Original Meaning

PAUL NOW ADDRESSES the second issue raised by the Corinthians in their letter to him (see 7:1). Most meat sold in the town marketplace came from sacrificial animals that had been slaughtered at pagan temple ceremonies. Did these rituals somehow automatically taint the food? Could Christians buy it? Could they eat it if it was offered to them at friends’ homes? What about the various social events—weddings, parties, clubs, and so on—which often used the temple dining halls for their festivities? Could Christians participate and eat meat at these events? What about more overtly religious rites in those temples? The issue clearly was not as simple or innocuous at it might at first glance seem to Westerners today.1

First Corinthians 8:1–13 and 10:14–11:1 clearly address this topic. At first glance, 9:1–10:13 does not appear to do so; but on closer inspection, these verses form an integral part of Paul’s argument after all. First Corinthians 8:1–13 introduces the problem and its two-pronged solution: freedom in principle to eat when there are no inherently anti-Christian implications involved, but voluntary abstention when other Christians might be damaged by one’s freedom. First Corinthians 9:1–18 then gives a second application of the principle of freedom tempered by love in morally neutral areas by discussing the issue of accepting money for ministry. First Corinthians 9:19–27 generalizes further by enunciating Paul’s underlying principle for all of his behavior in these “gray areas of life”—what is most likely to bring more people to Christ. First Corinthians 10:1–13 prepares for Paul’s absolute prohibition in the coming section by warning against using one’s freedom as a license for immorality. First Corinthians 10:14–22 then lays down Paul’s one unbending requirement on the topic of idol meat: It should never be eaten in overtly pagan religious rituals. First Corinthians 10:23–11:1 brings the discussion full circle by repeating the two key principles of 8:1–13 but ultimately tips the balance of the scales in favor of freedom.2

The present section divides into three discrete sections. Verses 1–3 offer Paul’s “Yes, but” thesis, analogous to his approach in 6:12–13 and 7:1–2. Verses 4–6 expand on the “yes”: the theme of freedom based on Christian knowledge (cf. v. 1a). Verses 7–13 then elaborate the theme of voluntary restraint based on Christian love (cf. vv. 1b–3). Given Paul’s explicit references both to the marketplace and to private dining in 10:25–30, it is reasonable to assume that he has the widest range of contexts in view right from the outset. Given his explicit reference to eating in the temple in 8:10, in the context of that which is in principle acceptable for believers, it seems clear that he also has in mind those social gatherings in the temple precincts that were not overtly religious in nature.3

Verse 1 introduces the issue. “Food” should be understood to refer to “meat,” lest verse 13 be seen as narrowing the topic. Part of the meat of each sacrificial animal was burned on the temple altar, part was eaten in temple ceremonies, and part was sold in the Corinthian marketplace for consumption at home.

“We know that we all possess knowledge” (v. 1a) probably represents another Corinthian slogan, as the NIV footnote suggests (“ ‘We all possess knowledge,’ as you say”). Verse 7 will observe that such knowledge is more limited among those Paul calls the weaker brothers. So this slogan more likely reflects the position of the “stronger” Corinthians, who probably overlapped with the more indulgent rather than the more ascetic wing of the church there.

“Knowledge” translates gnosis and must be interpreted as in chapters 1–4 to refer to prideful human religious speculation. As with the previous slogans, there is a sense in which Paul can agree but not without immediate qualification (vv. 1b–3). Love, not knowledge, must form the foundation of Christian behavior. “The man who thinks he knows something” (v. 2) resembles our idiom, “Someone who thinks he or she is something.” The force of the verb tenses in verse 2 suggests a paraphrase: “If a person thinks that he has attained to some degree of knowledge, he has not yet reached the stage when he has any knowledge at all in the real sense of the word.”4 True Christian knowledge is inseparable from agape love, which can be produced only by God’s prior choice to love us (v. 3).

Verses 4–6 provide the basis for Christian freedom to eat this sacrificial food—the idols to which the meat is dedicated have no objective spiritual existence. Steeped in his Jewish understanding of monotheism and the sovereignty of God (e.g., Deut. 6:4; 10:17) and knowing well the Old Testament’s scorn for idolatry (e.g., Deut. 32:15–17; Isa. 44:6–20), Paul forthrightly declares that there is only one true God in the universe (v. 4). The stronger Corinthian Christians would have agreed and were perhaps using this very logic to support their freedom to eat. Paul goes on to acknowledge that not everyone believes as he does. Many mythological deities and lords of mystery cults were fervently worshiped. Gnosticism believed in divine “emanations,” and emperors were beginning to call themselves divine and demand sacrifice (v. 5). But in reality, none of these alleged gods or lords had anything to do with the creation, sustenance, or redemption of the world, as the God of Israel and the Father of the Lord Jesus did (v. 6).

