to the degree that he needs to know – A superficial reading would suggest that Paul is saying that no-one can know anything.  If that were so, we should not only have to stop studying our Bibles, but also close all our schools, colleges and universities.  But Paul cannot mean that, because ten times in this letter he challenges his readers: ‘Do you not know…?’ (See 1 Cor 6:2, 19, etc.).  No: Paul is referring to the person who thinks that he has absolute mastery, while all the time his knowledge is partial, inadequate, incomplete.  This is the knowledge that puffs up.  Paul will go on to contrast this with true knowledge, which loves God and serves the people of God.

Garland:

‘All Christians possess knowledge, but not all Christians know as they are meant to know. Knowledge can be incomplete and/or misapplied. Knowledge misapplied can lead to the wrong kind of edifying (8:10) and can destroy others (8:11). Knowledge that permits one to steamroll over the scruples of others or to harm them or the church in any way is not Christian knowledge.’

Barnett says that knowledge of God, but its very nature, is partial, and to claim complete knowledge is delusory:

‘In this riddle Paul is saying that even those who think they know a lot about God, in fact know next to nothing. How could it be otherwise? The subject under discussion is God who is eternal, infinite and hidden from sight and sense. God hides himself from those who are wise in their own eyes but reveals himself to the humble and contrite. Genuinely devout humility is a prerequisite for even to begin to ‘know’ God. Paul does not find this among the Corinthians.’

If someone loves God, he is known by God – Paul gives here the notion of ‘knowledge’ a telling twist.  We would have expected him to say: ‘…he knows God’.  Hays remarks:

‘The initiative in salvation comes from God, not from us. It is God who loves first, God who elects us and delivers us from the power of sin and death. Therefore what counts is not so much our knowledge of God as God’s knowledge of us. That is the syntax of salvation…Anyone who understands that the logic of the gospel depends on God’s initiative will not become puffed up by the possession of knowledge.’

Hays notes that in mentioning loving God Paul may already have the Shema (Deut 6:5) in his mind (cf. vv4-6).

Verbrugge thinks that to be ‘known by God’ is equivalent to divine election.  See 2 Tim 2:19 (quoting Num 16:5) – ‘The Lord knows those who are his.’

Barnett stresses that we only know Godin so far as he has reached out to us in self-revelation, and has brought us into his own orbit.

Gundry says that this knowledge that God has of his own people is not merely information about them:

‘For God’s having come to know him doesn’t have to do solely with divine omniscience (a matter of information). It has to do also with God’s entering into an intimately and mutually loving relation with that person (compare the euphemistic use of “know” for sexual intercourse, starting in Genesis 4:1). In other words, God’s knowledge too is information imbued with love. Better to be known by him in this way than to know anything by way of information without love (compare 1 Cor 13:2).’

8:4 With regard then to eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that “an idol in this world is nothing,” and that “there is no God but one.” 8:5 If after all there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live.

With regard…to eating food sacrificed to idols – This probably included both food bought in the market and food consumed on the temple premises.  With regard to the latter, Hays comments:

‘Feasts held in temples were common events in the daily life of a Greco-Roman city. For example, the sanctuary of Asclepius in Corinth comprised both an area for cultic sacrifice and several dining rooms that opened onto a pleasant public courtyard. The wealthier Corinthians would have been invited to meals in such places as a regular part of their social life, to celebrate birthdays, weddings, healings attributed to the god, or other important occasions.

‘For those few Corinthian Christians who were among the wealthier class (cf. 1 Cor 1:26–29), their public and professional duties virtually required the networking that occurred through attending and sponsoring such events. To eat the sacrificial meat served on such occasions was simple social courtesy; to refuse to share in the meal would be an affront to the host. At the same time, the specifically religious connotations of the act might not have seemed particularly important.

