20The Limits of  Christian Liberty  (8:1-13)

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble. (8:1-13)

Chapters 8-10 of 1 Corinthians continue Paul’s answers to questions asked in the letter to him mentioned in 7:1. All three chapters deal with the problem of questionable practices, which in Corinth centered around eating food that had been offered to idols.

That specific problem still exists in parts of the world for Christians saved out of idolatrous religions. Even for the rest of us, however, the basic problem that confronted the Corinthians faces all of us. The issue is: How far does Christian freedom go in regard to behavior not specifically forbidden in Scripture?

During the past several generations some of the strongest debate among fundamentalists and evangelicals has centered around questionable practices—practices that many believers feel to be wrong but that are not specifically forbidden in Scripture. Some of the key issues have been drinking alcoholic beverages, smoking, card playing, wearing makeup, dancing, Sunday sports, styles of music, and going to the theater or movies. One reason Christians have spent so much time arguing those issues is that the Bible does not specifically forbid them.

It is not that those and many similar issues may not be important. But we cannot speak as authoritatively about them as we can such things as stealing, murder, slander, adultery, or covetousness—which Scripture plainly forbids as sinful. Both the Old and New Testaments mention many things that believers are prohibited from doing. Likewise both testaments teach many things that are always good to do—loving and worshiping God, loving our neighbor, helping the poor, and so on. Those specific things are black or white, wrong or right.

Many behaviors, however, are not commanded, commended, or forbidden in Scripture. They are neither black nor white, but gray. Such issues in one age or area may not be the same as those in other times or places; but every age and every place has had to deal with the gray areas of Christian living. The first major council of the Christian church, reported in Acts 15, was called primarily to deal with such issues. Some Jewish believers were insisting that all male Gentile converts be circumcised (v. 1) and others were afraid to socialize with believing Gentiles, especially over a meal, for fear they would break Jewish dietary laws. The council decided that Gentiles need not be circumcised (v. 19) but that believers “abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood” (v. 20). By following those policies they would “do well” (v. 29).

Because there could have been no question about the sinfulness of fornication, the mention of it in this list must be figurative, probably referring to the nonincestuous marriage of a near relative. The Jews had very clear teaching as to the fact that consanguine marriage in extended degrees was forbidden to them as a part of their unique identity. The practices mentioned were not in themselves sinful, but the council advised the churches to abstain from them in order not to needlessly offend Jewish brothers who had strong convictions about them.

Christian liberty is a central truth of the New Testament. “If you abide in My word,” Jesus said, “then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:31-32). “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty” (2 Cor. 3:17). “It was for freedom that Christ set us free” (Gal. 5:1).

But Christian liberty is not unbridled license. It is never freedom to sin, and often it should exclude things that in themselves are not sin but that may become sinful or lead others to sin. Peter says, “Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bond-slaves of God” (1 Pet. 2:16).

Two common extremes are often followed in regard to doubtful things. One is legalism; the other is license. Legalism believes that every act, every habit, every type of behavior is either black or white. Legalists live by rules rather than by the Spirit. They classify everything as either good or bad, whether the Bible mentions it or not. They develop exhaustive lists of do’s and don’ts. Doing the things on the good list and avoiding the things on the bad list is their idea of spirituality, no matter what the inner person is like. Their lives are law controlled, not Spirit controlled. But refraining from doing things is not spirituality; walking in the Spirit is spirituality. Legalism stifles liberty, stifles conscience, stifles the Word, and stifles the Holy Spirit.

License is the opposite extreme. It is like legalism in that it too has no gray areas—but neither does it have much black. Almost everything is white; everything is acceptable as long as it is not strictly forbidden in Scripture. Such advocates believe that Christian freedom is virtually absolute and unqualified. As long as your own conscience is free you can do as you please. That seems to have been the philosophy of the group Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 8. They probably agreed with him that believers should “maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men” (Acts 24:16). Beyond that, however, they wanted no restrictions.

But Paul teaches that it can also be wrong to offend the consciences of fellow believers when they are less mature (“weak”) and when what we are doing is not necessary in our service to the Lord.