Verses 7–13 unpack Paul’s qualification of the exercise of Christian freedom: it may corrupt the weak consciences of certain fellow believers. Love must therefore limit freedom. Some of the Corinthian Christians could not eat idol meat, even in private homes, and almost certainly not in temple dining halls, without recalling the past religious associations that the meat had for them. This would have been a special concern for some of the poorer members of the church, who probably would not have had regular access to eating meat except at temple rituals. For them, meat still had inherently religious connotations. Their “weak conscience” was not a poorly developed sense of morality or propriety, as modern use of the expression might often imply, but rather the overscrupulous restrictions they placed on believers’ freedom in Christ. Their inner thoughts unnecessarily accused them and led to feelings of guilt or defilement (v. 7).5 Because they felt compelled to do that which did not proceed from faith, for them it was sinful (Rom. 14:23).

Verse 8 continues Paul’s qualification; the introductory “but” should probably be translated “and.” Here is the first of three reasons Paul gives for voluntarily abstaining from idol meat in the presence of those unable to “handle” the practice. Precisely because it is a morally neutral issue, there is no inherent spiritual advantage in eating the meat or disadvantage in avoiding it. Therefore concern for one’s fellow Christian should take precedence.6

The “however” in verse 9 should again be taken as a mild continuative (e.g., “moreover”). Verses 9–12 combine to make the point that the Corinthians should not behave in ways that lead each other into sin. Verse 9 provides the thesis statement for the paragraph. “Stumbling block” and that which “causes [one] to fall into sin” (v. 13) are synonyms and help to explain each other. “The exercise of your freedom” reads more literally “your authority” or “your right.” In short, verse 9 urges Christians not to demand their rights in ways that cause fellow Christians to sin.

Verse 10 is often understood to mean that while the “stronger” Corinthians could draw appropriate boundaries and eat meat from the marketplace without being tempted to go to the temple, the “weaker” Christians could not. Hence that which was morally neutral led the latter to go on to do that which was inherently sinful. More likely, however, the principle of Romans 14:23 (“Everything that does not come from faith is sin”) again comes into play. What the strong were lawfully practicing (eating either in home or temple without religious ritual), the weak could not do in good conscience, so that for them the eating was sin. “Emboldened” reflects an unusual use of the verb “edify.” Quite likely what the strong felt would build up the weak was actually daring them to do something destructive.

Verse 11 thus spells out the second reason for voluntary abstinence. Flaunting one’s freedom was actually damaging the spiritual lives of the weak. “Is destroyed” is probably better rendered “is in the process of being ruined.” It is doubtful if Paul could imagine that these inherently amoral issues could actually jeopardize a Christian’s salvation. Rather he saw the strong believers’ behavior as “an obstacle to Christian sanctification”7 (cf. Rom. 14:15). Such damage stands diametrically opposed to the purpose of the atonement. Verse 12a elaborates and confirms the type of ruin described here as wounding others’ weak consciences.

Verse 12b gives the third reason for abstinence: to avoid sinning against Christ. As in Matthew 10:42 and 25:40, treatment of fellow Christians equals treatment of their Lord. Paul concludes the chapter, therefore, with a conditional absolute. When there is good reason to believe that exercising one’s freedom in amoral areas will actually lead a fellow Christian into sin, restraint is always right. Paul models this principle by his own example and states it with an emphasis worthy of Mark 9:42: “If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

Bridging Contexts

A FULL UNDERSTANDING of the principles and applications of chapter 8 must await the completion of Paul’s argument in chapters 9–10. By then it will be clear that an evangelistic principle of behaving in ways most likely to lead to others’ salvation (see esp. 9:19–23) is foundational to all that Paul says in these three chapters. But substantial initial progress can be made here. Three timeless principles dominate this chapter: what is safe for one Christian may not be for another; true discernment always requires love as well as knowledge; and believers have no right to demand certain freedoms if they in turn prove detrimental to those around them.8

Possible applications range far beyond the specific issue of idol meat, but they do not include that which is inherently good or bad. Rather 1 Corinthians 8 speaks to the gray areas of Christian living. Sometimes Scripture makes plain whether an issue is fundamentally immoral or amoral. Adultery, for example, is always wrong, but consumption of alcohol is wrong only if it leads to drunkenness or hurts a weaker brother.