‘Within the social circle of the poorer Corinthians, on the other hand, such meat-eating would not have been commonplace. Meat was not an ordinary part of their diet; it may have been accessible only at certain public religious festivals where there was a general distribution of meat. Consequently, the wealthy and powerful, who also had the most advanced education, would take the eating of meat in stride and readily accept the view that it was a matter of spiritual indifference; at the same time, however, the poor might regard meat as laden with “numinous” religious connotations (see Theissen, 121–43). Thus, the distinction between “the weak” and those with “knowledge” may have fallen, at least to some extent, along socioeconomic lines.’ (Paragraphing added)

“An idol is nothing in the world” – This is consistent with the OT notion of idols as non-entities, Isa 41:28; Jer 14:22; 16:19; Hab 2:18; Psa 115:4–8.

As Bailey succinctly puts it:

‘There is no Zeus in the heavens, no Athena on the earth and no Poseidon in the sea.’

Gal 4:8 makes it clear that the spiritual entities to which his readers were once enslaved, are not gods at all.

Morris comments:

‘Many think that he is quoting from the Corinthian’s letter again, and this may well be the case. He is certainly not giving his own full ideas on the matter, for he says that what is sacrificed to idols is actually sacrificed to devils (1 Cor 10:20). There are spiritual beings behind the idols, though not the ones their worshippers thought.’

Simply put, idols do not exist; but idol worship does.

However, this teaching needs to understood alongside 1 Cor 10:18-22, where Paul does say that behind idol-worship lies demon-worship.

Taylor (NAC) summarises Paul’s attitude towards idolatry:

‘Paul’s stance against all forms of idolatry was uncompromising. In Athens, while waiting for Timothy and Silas, Luke records that Paul “was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols” (Acts 17:16). Injunctions against both idolatry and sexual immorality would have been integral in Paul’s missionary instruction during his eighteen-month stay in Corinth (Acts 18:9) since some believers in Corinth were former idolaters (6:9–11; 12:2), and like the converts in Thessalonica, their conversion entailed turning “to God from idols to serve the living and true God” (1 Thess 1:9).’

“There is no God but one” – The converse of there being no reality to the other ‘gods’ is the Jewish insistence that ‘The LORD our God, the LORD is one’ (Deut 6:4, the Shema, repeated by Jews daily).

With these two affirmation, Paul is in agreement.  The problem is not with their theology, but with their application.

Robert Plummer emphasises the importance of our doctrine of God for the various ethical issues we face:

‘Many of the ethical challenges that the church is facing are without explicit precedent in the Scriptures (or with only limited precedent). Christians must respond cogently to a host of medical procedures (cloning, euthanasia, fetal tissue research, abortion, genetic therapies, etc.), gender and sexual issues, and to questions of international politics, economic disparity, and religious pluralism. As the church considers these issues, it is essential that we hold fast to the Scriptural truth of who God is. If we lose our theological moorings, our ethical practice will also drift away.’

Even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth – There was no shortage of gods or shrines in ancient Corinth; they were everywhere.  For pagans the multiplicity of gods is a mark of their effectiveness – a god for every occasion.  For Paul the Jew, however, it is precisely the opposite:

‘Paul’s affirmation about the oneness of God is given in the context of an animistic and polytheistic world. Accordingly, he must acknowledge the fact that believers do live in a world populated by so-called gods. One could not walk through the streets of Roman Corinth and deny the reality of the presence of idols. Ancient literary descriptions of Corinth as well as the archeological evidence that has been excavated there all point to an urban setting that was replete with statues, altars, idols, and temples to pagan gods and goddesses. Paul’s phrase “in heaven” or “on earth” refers to the abode of these pagan deities as reflected in the theology of polytheistic religion. In the polytheistic world of Paul’s day, the gods of Greece and Rome populated the heaven as well as the earth.’ (College Press)

Barnett thinks the sense is that there are many ‘gods’ in heaven that are currently being worshipped ‘on earth’ in the  various Corinthian temples.

