1 Corinthians 8

1 Corinthians 8:1-13 (Knowledge of idolatry)

This chapter connects with the larger argument made throughout chapters 8-10, where Paul argues to lay down our rights for the good of others. The argument concludes at the beginning of chapter 11, where Paul writes, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

Romans 14: A parallel passage?

Paul’s argument is similar to his discussion in Romans 14—though the careful interpreter should notice dissimilarities as well.

Main point

In chapter 8, Paul addresses a question that is alien to our culture today: meat sacrificed to idols. Yet, this issue is so complicated that Paul spends a full three chapters answering it! While the issue is not common to most Western Christians, this passage contains striking relevance for us, because it touches on the nature of sacrificing our rights for the sake of others.

Historical background

Idolatry filled the city of Corinth. The culture made virtually no distinction between the religious life and the social life. That is, religious ceremonies blended together with social events.[] Many ancient invitations to Greco-Roman social events have been uncovered which describe this cultural feature:

“Herais asks you to dine in the room of Serapheion (Asklepion) at a banquet of the Lord Seraphis tomorrow the 11^th from the 9^th hour” (New Documents Illustrating Christianity, volume 1, p.5).

“The god calls you to a banquet being held in the Thoereion tomorrow from the 9^th hour” (New Documents Illustrating Christianity, volume 1, p.5).

[One invitation for a little girl’s first birthday reads:] “Chaeremon requests your company at the table of the lord Sarapis at the Sarapeum tomorrow, the 15th at 9 o’clock” (The Oxyrynchus Papyri, 1.110).[]

The temples served multiple functions—both religious and social. For instance:

• The leftover meat at the temples was given to an adjoining temple restaurant, where people could celebrate birthdays, marriages, or social events,[] and virtually “every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion.”[]

• During dinners of this kind, a non-Christian host would likely perform a toast to the Greek gods.[]

• Even during the famous Isthmian games, sacrifices were made to the Greek gods.[]

Of course, this cultural reality placed these new Christians into a theological and ethical confusion: What should a new believer do if they were invited to a “first birthday party” at an idol’s temple? What should they do if they were invited to a “restaurant” that also held sacrifices to idols? How should they respond when all of the guys wanted to go out to the big game after work? Was this “guilt by association” if believers participated? What if some believers felt no problem with feasting around idolatry, while others did?

If Christians removed themselves from the meat sacrificed to idols, they would be perceived as anti-social, subversive, or simply “odd and repugnant”[] to the culture. On the other hand, if they participated, then where should they draw the line from the social into the religious? In these chapters, Paul addresses the principles surrounding all of the multi-faceted issues in the idolatrous temples (1 Cor. 8:7-13), the markets (1 Cor. 10:23-27), or the houses of non-Christians (1 Cor. 10:28-31).

(8:1) “Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.”

“Now concerning things sacrificed to idols.” Once again, Paul is answering questions that the Corinthians had written to him (“Now concerning the things about which you wrote,” 7:1). Here, Paul responds to their questions about meat sacrificed to idols.

“We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies.” These believers in Corinth were flouting their “knowledge.” Here, they were arguing that there is only one God (v.4), so eating meat sacrificed to idols is a non-moral and non-spiritual issue. While their theology was correct, their application was selfish. They thought their “knowledge” gave them “rights.” Paul is going to argue that they weren’t using this “knowledge” to build others up, but to tear them down (v.11).

(8:2) “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know.”

Paul uses a play on words here. He is saying, “You think you know, but you don’t really know what you think you know.” True biblical knowledge results in love.

(8:3) “But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.”

The “know-it-alls” were prideful over their knowledge that there is only one God, and idols are non-existent. But, Paul turns this around on them: “The really important thing is not that we know God, but that he knows us.”[]

(8:4) “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.”

Paul returns to his initial point, repeating what he wrote in verse 1 (“concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols”). The Corinthians were using this knowledge of monotheism to justify eating food at the temples of idols. We can even imagine them saying, “Meat sacrificed to idols is a non-moral issue. After all, idols aren’t even real!”

(8:5) “For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords.”