In other cases, no passage speaks directly to the issue at hand. Christians must then ask if the practice in question has any inherently pagan religious (or anti-Christian) elements or if it is necessarily destructive and hurtful to the individuals involved. More positively, if the practice in question seems acceptable in light of both of these tests, might our participation enhance our outreach to the non-Christian world by cultivating friendships and social activities that unbelievers enjoy (cf. 9:19–23)? 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.

As in 1:18–2:5, Paul’s statements about knowledge (vv. 1–3) must not be construed as anti-intellectual. Gnosis (“knowledge”) in this context is that which stresses freedom and human autonomy at the expense of concern for others, especially other Christians. Love rather than knowledge remains the center of Paul’s ethics (cf. Gal. 5:14) and the highest of human virtues,9 without which all spiritual gifts prove worthless (1 Cor. 13). This kind of love is sacrificial self-giving, centered around and imitating Christ’s cross-work, not primarily a nice feeling, familial friendship, or mere altruism. The more believers mature, the more they understand how little they measure up to God’s standards and how much depends on him and not themselves (v. 3).

A correct understanding of verses 4–6 must leave room for Paul’s absolute prohibition of idolatrous eating and for his belief in the reality of the demonic world (10:18–22). But demons are the spiritual entities worshiped, usually unwittingly, in pagan religious ritual; they do not inherently reside in either statues or food. Mere possession of idols or consumption of food sacrificed to them cannot be detrimental unless one adds acts of religious devotion to the mix.

Verses 4–6 also form a strong defense of monotheism against all forms of animism, polytheism, or henotheism.10 The contrast between verses 5 and 6 is not between two subjective perceptions of reality, as the “for us” of verse 6 might suggest, but between one false and one true perception. “For us” is explained by “we know” in verse 1. Believers know what pagans do not—that there is only one God over the universe. Verse 6 also contains a strong link between the Father and the Son, with crucial doctrine about each. The Father is Creator and the ultimate subject of adoration by Christians (cf. 10:26); the Son is the agent of creation and our daily sustenance (cf. 10:31).

The key issue in applying verses 7–13 involves recognizing those who truly have weak consciences. Nothing in the context justifies an association of “weaker brothers” with those who are merely offended by a particular practice, notwithstanding the misleading translation of verse 13 in the KJV (“if meat make my brother to offend”). Even less justified is the application of these principles to the “professional weaker brother”11—the Christian legalist eager to forbid morally neutral activities even though he or she would never personally indulge in those activities. Rather, the weaker brother or sister is the Christian who is likely to imitate a stronger believer in some morally neutral practice but feel guilty about doing so or, worse still, be led into that which is inherently sinful or destructive. The stronger believer’s freedom thus actually has damaging consequences for the spiritual growth and maturation of the weaker sibling. Jack Kuhatschek points out that an adequate analogy to 1 Corinthians 8 must have three elements: (a) a threat to Christian freedom; (b) a potential stumbling block; and (c) a Christian brother or sister who might actually be led into sin.12

Application of verses 7–13 must also leave room for 10:25–30, in which Paul will stress the freedom of the “strong” more pointedly than he does here. If the strong should not hurt the weak, neither should the weak accuse the strong of sin. Romans 14:1–15:13, Paul’s other major teaching passage on the topic, carefully balances these two commands. In fact, there is a probable sequence to the exhortational material that comprises the second major section of Romans (12:1–15:13). First come the necessary transformations of body and mind required of all believers (12:1–2). Then each must discover her or his spiritual gifts and employ them faithfully (12:3–8). But, just as in 1 Corinthians 12–13, spiritual gifts must be exercised in love (12:9–13:14). That love should in turn foster mutual tolerance of Christian diversity on amoral issues (14:1–15:13).13 In the context of 1 Corinthians 8:7–13, this means that the converse of verse 8 is as true as the text itself: “Abstaining from food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we eat, and no better if we do not,” except where our behavior leads others into sin. Paul further emphasizes the matters of freedom and tolerance in Galatians 5 and Colossians 2:18–23.

This crucial balance between permissiveness and legalism always proves far more difficult to maintain than either of the extremes. 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.