(As indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”) – That is, there are many gods and demigods such as have just been referred to (i.e. ‘so-called’ gods). Of course, the parentheses and quotation marks have been supplied by the translator to help to clarify the meaning.

There are three (possibly complementary) ways of thinking about the reality of such ‘gods’:

(a) They had no real existence; nevertheless, they were ‘real’ in the sense that they exercised great power over people, producing fear, superstition and corruption.

(b) Certain hints in the OT suggest some ontological reality behind others ‘gods’, while always insisting on the supremacy of Yahweh over them (e.g. Deut 5:7; 10:17; Psa 82:1).

(c) Paul himself will suggest, in 1 Cor 10, a demonic presence behind the worship of idols.  Verbrugge points out that here, in v5, Paul begins, but does not conclude, an ‘If…then’ construction.  We get a sense as to how he intended to complete this by glancing forward to 1 Cor 10:19f.

For us there is but one God, the Father – Paul gives enthusiastic approval to his reader’s explicit monotheism.  But extends this by boldly adding a confessional statements (possibly drawn from an early Christian creed) about Christ.

Paul here echoes the famous Shema.  But see also these other Pauline affirmations of monotheism:

‘There is one God and Father of us all’ (Eph. 4:5)

And especially, in the light of his linking of Father and Son in the present passage:

‘There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus’ (1 Tim 2:5).

Barnett remarks that the oness of God points to both his indivisibility and his absolute uniqueness (cf. Isa 45:5).  This was not only true, but necessary, knowledge in Corinth where, as Paul says, there was a plethora of ‘deities’, from which those with over-sensitive consciences would find it difficult to let go of.

Hays says that a literal translation would display parallelism in the following way:

One God, the Father,
From whom are all things and we for him,
And one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and we through him.

There is but one God, the Father, because, for us Christians, although there may be demonic powers behind the idols, these powers have been overcome by the cross.

From whom are all things and for whom we live – The fatherhood of God is here linked with his creation of all things, and our accountability before him.

But the final phrase

‘may not mean “through whom we exist” (NRSV, JB), but rather something like “we through him [go to God].” This would preserve the parallelism with the second line of the formula, which encompasses both origin and destination; thus, the last line of the confession acclaims Jesus Christ as the agent of both creation and eschatological redemption.’ (Hays)

There is but one Lord, Jesus Christ – It is, of course a most daring claim to link the ‘one Lord, Jesus Christ’, with the ‘one God, the Father’ in this clear echo of the Shema.  Paul is compelled to confess both the oneness of God (Rom 3:30; Eph 4:6; 1 Tim 2:5) and the full deity of Jesus Christ.

As Johnson remarks on the high Christology:

‘The deliberate parallelism of what is ascribed to the Father in creation (from) and what is ascribed to Jesus Christ in creation (through) is amazing for its high Christology in this early period (A.D. 57), probably before any Gospel was written (see Jn 1:3, “through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made”).’

‘There is a widespread impression that the word Lord is a much weaker title. But this is not so. When we say that Jesus Christ is Lord we are making a statement of unsurpassable significance. In the Latin culture of Imperial Rome the highest title Caesar could claim was Lord. It was a divine title. The same was true in Greek culture: a kurios was a divine being. ‘There are many “gods” and many “lords,”’ as Paul reminds us in 1 Cor 8:5. But what really matters is that in Jewish theology the designation Lord had the very highest import. When the Greeks wanted to translate the Hebrew scriptures they came up against the distinctively Jewish name for God: Jehovah or Yahweh. How should they translate? Their solution was to render it by Kurios (Lord). The English versions have done the same thing. (There are, in fact, two Hebrew words translated Lord: Jehovah and Adonai. The English Bible distinguishes very precisely between them by consistently printing the word for Jehovah in large block capitals: LORD. The distinction is very clear in Ps 8:1).

