1 Corinthians 8:7-13

In the opening verses of chapter 8, Paul introduced this problem—the problem of food sacrificed to idols and how the Christian should view it. The problem is that of complicity—how could a Christian live in the midst of a pagan world without becoming complicit in that paganism.

Paul ended that section with the assertion that there is only one God and an idol is nothing; it has no meaning, no reality.  And therefore, the food was spiritually meaningless. If idols were real, then maybe the food offered to them would take on some sort of spiritual taint, but since they're not, the food is simply food, no matter what supposed rituals were done to it. 

That is the key point. Paul knew this, and some of the Corinthians knew this. The problem is verse 7: “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.”

Here it is difficult for us to understand the situation Paul is addressing. Because for most of us—for most modern Westerners—we are on the side of those with knowledge. We know that an idol is nothing. Of course, as we've talked about before, in some sense, anything that turns our hope and faith away from God is an idol. In one sense, the modern obsession with material possessions, with entertainment, or with politics are all forms of idolatry. From a moral or spiritual standpoint, the man who puts all his faith and hope for life in Zeus or Molech is no different from the man who puts all his faith and hope in Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. 

But that is still a very different thing from explicit idolatry. For most of us, the idea of giving religious adoration or fear to an intimate object is very distant. If you were going on a trip to Greece or Italy and visiting some of the old pagan temples, you probably wouldn't ask your friends to pray for you out of fear that you would be tempted into worshipping Zeus or Jupiter. The history of religious and philosophical thought in the West has made that whole mindset very foreign to us.

However, many in the Corinthian church would have grown up their whole lives believing in these other gods and worshipping their idols. We have talked about Paul's statement that an idol is nothing in the world; they have no reality. But for their people, a sense of the reality of the idol, a sense of their presence, their actuality, their power, and the fear and reverence that comes with that would have been ingrained into their minds from infancy.

And so we come to the class of people Paul describes as “the weak brother”--a man or woman who lacked the full knowledge discussed earlier. In verse 7, Paul says they had “conscience of the idol.” The NET Bible translates it that they were “accustomed to idols.” 

These were people who, throughout their whole lives, had believed in and worshipped idols. And that lifetime's worth of thought and beliefs did not entirely fall away when they became Christians. Some of them may have just had bad theology—they might have admitted Jehovah as the chief or greatest God but still believed that the pagan gods existed as some sort of lower spiritual beings. 

But perhaps they would have said that they believed there was only God and an idol was nothing. And yet, the old associations were too strong. That phrase--“conscience of the idol”--Weymouth translates that “force of habit in relation to the idol.” Old habits and associations do not die easily.

I heard the following story from a man born in a poor third-world country. As a boy, he was adopted by a middle-class American family. He went from living in poverty and hunger to a place of safety and (comparative) plenty. But still, for a long time, he would secretly hoard food whenever he could. He was so used to living in need that he kept up those same patterns of thought and action, even though they were no longer needed.

In the same way, when a person becomes a Christian, there are often habits and patterns of thought which do not completely disappear. Many of the Corinthians, converted from idolatry, could not (at least initially) see an idol as merely an object. They could not disassociate it from the fear and veneration which they had once had for it. And so for them, to eat food that had been offered to it could not be seen as merely eating food. For them, there was too much of a temptation to go back to the old life, to slide back to the old attitudes and feelings, and ultimately worship for the idol.

As I said, this whole thing is hard for us to understand. But the bottom line we need to grasp is this: something may be perfectly innocent and wholesome, yet for some people, it will be a temptation and path to sin. One man's food is another man's poison. And that is something that still holds true in the church today. And while I'm not sure everything Paul says here directly relates to us, there are some principles that are very clear.

And the principle Paul lays out here is The Principle of Renunciation: just because it is all right to do something doesn't mean it's always right to do something. A right is not always a best.

Remember what I said before about verse 8. Paul's position regarding food offered to idols was that it had no moral value; no one was really damaged morally by food--but, by the same token, no one is morally helped by it either. Food, in and of itself, does not damn the soul, but it also doesn't save it. Food—on its own—does not decrease nor increase our standing with God. As Paul said in another place, discussing this issue: “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” (Romans 14:17)

The point is that there was nothing wrong with eating this food, but there was also nothing wrong with not eating it. Christians have the freedom, the right to eat it—but they didn't have any sort of duty or necessity to eat it. If it were a necessity, they obviously had to do it. But it was only something they had the liberty to do.

And that brings us to verse 9—there was a danger that this liberty could become a stumbling block to others. In verse 10, Paul carries this idea further. Paul addresses those who have knowledge—those who understand that an idol is nothing and that, therefore, food offered to an idol is innocent. Suppose they acted on that knowledge? Suppose they actually accepted an invitation toeat a dinner served in an idol temple? What sort of effect will that have on others in the church who have weaker faith and have not thoroughly shaken off the shadow of idolatry? They will become that much more likely to do a similar thing, to eat food sacrificed to idols. And if they do so, there is a strong likelihood that they will fall into sin. This fellow Christian, this man who was saved through the death of Christ, will sin and perhaps be lost forever—and one of the means of this fall will be the knowledge, the knowledge of the stronger Christian. This reminds us of Paul's earlier statement: knowledge puffeth up but charity edifieth. Knowledge is a good thing, but it must be exercised with love (and with discernment) or it can become destructive.

And this is a serious matter. Not just because of the harm done to our fellow Christians but because when we harm our brother, we are sinning against Christ. Robertson points out an interesting parallel. Remember what Jesus said to Paul when they met on the Damascus Road. “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.” (Acts 9:5b) Paul had been acting against individual Christians, but Jesus speaks as if Paul had been attacking Him personally. Jesus saw attacks on His people as persecution of Him. And while this is a different situation, there is a sense in which the things we do against those for whom Christ died are a sin against Christ. That fact leads us to Paul's strong statement at the end of the passage: Paul would rather never eat meat at all if his actions harmed others. Love was his guiding principle.

Paul was facing a very real, concrete problem. This wasn't something possible or theoretical. This was the reality for the first-century church. And Paul's basic principle is this—we should never let our own knowledge blind us to the situation of our brothers and sisters. We should never ignore how our actions impact other people. And, in things that are not a matter of duty or necessity, it is better to avoid something, even if it is innocent, if there's a strong chance it will lead Paul to sin. Paul will delve into this idea more as we go into the next chapter.