In answer to the specific question about eating food offered to idols, Paul gives a general and universal principle that can be applied to all doubtful behavior. He states and explains the principle in chapter 8; he illustrates it in 9:1-10:13; and he applies it in 10:14—11:1. The principle is: “Take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (8:9). Before we exercise our Christian liberty in a given area not forbidden by Scripture, we should consider how it will affect others, especially our fellow believers.

In preparation for giving the principle, Paul responds to three reasons some of the Corinthians gave for feeling completely free to act as they pleased in regard to practices not specifically forbidden by God. The reasons were: (1) We know we all have knowledge; (2) We know that an idol is nothing; and (3) We know that food is not an issue with God. The apostle agrees that each reason is basically valid, but then goes on to show how none of those reasons should be applied to practices that might cause someone else to stumble spiritually.

WE KNOW THAT WE ALL HAVE KNOWLEDGE

Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. (8:1-3)

Things sacrificed to idols is one word in Greek and can be translated simply as “idol sacrifices.” The sacrifices were food offerings, symbolically presented in worship to the god in whose temple they were given. The particular issue was that of eating food that had been offered in those sacrifices.

The Greeks and Romans were polytheistic, worshiping many gods. They had a god, or a group of gods, for every circumstance, every need, and every activity of any consequence. They had a god of war, a goddess of love, a god of travel, a goddess of justice, and on and on. They were also polydemonistic, believing in many evil spirits. They believed the air was filled with evil spirits of all sorts.

Giving food sacrifices, which were usually meat, was of great importance in regard to both of those beliefs. It was believed that the evil spirits were constantly trying to invade human beings and that the easiest way to do that was to attach themselves to food before it was eaten. The only way the spirits could be removed from food was through its being sacrificed to a god. The sacrifice therefore served two purposes; it gained the favor of the god and cleansed the meat from demonic contamination.

Idol offerings were divided into three parts. One part was burned on an altar as the sacrifice proper. The second part was given as payment to the priests who served at the temple, and the remaining part was kept by the offerer. Because of the large number of offerings, the priests were not able to eat all of their portion, and they sold in the marketplace what they did not need. That meat was highly valued because it was cleansed of evil spirits, and was thus the meat served at feasts and to guests.

The eating of meat offered to idols therefore had the same two associations for Christians, especially for those who had grown up in that religious atmosphere. The meat was associated with pagan gods and goddesses, having been part of an offering to them, and it was associated with the superstition that it had once been contaminated by evil spirits.

It was almost impossible for a believer who had any personal contact with Gentiles to avoid facing the question of eating idol sacrifices. Most social occasions, including weddings, involved pagan worship of some sort, and a great many of the festivities were held in temples. Idol food was always served. If a relative was getting married, or a long-time friend was giving a banquet, a Christian either had to make excuses for not attending—which he could not do indefinitely—or he had to eat food that he knew had been part of an idol offering.

Some sensitive Gentile believers refused to buy such meat because it brought back memories of their previous pagan lives or because those who saw them buy it might think they had reverted to paganism. Also many believers, both Gentile and Jewish, were reluctant to eat at the homes of pagan Gentiles—and even of some Christian Gentiles—because they were afraid of being served that meat. Such food could only be doubly unclean according to Jewish dietary law—from which many Jewish Christians found it hard to separate themselves.

On the other hand, some Christians were not bothered. To them, meat was meat. They knew pagan deities did not really exist and that evil spirits did not contaminate food. They were mature, well-grounded in God’s truth, and their consciences were clear in the matter. That group gave Paul the three reasons for freely exercising their liberty.

Paul’s responses to the reasons were directed to that group of more mature believers. But his responses centered on the other group. He told the mature believers not to focus on their liberty but on the spiritual welfare of those who were less mature. He was saying, “Don’t look at your freedom; look at their need. Your own freedom should be limited by your love for fellow believers. If you love them as God calls you to love, you will not use your liberty in any way that will offend, confuse, or weaken their faith.”

The first reason that had been given for exercising freedom is summarized by Paul: we know that we all have knowledge. The statement was true but egotistical. It reflected a feeling of superiority. The believers who made the claim were not suggesting they were omniscient, but that they had more than enough knowledge and understanding of God’s Word to know that pagan gods and idols were not real and that food sacrificed to them was still just food. They knew that eating the food could not contaminate them spiritually, that it had no affect on their Christian lives. They felt totally free to eat whatever they wanted, no matter what others thought.