The importance of all this is that when the Apostles called Jesus Lord they were using a Roman title of divine significance, a Greek title of divine significance and an Aramaic title of divine significance (Mar). Above all, they were ascribing to Jesus the word used by Greek-speaking Jews as equivalent to Jehovah. When we say that Jesus Christ is Lord we are saying exactly that Jesus Christ is Jehovah. This may startle us by its very novelty. But it is the truth, and there is nothing more remarkable in the whole history of human psychology than that monotheistic Jews of the first century, men like Paul and James, should ascribe to a human being the title Kurios and go on to apply to him Old Testament verses which in their original context referred to Jehovah, the God of Israel. Let us never forget this simple fact. When we say, ‘Jesus Christ is Lord,’ we are saying, ‘Jesus Christ is Jehovah.’ When we sing, ‘The Lord is my shepherd,’ we are singing, ‘Jehovah-Jesus is my shepherd.’ (McLeod, A Faith To Live By)

Wright concludes, from this section:

‘Paul is not content with offering simple rules, a set of dos and don’ts to guide the Corinthians through the difficulties of living as people of the true God in a world full of other gods. He wants them to be able to think through the issues for themselves, and that means thinking hard about just who the true God is, and what it means to love and serve him. That remains as urgent a task today as it was in the first century.’

8:7 But this knowledge is not shared by all. And some, by being accustomed to idols in former times, eat this food as an idol sacrifice, and their conscience, because it is weak, is defiled. 8:8 Now food will not bring us close to God. We are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do. 8:9 But be careful that this liberty of yours does not become a hindrance to the weak. 8:10 For if someone weak sees you who possess knowledge dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience be “strengthened” to eat food offered to idols? 8:11 So by your knowledge the weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed. 8:12 If you sin against your brothers or sisters in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 8:13 For this reason, if food causes my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I may not cause one of them to sin.

This section is all about not causing the weak to stumble.

But this knowledge is not shared by all – Paul challenges their assertion: ‘we all possess knowledge.’

This statement may seem surprising, says Schreiner, if vv4-6 comprise an early creedal statement.  Perhaps the point is although they do know that God is the one Creator and that Christ is Lord, they do not understand the implications with regard to the subject in hand.

Garland summarises:

‘The knowledge in 8:7 includes the knowledge alluded to in 8:1, namely, that God is one, and idols have no existence, plus the inference that this truth permits them to eat idol food as ordinary food (βρῶσις, brōsis), not as sanctified food (Cheung, 1999: 128). The knowers “know” that idol food is nothing but ordinary food hallowed by some empty hocus-pocus. The weak, however, regard it as idol food, sanctified and dedicated to the god.’

Thiselton comments:

‘Paul reasons with his readers with both realism and diplomacy: not everyone, he advises the strong, has your perceptions and advantages. They remain in the grip of habitual ways of thought that die hard: they are subject to “force of habit” (v. 7). The “weak” never did share the sense of “being at home” in the banquet held by the influential. Paul makes a sensitive pastoral distinction between the ontological nonexistence of the false gods and the existential reality of their influence on the sensitivities of the vulnerable.’

Some, by being accustomed to idols in former times – These people were clearly converted pagans, not Jewish Christians.  They had been used, in the past, to eatin meat that had been sacrificed to idols both in the temples and at home, and now found it difficult to break free from a sense of the reality of the god.

Some…eat this food as an idol sacrifice – NIV: ‘They think of it as having been sacrificed to a god’ brings out the idea that they believe in some kind of reality behind the idols.

Barnett puts it like this:

‘Because of their lifelong worship of idols these Corinthians, whom we presume are new converts, have not yet come to believe in their hearts as well as their heads that ‘an idol has no real existence’. Their return to the temples would mean eating the idol-sacrificed food with a ‘defiled conscience’. Once more they would be joined to the unholy deity and be ‘unclean’ in their understanding of themselves. Their relationship with the Lord Christ would be destroyed.’