Through fear the Weak would have forced the community into a self-imposed ghetto. Through a destructive use of freedom the Strong would have committed the church to a pattern of behaviour indistinguishable from that of its environment. If either group had prevailed, the identity and mission of the church would have been gravely compromised. Paul’s response was to focus the vision of the Corinthians on their roots in Christ and on their responsibility to each other and to a wider world. His passionate prudence is a perfect illustration of he agape oikodomei [love builds up] (VIII,1).14

At the same time, Paul’s principles of moderation may not be applied to murder, theft, extra-marital sex, gluttony, homosexuality, or a host of other sins that the Bible makes clear are always wrong. Nor may they be applied, for example, to the use of certain narcotics that are immediately addictive and therefore destructive. And even when Christian freedom leaves the door open to certain practices, and even when no one will be hurt by them, that does not mean Christians should necessarily get involved, unless there is some way in which that behavior glorifies God (10:31) or benefits oneself or others (10:33). We should never ask, “How far can I go?” but “What are my motives in the first place?” “The key seems to be maintaining a balance between the believer’s radical difference and his radical identification. Our radical difference is holiness (wholeness)—not legalism or externalism. Only holiness makes radical identification a legitimate option for the Christian.”15

It is interesting to compare Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 8 with two other key New Testament passages. On the one hand, Paul betrays no awareness here of the Jerusalem council’s “decree” of Acts 15:1–29, which concludes with the decision to request Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia to refrain from food sacrificed to idols for the sake of Jewish scruples. This decision, which was delivered about six years earlier (A.D. 49), was not of course addressed to Achaia (or to any province outside of those with large Jewish populations). Paul apparently felt no need to apply it in Corinth, perhaps because he sensed it still made too many concessions to legalism in a context where its positive gains—paving the way for Jewish evangelism—were no longer major concerns.

The other relevant passage is Galatians 1–2, in which Paul lambastes a more serious form of legalism that was putting people’s salvation in jeopardy. When weak consciences become so warped that they require certain works, or forbid others, as prerequisites for salvation, Paul can no longer remain as subdued as he did in 1 Corinthians but has to condemn such teaching in the strongest of terms.

Contemporary Significance

FOOD SACRIFICED TO IDOLS remains a pressing concern for Christians in various African, Latin American, and Asian cultures. As people in these cultures increasingly migrate to Western countries, they bring those issues with them. Others are closely analogous: whether or not to participate in various rites of ancestor veneration, whether or not to worship in ways reminiscent of other religions (for example, prostrate on prayer mats facing East), and the like. Yet for most readers of this commentary, idol meat and its analogues in other world religions will not rank among their top one hundred moral dilemmas in life! Still, when one realizes the overarching principles involved, applications clamor for attention at every turn.

Some contemporary analogies involve the overt religious associations that eating meat in idol’s temples could at times have. Freemasonry, for example, has distinctively non-Christian religious rituals at its core, yet much superficial involvement with the organization can be maintained at a purely secular level, and the organization does good with many charitable and humanitarian activities. Christians, therefore, continue to disagree as to whether believers may be involved, and at what levels, with this kind of organization. Room must be left for that disagreement to continue,16 so long as Christians agree on the larger principles at stake.

Similar debate should be allowed to continue to surround participation by Protestants in the Eucharists of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox congregations and vice-versa. In an age of ecumenism, not every church means what its predecessors have meant by Holy Communion. Each Christian must judge each context to see if he or she can partake in good conscience, in light of what that particular ceremony is believed to accomplish.

Where are the boundaries that differentiate Christian meditation, secular meditation, and Hindu or Buddhist (including transcendental) meditation? To what extent if any can one participate in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, which in at least some circles, but by no means all, can lead to the practice of witchcraft or the occult? The answers will vary from one context to another.17

The most common contemporary applications of 1 Corinthians 8, however, usually do not involve activities that could lead to overtly anti-Christian beliefs or rituals. Rather they have to do with involvement in activities that can lead to excess and sin but do not have to. These include drinking alcohol; wearing potentially suggestive forms of dress; listening to certain kinds of music; smoking or chewing tobacco; playing games that sometimes but not necessarily involve gambling; buying lottery tickets that support government, education, state parks, and the like; engaging in premarital physical contact of a variety of kinds; and on and on.18

Others deal with Sabbatarian regulations concerning what may or may not be done on Sunday, notwithstanding the fact that Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or day of rest but a time for worship and honoring Christ’s resurrection (see esp. Col. 2:16–17, which links the Sabbath with the ritual laws that Christians no longer literally obey).19 A larger segment of Western Christianity, however, resembles the “strong” at Corinth on this issue, as they flaunt their freedom and do not even take seriously the need to assemble regularly for extended times of worship, fellowship, and Christian education.