But they are reminded that knowledge makes arrogant. Those believers were mature in knowledge, but were not mature in love. Love edifies, or builds up others; and that edification they did not have. They were solid in doctrine but weak in love. They were strong in self-love but weak in brotherly love.

Of all the apostles, Paul is least likely to be charged with belittling doctrine, the knowledge of God’s Word. He was the theologian’s theologian. “For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction,” he tells the Romans (15:4). He prayed that the Colossian believers might “be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col. 1:9) and encouraged them to be “renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created [them]” (3:10). In the long list of ways in which his ministry was commended, Paul includes “knowledge” and “the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:4-10). In that same letter he commends the Corinthians themselves for their “faith and utterance and knowledge” (8:7). Numerous times the apostle tells those to whom he is writing that he did not want them to be ignorant about certain truths (Rom. 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor. 10:1; 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13).

Knowledge of God’s Word is extremely important. It is impossible to believe or obey what is not known. The Lord told Israel, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest” (Hos. 4:6). Among other things, God is “He who teaches man knowledge” (Ps. 94:10). The Bible places no premium on ignorance.

But knowledge, even of God’s Word, is not enough. It is essential but not sufficient. By itself knowledge makes arrogant. To have love but no knowledge is unfortunate; but to have knowledge and no love is equally tragic.

Among the many spiritual problems of the Corinthian Christians was arrogance, a word Paul uses six times in relation to them. They were proud and self-satisfied. They had knowledge without love. As they are reminded several chapters later, a person who has all sorts of abilities and virtues but has no love is “nothing,” and “love does not brag and is not arrogant” (1 Cor. 13:1-4).

Knowledge that idols were not real and that idol food was not spiritually corrupted was right knowledge and helpful knowledge. But by itself it turned inward those who had it. They saw the truth as it applied to them and nothing else. They were insensitive as to how it might apply to those who did not “have this knowledge” (1 Cor. 8:7). Flaunting the liberty of this knowledge could seriously offend other believers. And as Jesus said, it would be better to be drowned than to offend another child of God (Matt. 18:6-14).

The truly well-rounded Christian thinks and acts in two ways: conceptually and relationally. He has the ability to understand biblical truths and the ability to relate them to people, to himself, and to others. He has knowledge plus love, because love is the medium through which truth is to be communicated. “Speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ” (Eph. 4:15). Knowledge by itself brings arrogance, not maturity.

Division in the church may be caused by problems of behavior as well as problems of doctrine. When some believers insist on exercising their liberty without regard for the feelings and standards of fellow believers, the church is weakened and frequently divided.

Love edifies, and the knowledgeable believer without the edification of love is not as mature as he is inclined to think. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know. The unloving orthodox are arrogant but not edified. They have right knowledge but not right understanding.

The truly edified person has some idea of what he has yet to learn. Someone has defined knowledge as “the process of passing from the unconscious state of ignorance to the conscious state of ignorance.” Ignorance does not know that it does not know True knowledge does not know and knows it.

But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. It is impossible to know God and not love Him. Loving God is the most important evidence of a right relationship to Him. Without love for God, made possible by His love for us (1 John 4:19), we can have no right knowledge of Him, because we will not have a right relation to Him. The only ones who know God and are known by Him are those who have a love relationship with Him (John 14:21). Knowledge is important, immensely important. But, as everything else, without love it is nothing. Loving and being loved by God is everything. Paul here implies that if one is loved by God and loves God, he will also love other believers, whom God loves (1 John 5:1).

Love is the key to behavior. Knowing what is not forbidden is not enough. When we “do not merely look out for [our] own personal interests, but also for the interests of others” (Phil. 2:4), we are on the road to mature, loving Christian behavior.

Love sets the limits of Christian liberty.

WE KNOW THAT AN IDOL IS NOTHING

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. (8:4-7)

In verses 4-6 Paul states his agreement with the Corinthians who were theologically well taught. First he agrees that there is no such thing as an idol in the world. The stone, precious metal, or wood is real, but there is no god behind it. The image is not of anything that really exists. It only reflects the imagination of the one who designed it, or the impersonation of the demon who deceives through it (10:20).