Some of these people would have had a long association with idolatrous worship.  They could not shake off the idea that food offered to idols was inherently contaminated.  They had made a clean break with idol worship, and now eating such food seemed to violate that commitment.

Johnson remarks that some Christians have a similar experience if they had previously been involved in witchcraft, Satanism and the occult.

Calvin comments on the importance of keeping a clear conscience before God:

‘God does not want us to set our hand to anything, without being quite sure that it is acceptable to him. Therefore, anything a person does with a wavering conscience is, because of that very uncertainty, sinful in God’s sight. That is precisely what Paul says in Rom 14:23…Since the goodness of actions springs from fear of God and integrity of conscience, so, on the other hand, it does not matter how good an action may appear to be, if there is something wrong with the mental attitude behind it, then the action is vitiated. For anyone who boldly sets out on something that is against his conscience, is showing a certain contempt for God.’

We should, therefore, be willing to subjugate our own rights to the tender consciences of our brothers and sister:

‘It is as though he said: ‘In God’s sight your viewpoint is perfectly correct, and if you were the only people in the world, you would be as free to eat meat offered to idols as any other foods. But be considerate of your brothers, to whom you owe something. You have knowledge; they are ignorant. What you do ought to be influenced not only by your knowledge, but also by their ignorance.’ (Calvin)

Conscience – ‘Paul sees the ‘conscience’ like a sort of internal compass, telling each person what is right and wrong. But the human conscience, like a compass, is a sensitive instrument, and it can easily malfunction. It can get trapped in magnetic fields that pull it off course. It can allow itself to be set in a particular pattern even though it’s inappropriate. It often can’t tell the difference between social custom—‘the way things are done’ in this town, this country, this college, this family—and actual issues of right and wrong.’ (Wright)

Food will not bring us close to God – Bailey paraphrases: ‘God does not care what we eat.’

For Thiselton, Paul’s is anticipating the reply of the ‘strong’: ‘Food will not bring us to God’s judgement’.

Gundry similarly: ‘Food won’t make us stand before God [to be judged for what we ate]’.

Neither being a meat-eater or a vegetarian will give us access to God:

‘Paul here disposes of the pride of knowledge (the enlightened ones) and the pride of prejudice (the unenlightened). Each was disposed to look down upon the other, the one in scorn of the other’s ignorance, the other in horror of the other’s heresy and daring.’ (A.T. Robertson)

Schreiner thinks that the meaning here may be, ‘..will not present us to God’.  Paul:

‘uses the verb ‘present’ (paristēmi) to denote standing before God at the final judgment (Rom. 14:10); being presented with other believers on the last day (2 Cor. 4:14); being presented to Christ as a pure virgin (2 Cor. 11:2); the church being presented to Christ as holy and blameless (Eph. 5:27); believers being presented holy and blameless to God (Col. 1:22); and every person being presented perfect in Christ (Col. 1:28). The term is often eschatological, and Paul is thinking of the final judgment here.’

For Schreiner, it is remarkable that food – which figured so prominently in Jewish thinking (Lev 11; Deut 14; Dan 1 etc)  – should be declared by Paul to be inconsequential.

We are no worse if we do not eat and no better if we do – Those with knowledge have, in this regard, no spiritual advantage over those without knowledge.  One’s freedom in this matter does not mean that one is wiser or more mature than the other person.

Some (including Johnson) think that Paul is still citing the views of the Corinthians; otherwise, how do we explain his blanket prohibition of eating at sacrificial meals in 1 Cor 10:14-22?

Garland explains how food, morally neutral in itself, can nevertheless become morally tainted and an occasion for sin:

‘Just as sexual relations are not unclean in themselves but can be perverted by human sin into porneia, food is not unclean in itself but can become tainted by its associations with demons and thus become something forbidden.’

In order for us to identify modern-day parallels, Robert Plummer suggests that,

‘we need to discuss a behavior (1) which is in itself morally inconsequential, (2) which some persons view as morally wrong, and (3) which by some persons engaging in this behavior, others will be tempted to “join in” and do something they consider wrong.’

