1 Corinthians 8:8-13

Butler's Comments

SECTION 3

The Practice (1 Corinthians 8:8-13)

8Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.

1 Corinthians 8:8-9 The Sanction: Those who because of their superior knowledge eat meat sacrificed to idols without guilt are not esteemed by God any higher than those who abstain because of guilt. While Paul is concerned here with the strong being careless toward the weak, it is clear (from Romans chapter 14) the weak are not relieved of obligation to understand the strong person's liberties and, in love, allow him freedom to exercise his knowledge (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:29). The abstainer is as responsible to love as the non-abstainer! But here in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, Paul is addressing his admonition to the non-abstainers. They were apparently contemptuous of the abstainers and continuing to eat meat sacrificed to idols with the attitude that they did not care how their actions affected their brethren. Food, no matter what it is, is a matter of indifference. Peter had to be given a divine revelation about this matter (cf. Acts 10:9-16). Paul says, We gain nothing by eating; we lose nothing by not eating. The issue is not eating or abstaining from any particular food. Food has nothing to do with the spiritual in man. It sustains the body only. Paul is not, of course, dealing with gluttony, or taking poisonous substances into the body which would do physical harm. He is dealing with all foods as to where purchased and what association they may have had prior to the Christian's contact with them.

The issue is: how much do you love your brother! The admonition is that we must be prepared to sacrifice any liberty we have concerning things to save a person. The sanction is not against food of any kind. It is against an unloving attitude.

In 1 Corinthians 8:9 Paul uses the Greek word exousia and it is translated, liberty. It is the word most commonly translated, authority, right, power. The most common Greek word for liberty is eleutheria; also often translated, freedom. Paul is evidently emphasizing the rights the knowledgeable Christian has because of a clearer understanding. Such a one has the right to eat anything he pleases without guilt. But just because it is an inalienable right does not mean it cannot be willingly surrendered out of love. The Christian brother whose knowledge (cultural, experiential, or scriptural) permits him to be free of guilt in some matter of opinion, dare not practice it if it will cause another brother (who understands the practice from a different cultural or moral background) to stumble and fall in his spiritual journey. Paul uses the Greek word proskomma for stumbling-block; it means, an obstacle against which one may dash his foot, or a hindrance over which one trips and falls. That which one Christian may do with freedom from guilt may, because of the doing, produce a serious failure in another Christian who may be encouraged to do what he considers wrong.

1 Corinthians 8:10-11 The Sin: To lead someone by your liberty to do something he believes he is not free to do, causes him to sin, to incur guilt, and destroys his union with Christ. The exercise of rights by the strong may destroy the fundamental moral resolve of a weaker brother against sinful practices so that he may be led to engage in practices clearly prohibited in the scriptures. Paul wrote to Roman Christians, ... it is wrong for anyone to make others fall by what he eats (Romans 14:20).

It is sinful to do anything that would cause anyone else to violate his own conscience. It is a sin to carelessly flaunt one's Christian liberty and undermine the moral decisiveness of another. Too many think of their own rights first. Paul said we ought to endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:12). It is a sinful attitude that does not think first of pleasing one's brother for his good to edify him (Romans 15:1-2) because our Lord did not please himself (Romans 15:3). These principles apply to things Christians may have every right to do; things the knowledgeable Christian is certain are not at all sinful in themselves; things the Christian may do without any guilt. If, through any right we may have, a brother may be morally injured we must suspend that right for his salvation.

1 Corinthians 8:12-13 The Seriousness: Paul uses the Greek present participle tuptontes which is translated wounding. In present, participial, form the word means a continuous, violent, beating. It is the same word used to describe the beating the soldiers gave Christ (Matthew 27:30; Mark 15:19). Earlier (1 Corinthians 8:11) Paul said causing a weak brother to sin against his own conscience was to destroy the brother for whom Christ died. Now (1 Corinthians 8:12) he says such sin against a brother is sin against Christ. That is serious. Destroy another human being and you are actually attempting to destroy God. Paul warned the Romans Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God (Romans 14:20). Trample upon another human being's weaknesses and you are despising the work of God in that person's lifeyou are despising God! It is that serious! To have one's own way (even if that way is correct and guiltless in itself) at the expense of another person's relationship to Christ is to commit a grevious sin against the Lord.

In 1 Corinthians 8:13 Paul uses the double negative in Greek ou me to state emphatically that if eating meat would cause a brother to stumble (Gr. skandalizei, be scandalized, trapped, ensnared), he would never eat meat again. The Greek text also includes the phrase, eis ton aiona, which would be translated, unto the end of the age, or world. In other words Paul is saying, I am ready to give up any practice of my life, even if it is harmless and enjoyable and may be done with a clear conscience, if it causes any brother to destroy his relationship with Christ. Only those who are willing to do the same are fit for the kingdom of God (Romans 14:15-21).

SECTION 4
THE PROVISO

The self-denial of the strong brother should be allowed a proviso (i.e., a qualification). This will be amplified at more length in Chapter s nine and ten. Suffice it to say here, the non-abstaining brother is not obligated to give up his Christian liberty in some cases: (a) there are definite scriptural examples (as well as commands) by both Jesus and Paul (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-13; Galatians 2:3-5; Galatians 2:11-14; Galatians 5:1-12; Colossians 2:16-23) that when certain brethren tried to bind on them traditions and opinions as necessary for salvation, the Christian is obligated to resist; (b) there are people, minutely scrupulous (nitpickers), who may try to use an appeal to their scruples against some area of liberty to serve their own selfish ends. This is also wrong. Christian judgment faces one of its most demanding tasks when the performance of some opinion might injure a tender conscience, while its non-performance would be surrendering to pharisaic traditionalism and harm the cause of Christian liberty. This is sometimes the case in the Christian struggle to promote liberty and Christian unity at the same time.

It would not be fitting to end comments here without suggesting some areas in modern society where the Christian love Paul is calling for may be practiced along with decisions to resist legalism:

a.

Entertainment, pastimes (movies, television, games, hobbies).

b.

Foods (Jewish kosher foods; Roman Catholic taboos; use of alcoholic beveragesalthough the Bible does not command total abstinence, this principle of stumbling blocks would make total abstinence the safest practice).

c.

Cultural traditions (dress and grooming; worship traditions; some economic practices; political preferences).

d.

Vocations (if a Christian works at a vocation which might cause someone to stumble, shouldn-'t the Christian find another vocation?)