When I was in Hawaii some years ago I visited a Buddhist temple. An old lady was bowing down to a large brass statue of Buddha and throwing small stones toward it. The stones were rolled somewhat like dice, and the way they landed indicated good or bad fortune. Other people came in and brought food offerings, which they left in front of the idol. I had a strong desire to tell them, “Nobody’s there. Nobody’s home. There is nothing there but brass.” There is no God but one.

It is not that there are no imaginary gods, so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords. Some are outright fakes and some are manifestations of demons, but none are truly gods. The so-called gods have a certain type of reality, but not as deity.

Paul taught that truth throughout his ministry and was often persecuted for it. Demetrius, a pagan silversmith in Ephesus, stirred up his fellow tradesmen by charging, “You see and hear that not only in Ephesus, but in almost all of Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away a considerable number of people, saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all” (Acts 19:26). The apostle agreed with the psalmist:

Paul repeats the truth that there is but one God. He is the one from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. There is only one true God. He has come to us in the person of the Son, Jesus Christ, and we are brought to the Father through the divine Son. Everything comes from the Father, and all believers exist for the Father. Everything is by the Son, and everyone who comes to the Father comes through the Son. This is a powerful and clear affirmation of the equality of essence of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is absolutely true that idols are not real, that so-called gods are not real, and that the only real God is the God of Scripture revealed in Jesus Christ. In those doctrines the freedom-loving Corinthian Christians were completely orthodox. But they were not right in how they applied the truths to their daily living. They had the right concepts, but did not carry them over to make the right relationships.

Paul reminds them of an additional truth, one they must have known but that they did not take into consideration when exercising their Christian liberty. However not all men have this knowledge. Not all believers were mature in their knowledge and understanding of spiritual truths. Some were new Christians, freshly out of paganism and its many temptations and corruptions. They still imagined that idols, though evil, were real and that the gods the idols represented were real. They knew that there is only one right God but perhaps they had not yet fully grasped the truth that there is only one real God.

Even if they did understand that there was only one real God, the experiences of their past paganism were so fresh that they rejected all that was related to it. To participate in any way was to be tempted to fall back into former practices.

Some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. Some new converts wanted to take no chance of being contaminated again by the evil influences that for so long had governed everything they thought and did. The pagan gods were not real, but the wicked practices associated with them were real and fresh on their minds. They recoiled from having contact with anything associated with their past paganism. Their consciences were not yet strong enough to allow them to eat idol food without having it pull them back to their former idolatrous activity.

If such persons, following the example of more knowledgeable believers, go ahead and eat what their consciences tell them not to eat, their conscience being weak is defiled. Even though the act in itself is not morally or spiritually wrong, it becomes wrong when it is committed against conscience. A defiled conscience is one that has been ignored and violated. Such a conscience brings confusion, resentment, and feelings of guilt. A person who violates his conscience willingly does what he thinks to be wrong. In his own mind he has committed sin; and until he fully understands that the act is not sin in God’s eyes, he should have no part in it. “He who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin” (Rom. 14:23). Defiled conscience is defiled faith. Such behavior brings guilt feelings, despair, and loss of joy and peace. It may also lead to sinful thoughts connected with former pagan practices and even lead a person back into some of them.

Paul’s primary point in the present passage is that anyone who causes such a weaker brother to defile his conscience and his faith helps lead that brother into sin. Knowledge may tell us that something is perfectly acceptable, but love will tell us that, because it is not acceptable to a fellow believer’s conscience, we should not take advantage of our freedom.

WE KNOW THAT FOOD IS NOT AN ISSUE WITH GOD

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. (8:8-12)

The third truth with which Paul agreed was that eating or not eating food has no spiritual significance in itself. Neither act will commend us to God. Commend (paristēmi) means “to place near, bring beside, present to.” Neither eating or not eating food will bring us closer to God or make us approved by Him. The general point is that doing things not forbidden by God has no significance in our relationship to Him. They are spiritually neutral. Food is an excellent illustration of that fact.