Concering our own prejudices and blind spots, Robert Plummer asks:

‘Are we blinded as to the ultimate inconsequence of certain matters we hold dear? If the Lord delays his return, what will a future generation of Christians see as our distortions of biblical teaching?  May God be gracious to us by giving us the strength and wisdom to see and correct those shortcomings in our own day.’

Be careful that this liberty of yours does not become a hindrance to the weak – ‘Liberty’ = ‘exousia‘, ‘authority’.

The ‘strong’ and the ‘weak’ are regularly contrasted in this chapter.  Thiselton chracterises the latter as ‘insecure’.  He further differentiates them:

‘Probably the “strong” were not only those who appealed to “knowledge,” but also among the socially influential and financially better off. The “weak” were vulnerable both in terms of self-doubt and in social and economic status. In both senses they were insecure.’

Soards:

‘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.’

Eating meat that has previously been offered to idols may be morally neutral, but to those who think that it ‘taints’ them spiritually, or tempts them back into idol worship, it would be sinful.  For:

‘To do so would be to “defile their conscience” (8:7), to encounter a “stumbling block” (8:9), to be “emboldened” to eat something that they should not (8:10), to be “destroyed” by the “strong” Christians’ knowledge (8:11), to have their conscience wounded (8:12), and to fall into sin (8:13).’ (Plummer)

Following Thiselton, was can summarise the viewpoint and arguments of the ‘weak’ and the ‘strong’:

The ‘strong’ would have argued:

1. Most meat was sourced through the temples, and so it was difficult to avoid using such meat;
2. Christians would often be invited to attend dinners or banquets held in a temple precincts.  To refuse to attend would cut them off from their non-Christians friends (whom they would want to win for Christ);
3. These meals were not really acts of worship, and there would be little more than a cursury nod to the false god of that temple;
4. These gods have no real existence: how could they contaminate anything or anyone?
5. Our very creed (which insists that God is one, and that an idol has no real existence) provides the basis for our action.  Unlike the ‘weak’, we act on the basis of knowledge.

The viewpoint of the ‘weak’ would have been:

1. They feel ‘bamboozled’ by influential Christians who seem to know what they are talking about;
2. They have been redeemed from the power of the deities they used to worship, and are fearful of a return to their old life;
3. It seems altogether incongruous that some believers were coming straight from ‘offering sacrifices to demons’ (1 Cor 10:20) to the Lord’s Table;
4. They have become Christians at great personal cost; how can they carry on just as before?  Is not the church of Christ called to be distinctively holy?

Further, (3) when believers pledge themselves to Christ as sole Lord at the Lord’s Table, it seems as if some fellow churchpeople come straight to the Lord’s Table from “offering sacrifices to demons” (10:20). How can other Christians share with them in the Lord’s Supper? On top of this, might half of their motives reflect a desire to retain former business contacts? (4) Many have become Christians at great personal cost; are often ridiculed; and former friends turn against them as narrow-minded. Is this all worthwhile if some can carry on just as before? Some are ready to give up; many remain confused about what it means to be a Christian. How is our church any more a “holy” people?

Prior summarises Paul’s powerful argumentation in vv9-13:

(a) A strong Christian’s freedom can become a stumbling block to be weak believer, v9;

(b) We must see our fellow-believer as one for whom Christ died, v11;

(c) When we do sin against our brother in this way, we are sinning against Christ, vv12.

‘Liberty’ = ‘exousia‘.  This word will become prominent in the next chapter.  Its basic meaning is ‘authority’; but here, it refers to an inner conviction that one can do as one pleases.  As Paul uses it here, it is closely related to ‘knowledge’ and ‘wisdom’ and to the sense of personal superiority these terms imply (Hays).