Paul combines “gods” (theoi) and “lords” (kyrioi) to refer to false gods. In the next verse, Paul uses these same terms to refer to the Father (theos) and Jesus (kyrios). If the first two terms are synonymous (e.g. theoi and kyrioi), then so are the second (e.g. theos and kyrios).

(8:6) “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.”

Paul is a strict monotheist (vv.4-5), yet he sees no problem calling Jesus “Lord,” even calling Jesus the Creator of “all things.” It’s funny that Paul doesn’t feel a need to justify this high Christology. He merely assumes that the Corinthians agreed with this. He’s starting with what they assumed, and he builds an ethical argument based off of this. This shows a proper balance of theology and practice: That is, Paul argues for monotheism and creation, and he works it into the practical aspects of love. Paul is modeling the very thing he is arguing for—namely, a balance of knowledge and love.

(8:7) “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.”

These people must be believers: For one, they had been “accustomed to the idol until now.” This implies that they were former idol worshippers. Second, why would they have a defiled conscience if they were non-Christians? That is, why would idol worship bother an idol worshipper? And third, Paul later calls this man a “brother for whose sake Christ died” (v.11).

“Not all men have this knowledge.” In verse 1, Paul says that we all have knowledge. Here, he says that some do not have “this knowledge.” Fee understands this to refer to knowledge at the “experiential, emotional level.”[] They were “accustomed to the idol” in their former way of life. They eat it “as if it were sacrificed to an idol,” not that it actually is sacrificed to an idol.

Imagine if you participated in pagan worship your whole life. You offered food and wine to the pagan deities and worshipped them in this way. Then, one day, you come to Christ and realize the error of your former worldview… Now, just imagine going back to those same pagan ceremonies. It would probably agonize you to participate as you did before. While there is nothing wrong with eating the meat, you might feel spiritually slimed by the whole event. You might also wonder how far was too far, when participating in these events.

(8:8) “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.”

“Commend” (paristēmi) refers to “[being] present in any way” (BDAG, cf. Rom. 6:13).

“We are neither the worse if we do not eat.” This is a triple negative (!!). So, it’s confusing to read. To simplify, the NLT states, “We don’t lose anything if we don’t eat it, and we don’t gain anything if we do.”

“Nor the better if we do eat.” We won’t benefit if we do eat it. In other words, neither eating nor abstaining is a benefit.

(8:9) “But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.”

Eating meat sacrificed to idols doesn’t benefit us (v.8), and it could harm others (“become a stumbling block”). Fee writes, “The Corinthians ‘knowledge’ (= insight) means ‘rights’ to act in ‘freedom.’ Thus for them freedom became the highest good, since it led to the exaltation of the individual. For Paul the opposite prevails: ‘Love’ means the ‘free giving up’ of one’s ‘rights’ for the sake of others (cf. 9:19-23), and ‘life together’ in community is the aim of salvation.”[]

(8:10) “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?”

Their “knowledge” (v.1, 4, 8) led them to exercise their “liberty” (v.9) by eating food in the temples of idols. The problem is not that the believers with “knowledge” are actively encouraging the “weak” to eat the food.[] There is no mention of them talking to the weak and telling them to eat. Instead, the “know-it-alls” are simply modeling their behavior without any explanation (“if someone sees you… will not his conscience… be strengthened?”). By witnessing the eating, the “weak” are being urged to eat the food. This is a play on words. Paul uses the same word “strengthened” (oikodomeō) in verse 1 to refer to “building up” other believers. Here the “know-it-alls” are building up believers… to sin! This further explains verse 1: “Actions that flow from knowledge absent of love build up in the wrong way and can lead to catastrophic consequences.”[]

(8:11) “For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died.”

We might imagine a sarcastic paraphrase of Paul’s statement: “Great job! Your ‘knowledge’ is ‘ruining’ the spiritual lives of other believers!”

(8:12) “And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.”

Initially, it was only sinning against a “brother” (singular). Now it is sinning against the “brethren” (plural). To sin against a brother is to sin against the whole church. Here we see the mystical union of believers working its way out in community. When we sin against the Body of Christ, we sin against Jesus himself (cf. Acts 9:4).