Common sense and concern for the bodies God has given us should make us careful about what and how much we eat. Gluttony is harmful and eating foods to which we are allergic is harmful. No sensible, mature person will do those things. But, in itself, eating or not eating certain foods has absolutely no spiritual significance. Jesus made it plain that “there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man” (Mark 7:15). The Lord’s command to Peter to “kill and eat” was both figurative, referring to accepting Gentiles, and literal, referring to eating food previously considered ceremonially unclean (Acts 10:10-16; cf. v. 28). And Paul told Timothy to receive all food with thankfulness (1 Tim. 4:4).

Food makes no difference for food’s sake, for ceremony’s sake, or for God’s sake. But it can make a great difference for the sake of the conscience of some of His children. What would not otherwise be wrong for us becomes wrong if it is a stumbling block to the weak. Obviously, some Corinthian believers could not handle such liberty; it would pull them down into the pit from which they had been delivered. If an immature brother sees us doing something that bothers his conscience, his spiritual life is harmed. We should never influence a fellow Christian to do anything that the Holy Spirit, through that person’s conscience, is protecting him from.

A mature believer rightly sees no harm for himself in dining in an idol’s temple in some family or community event. He does not accept the pagan beliefs or participate in the pagan practices, but he can associate with pagan people because he is spiritually strong; he has spiritual knowledge.

But if a Christian who has a conscience that is weak sees a mature believer eating in the temple, the weak brother is likely to be tempted to go against his own conscience and to eat in the temple himself. That could be dangerous to him, causing him to go against his own conscience. Consequently, through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. Ruined has the idea of “to come to sin.” We cause that person to sin by leading him into a situation he cannot handle.

It is never right to cause another believer to violate his conscience. To do so runs the risk of ruining a brother for whose sake Christ died (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-19). Our Christian liberty must never be used at the expense of a Christian brother or sister who has been redeemed at such a price.

The voice of a Christian’s conscience is the instrument of the Holy Spirit. If a believer’s conscience is weak it is because he is spiritually weak and immature, not because the leading of his conscience is weak. Conscience is God’s doorkeeper to keep us out of places where we could be harmed. As we mature, conscience allows us to go more places and to do more things because we will have more spiritual strength and better spiritual judgment.

A small child is not allowed to play with sharp tools, to go into the street, or to go where there are dangerous machines or electrical appliances. The restrictions are gradually removed as he grows older and learns for himself what is dangerous and what is not.

God confines His spiritual children by conscience. As they grow in knowledge and maturity the limits of conscience are expanded. We should never expand our actions and habits before our conscience permits it. And we should never encourage, either directly or indirectly, anyone else to do that. By sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Causing a brother to stumble is more than an offense against him; it is an offense against our Lord. That is a strong warning. Surely no believer would desire to sin against Christ.

We should be eager to limit our liberty at any time and to any degree in order to help a fellow believer—a brother whom we should love, and a precious soul for whom Christ died.

Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble. (8:13)

Paul restates the principle he has been explaining. In regard to doubtful things a Christian’s first concern should not be to exercise his liberty to the limit but to care about the welfare of his brother in Christ. Paul set the example. He would never eat meat again, or do anything else his own conscience allowed him to do, if that would cause his brother to stumble.

In deciding about whether or not to participate in any behavior that is doubtful, the following principles make a good checklist to follow

Excess. Is the activity or habit necessary, or is it merely an extra that is not really important? Is it perhaps only an encumbrance that we should willingly give up (Heb. 12:1)?

Expediency. “All things are lawful for me,” Paul says, “but not all things are profitable,” or expedient (1 Cor. 6:12). Is what I want to do helpful and useful, or only desirable?

Emulation. “The one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked” (1 John 2:6). If we are doing what Christ would do, our action not only is permissible but good and right.

Example. Are we setting the right example for others, especially for weaker brothers and sisters? If we emulate Christ, others will be able to emulate us, to follow our example (1 Tim. 4:12).

Evangelism. Is my testimony going to be helped or hindered? Will unbelievers be drawn to Christ or turned away from Him by what I am doing? Will it help me conduct myself “with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity” (Col. 4:5)?

Edification. Will I be built up and matured in Christ; will I become spiritually stronger? “All things are lawful, but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23).

Exaltation. Will the Lord be lifted up and glorified in what I do? God’s glory and exaltation should be the supreme purpose behind everything we do. “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31).