Schreiner argues that the ‘right’ of the knowers to eat food offered to idols is assumed (by them) rather than actual.  The situation, he says it not the same here as it is in Rom 14-15.  There the issue is to do with unclean food; here it is to do with food offered to idols.  In this latter case the NT consistently condemns eating food offered to idols (Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25; Rev. 2:14, 20).  The Corinthian ‘knowers’ (says Schreiner) knew full well Paul’s teaching on the matter, and this will become explicit in 1 Cor 10:19-22.  For the moment, Paul is focussing on the pastoral issue of the effect this ‘freedom’ would have on those with sensitive consciences.

On not becoming ‘a hindrance to the weak’, see Mt 18:6f –

“But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! It is necessary that stumbling blocks come, but woe to the person through whom they come.”

‘No man is an island’. Those who have understanding must consider in love the welfare of the ignorant.

Calvin remarks:

‘I wish that careful thought would be given to this by those who make everything turn to their own advantage, so that they cannot bear to give up even the smallest whit of their rights, for the sake of a brother. I also wish that they would attend not only to what Paul teaches, but to what he sets before us by his own example. How far ahead of us Paul is! Therefore, when he shows such willingness to discipline himself to this extent for the sake of his brothers, which of us would not submit to the same conditions?’

These ‘weaker brothers’ are unable clearly to distinguish between eating food offered to idols and worship of the idols themselves.  Thus, if they are tempted to go back to the first, they will also be tempted to return to the second.

The question, then, is not, ‘How far can I go?’, but rather, what are my motives?

It is not clear if the reference to dining in an idol’s temple is actual, or hypothetical.  To be sure, by the time we reach 1 Cor 10:21 Paul will speaking of the danger of sharing in the ‘cup’ or ‘table’ of demons.

A weak conscience is not one which permits anything, but is rather an over-scrupulous conscience, which places restrictions on the legitimate freedoms of the Christian.

‘Their inner thoughts unnecessarily accused them and led to feelings of guilt or defilement (v. 7). Because they felt compelled to do that which did not proceed from faith, for them it was sinful (Rom. 14:23).’ (Blomberg)

If someone weak sees you who possess knowledge dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience be “strengthened” to eat food offered to idols? – A number of commentators cite invitations such as the following:

Herais asks you to dine at the dining room of the Sarapeion
at a banquet of the Lord Serapis tomorrow,
namely, the 11th from the 9th hour.

Barnett also cites the following archaeological evidence:

‘Excavations at Corinth have unearthed a temple to the goddess Demeter-Kore with forty dining rooms, each about 5 metres x 5 metres, each accommodating nine or ten people, but without cooking facilities. Most likely these facilities were reasonably typical for other temples in Corinth and other cities. The food sacrificed and cooked elsewhere in the precincts of this temple was brought to these small rooms which probably also had a statue of the god. The meal was eaten in fellowship with the god who was thought to be present with his worshippers.’

What the ‘strong’ thought would build up the ‘weak’ was actually daring them to do something that would violate their conscience.

By your knowledge the weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed – Your ‘knowledge’ is correct; but you would be using it in a destructive way.  Christ died to save him, but your actions are threatening to destroy him.

Andrew Wilson:

‘It works like this. Imagine one of the “weak” sees one of the “knowers” lounging around in a pagan temple dining room, enjoying a sacrificial piece of meat in the context of an idolatrous meal. What might they conclude? They might conclude that they should eat idol food as well (8:10). And since, for them, eating idol food is an act of worship, they might also conclude that idolatry is compatible with Christianity—that they can both follow Jesus and continue to serve the pagan gods they left behind.’

Let us not treat with disdain our brothers and sisters.  Christ died for them, as well as for us:

‘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.’ (Soards)

See, for a close parallel:

Rom 14:15 ‘For if your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy by your food someone for whom Christ died.’

Hays detects here a note of ‘biting irony’.  ‘Christ gave up his life for this “weak” brother (cf. Rom 5:6); by your pretended “knowledge” you are destroying him!’