Cross-cultural experiences disclose that many of the traditions we once thought were biblical are not, even as we take care not to mock others’ foibles in parallel contexts. Thus in many parts of the world, American evangelical discomfort with alcohol is almost unintelligible. Yet in the former Soviet Union, it is scandalous to most evangelicals for women to wear makeup or jewelry and common for men to insist on greeting one another with holy kisses—on the lips! In some parts of Africa and India, thanks to Western missionaries, it is considered sinful for a preacher to appear in church, even on sweltering days, without a white shirt and tie. In cultures where polygamy is still practiced, debates rage among missionaries about how to deal with a man who has several wives and then becomes a Christian.

In Western liberalism, the “strong” who choose to drink, smoke, and even swear often mock the poor “weak” fundamentalists who refuse to engage in these practices. While legalism is usually associated with the extremes of conservative Christianity, there is an equally rigid legalism of the left. This legalism is seen most clearly in those who are “politically correct” or who hold an approach to social action or ecological concerns that leaves no room for dissent in disputed areas.

Some Christians nevertheless insist on a kind of legalism that forbids morally neutral practices on the grounds that one never knows when someone else might be hurt. First Corinthians 10:25–30 addresses these concerns more directly, but here it is worth pointing out that such legalism itself often has damaging consequences. Jerry Vines, for example, encourages teetotaling, even in the privacy of one’s home, on the grounds that children may be taught that drinking in moderation is acceptable when in fact they might turn out to be among the small minority of persons who have alcoholic propensities.20 What Vines fails to consider, however, is the far more common pattern of children from legalistic homes and churches who rebel in behavior and belief against their upbringing precisely because of such rigidity. In general, educating children and adults to responsible behavior and moderation in morally neutral matters proves much more successful than absolute prohibitions or indulgent permissiveness in producing mature Christians.21

Knowledge without love (v. 1) seems especially prevalent in academic and clerical circles in which biblical and theological specialists easily look down on uneducated laity. But the criteria for hiring or honoring scholars and clergy continue to encourage such abuse. Millard Erickson seems highly countercultural yet faithful to verses 2–3 when he writes, “If in voting on a faculty appointment I ever have to choose between a brilliant but spiritually naive scholar, and one who meets only the minimum requirements academically but has a warm, mature commitment to Christ, I will unhesitatingly choose the latter.”22 Churches might consider applying the identical criteria to their pastoral searches.

Verses 4–6 prove equally countercultural in an age in which the only absolute at times is the requirement to tolerate pluralism. Yet the Bible consistently denounces idolatry, which in its broadest sense refers to giving ultimate allegiance to anyone or anything but the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Lesslie Newbigin offers a helpful model for constructive dialogue between Christians and adherents of other religions or ideologies, but he remains equally clear that we dare not surrender our conviction that Christianity contains unique, salvific truth unavailable elsewhere.23

Because idols are not living, spiritual beings, we should also guard against giving Satan too much credit for that which is merely human sleight of hand, as particular wings of the contemporary spiritual warfare movement often do.24 First Corinthians 10:20–21, however, warns us against the more prevalent danger that characterizes modern secularism—denying the existence of demons and their influence in pagan religion altogether.

Verses 7–13 also cut against the grain of prevailing trends. Society bombards us with a myriad of signals urging us to demand rather than to relinquish our rights. Yet “insisting on one’s rights, even insisting on one’s rights as a Christian, is a sign that something else other than the true God is being worshipped.”25 First Corinthians 10:25–30 clarifies that there is a place for the “strong” to exercise their freedom, but here Paul, surely one of the “strong,” models the behavior of what Aldrich calls the “nonparticipating mature brother.”26 Somewhat similar is the position that supports teetotaling as a social statement against the rampant, contemporary abuse of alcohol.27

Yet Paul refuses to absolutize this perspective and try to foist it on all Christians, and so must we. Sadly, the church today seems to be increasingly polarized on the issue of permissiveness versus legalism. Clearly immoral behavior is tolerated on the one hand, and clearly amoral behavior is prohibited on the other. We need to educate people and to provide models of responsible choice on a case-by-case basis. Our teaching and our example should be grounded in the Christian ethic of love and should put others’ well-being before our own, yet without allowing good to be called evil (Rom. 14:16).