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

We should sacrifice a little bit in order to follow the law of love. Paul’s expression (“I will never eat meat again”) is particularly emphatic in the Greek.[] Taylor translates it in this way: “I will never eat meat again forever!”[] This could be taken as hyperbole, but maybe not. Paul was so focused on others that he didn’t want any self-seeking interest to stop others from being built up (cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-22).

Common misapplications of this passage

MISAPPLICATION #1: “Morality has no objective basis. Everything is relative to personal conscience.” This is lightyears away from Paul’s message! Remember, Paul makes many claims that contradict relativism:

• “There is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one” (v.4).

• “There are so-called gods” (v.5), strongly implying that these are fake.

• “Sinning” or “sin” (v.12) is not a relativistic concept.

Instead of focusing on the morality of the actions, Paul makes his case on the basis of an objective moral principle: love. While actions can sometimes be moral or immoral based on their context (e.g. “to eat or not to eat?”), the objective moral principle of love never changes. The Corinthian “know-it-alls” were obsessed with the freedoms that they had in Christ. But rather than focusing on their freedoms, Paul urges them to focus on loving others.

Some activities can be simultaneously permissible for one person, but impermissible for another. This isn’t relativism, because these activities do not exceed the boundary of God’s moral will, but are restricted within his moral will. These areas are “activities that can lead to excess and sin but do not have to.”[]

• Watching a movie that contains sexual content. One person could be stumbled to lust, while another may not be at all.

• Watching a movie that contains graphic violence. One person could be deeply disturbed, while another might say, “It’s just a movie… It’s not real. What’s the big deal?”

• Listening to music that contains explicit language. Again, one person could feel uncomfortable with this, while another would focus more on the melody of the song and not be bothered at all.

• Using foul language. While the Bible directly speaks against foul language, it also contains many examples of foul language (see 1 Cor. 4:13). So, the use or abuse of foul language isn’t always morally clear.

• Drinking alcohol. The Bible never prohibits drinking alcohol (see 1 Tim. 5:23). A social drinker can enjoy alcohol without getting intoxicated (Eph. 5:18), while a former addict may not be able to enjoy alcohol anymore. To them, “a drop is too much, but an ocean is not enough.”

• Smoking or chewing tobacco. We can make a very good case that addiction is sinful (1 Cor. 6:12), a waste of God’s money, and forfeiting the longevity of our God-given lives. But smoking a single cigarette would not break any of these clear moral boundaries.

• Dancing. One person could enjoy dancing with members of the opposite sex, while another may not be able to do this without being stumbled into lust.

• Buying a lottery ticket. This could affect someone with a propensity to gambling, while this could be an innocuous activity for someone else.

• Dating. Sometimes, believers will feel a personal conviction not to date for a while in order to draw closer to the Lord, while others do not have this conviction.

• Premarital physical contact with your boyfriend or girlfriend. Kissing or cuddling with your significant other could lead to revving the engine of lust and even lead to fornication. But the act isn’t sinful in itself.

God could call on us to restrict ourselves in any of these examples above. Even though they are morally neutral for people in general, they could be immoral for us in particular.

MISAPPLICATION #2: “Because that is stumbling to me, we should make it a moral prohibition for everyone.” Paul explicitly tells the “weak” believer in Rome, “The one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him” (Rom. 14:3). Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul doesn’t address this material to the “weak” or the “stumbled,” but to the “know-it-alls.” Therefore, it would be inappropriate to make the “weak” the intended audience. The “know-it-alls” in Corinth were being called on to think about how their Christian liberty could negatively affect others, rather than build them up.

While you can share how you are affected by someone else’s actions, you can’t control their behavior and certainly cannot blame them for your decision to sin. Each individual believer is responsible for his or her own actions. We can never say that someone forced us into sinning because of their example. We are all individually accountable to the Lord. Elsewhere, Paul writes, “Each one of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12).

Furthermore, part of spiritual growth is being able to withstand temptation. Realistically, we cannot live free from temptation in an insulated bubble. Part of spiritual growth is learning how to withstand temptation (1 Cor. 10:13) or to make the decision to flee from it (1 Cor. 10:14). Either way, we cannot expect the world (or the Christian community) to protect us from this process.