This calls to mind Christ’s teaching in Mt 25:31-46 – ‘What you are doing for (or against) the least of these Christ’s brothers, you are doing for (or against) Christ himself.’  See also Lk 15:4; 19:10; Mt 18:10–14; Mk 9:42.

The word ‘destroyed’, according to Schreiner, has an eschatological flavour:

‘Eating in the temples of idols constitutes idolatry, and no-one who makes a practice of committing idolatry will inherit God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:20–21; Eph. 5:5).’

But can a person ‘for whom Christ died’ be utterly and finally ‘destroyed’?  Paul, in 1 Cor 1:8f, certainly affirms that those who have been effectually called by God will persevere to the end.  Schreiner thinks that Paul is here speaking pastorally and hypothetically: as if to say: ‘Are you willing to act in such a way as to jeopardise the salvation of a brother or sister?’  Blomberg and Verbrugge similarly.

You sin against Christ – either, (a) against Christ in the person of his body, the church, or (b) against the example of Christ.

Most interpreters favour (a).  Soards comments:

‘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.’

In favour of (a), note Paul’s experience recorded in Acts 9:4f; 22:7f; 26:14f – ‘Why are you persecuting me? I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.’  Consider also 1 Cor 3:15-17 (‘temples of the Holy Spirit’) and 1 Cor 12:12-30 (parts of Christ’s body).

Gundry comments:

‘Strikingly, Paul reserves the vocabulary of sinning for those who eat with knowledge but without love rather than for those who eat without knowledge and therefore with a polytheistic supposition.’

Paul has given three reasons why the ‘strong’ should abstain from eating meat offered to idols in view of the scruples of the ‘weak’:

1. It is a morally neutral issue, and there is no inherent moral advantage in eating such meat, v8.
2. The freedom of the ‘strong’ can threaten the spiritual well-being of the ‘weak’, v11.
3. To so sin against one’s brother is to sin against Christ himself, v12b.

If food causes my brother or sister to sin, I will never eat meat again – ‘Food’ = ‘meat’.  Paul is referring to all kinds of animal flesh here, not just that which has been offered to idols.  He is clearly willing to join the ranks of the weak:

1 Cor 9:22 – ‘To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some.’

Paul’s teaching here is not simply about not offending fellow-Christians (notwithstanding the AV’s ‘if meat make my brother to offend’).  No; it is about not causing a brother to sin by making him engage in behaviour – morally neutral in itself – that is against his conscience or which might lead him into actual sin.  It is, in short, about not putting stumbling blocks in the way of others.

Blomberg remarks that three ‘timeless principles’ dominate this chapter:

1. what is safe for one Christian may not be for another;
2. true discernment always requires love as well as knowledge; and
3. believers have no right to demand certain freedoms if they in turn prove detrimental to those around them.

Legitimate applications of this chapter do not include things that are inherently good or bad.  I have no ‘freedom’ to commit adultery, or to steal, to be gluttonous or to get drunk.  Rather, this chapter addresses morally neutral areas of the Christian life, where some believers (the ‘strong’) may have a clearer understanding of what is morally permissible.

The situation is not quite so simple as saying, ‘If in doubt, leave it out’, for this might restrict legitimate opportunities for outreach and witness (cf. 1 Cor 9:19-23).

As Blomberg says:

‘Two dangers remain ever-present: a separatism that prevents Christians from being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt. 5:13–16) and a syncretism (a mixture of religions) that adopts pagan practices with damaging consequences.’

Blomberg notes the difficulty of maintaining a balance between two extremes of persmissiveness and legalism:

‘It requires much less thought and care simply to create a blanket prohibition of a certain practice or to tolerate it indiscriminately. But Paul’s way rings much truer to reality and to revelation.’

Contemporary examples

Plummer discusses a number of issues that find some parallel with the situation in Corinth: (a) dancing; (b) swimming costumes; (c) hiking in mountainous areas considered sacred.