MISAPPLICATION #3: “Because that could be stumbling to someone, we should make it a moral prohibition for everyone.” Believers should not create extra-biblical absolutes. A morally neutral activity for one person could be sinful for another, or vice versa. A believer can have a personal conviction of conscience not to participate, but they should not create that as an absolute for everyone. Paul told the Corinthians, “All things are lawful” (1 Cor. 10:23), and he wrote, “Learn not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

MISAPPLICATION #4: “I am offended that you do that or permit that sort of behavior… It stumbles me!” Fundamentalist Christians often say that they are “stumbled” by morally neutral activities, when really they just mean that they are “offended” by them. According to 1 Corinthians 8, “stumbling” refers to being unintentionally led into sin. Many fundamentalist Christians ironically use this passage to make others conform to their conscience. There is deep irony here: This is the very self-centered spirit Paul is writing against—namely, thinking of ourselves rather than others.

Craig Blomberg: “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’—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.”[]

Gordon Fee: “The issue is not that of ‘offending’ someone in the church. It has to do with conduct that another would ‘emulate.’ …What would seem to be an illegitimate use of the principle, even in the broader terms of v. 13, is for those who feel ‘offended’ to try to force all others to conform to their own idiosyncrasies of behavior. Paul makes it quite clear in Rom. 14 that on matters of indifference people within any given community should learn to live together in harmony, with no group demanding their own behavior of the others.”[]

We shouldn’t allow offended people to blackmail the freedoms of others. To repeat, this demanding spirit is the very thing Paul is writing against. Fundamentalist Christians often say that they are “stumbled” by the drinking of alcohol, listening to rap music, or watching R-rated films. Fair enough. But have they considered how non-Christians are stumbled by their teetotaling and bizarre Christian sub-culture? Instead of having to merely surrender to Christ, the non-Christian needs to surrender to an entire extra-biblical Christian culture! That is truly an outrage!

In a previous chapter, Paul encourages believers to associate with immoral people (1 Cor. 5:10). In the next chapter, he encourages believers to become “all things to all men” to reach them for Christ (1 Cor. 9:19-23). In morally neutral areas, believers should be willing to engage in the culture.

MISAPPLICATION #5. “I shouldn’t ever change my conscience.” Our conscience is a helpful tool in spiritual growth, but it is also fallible. Therefore, we should never say, “Let conscience be your guide.” Biblical truth can and should reeducate our conscience (Rom. 12:1-2).

Issues of personal conscience are tricky. They can legitimately come from God, but they can also come from our own ignorance or confusion regarding biblical truth. Since this isn’t always clear, we should dialogue respectfully. Paul writes, “Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5), implying that it is entirely appropriate to discuss these issues of conscience. He also writes, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14; cf. Col. 2:16-17). Those with a sensitive conscience should assess their ethical instincts by asking, “Is this a biblical issue or merely a cultural or personal issue?”

While we can dialogue about these issues, we should refrain from demonizing others. Paul writes, “The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another?” (Rom. 14:3-4) Later he writes, “Why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt?” (Rom. 14:10) This sort of contemptuous disputing is exactly what Paul was writing against.

Proper application of this passage

Put simply, Paul is teaching us to give up our rights for the sake of loving others. We can be intellectually right about an issue, but our application of these truths could be unloving. The “know-it-all” could say, “But I’m in the right!” But we would retort, “Yeah, but you’re still a major jerk!” We might consider these questions to see the importance of this topic for believers:

• Do you alienate others by how you talk or act?

• Are you more concerned with how much you know than with how you love others?

• Do you prioritize being right over being sensitive to those around you?

• When you open your mouth are you considering how what you say will affect others?

• Do you spend more time thinking about your unmet expectations, or the needs of others?

• When you suggest an activity, are you thinking of what would be the best for others or just yourself?

• Can you refrain from certain freedoms for the sake of others’ spiritual growth?

• Are you willing to set aside certain desires for the sake of others?

• Do you spend more time spouting off personal opinions than you do seeking God’s will?

• Are you trying to hold those around you to your arbitrary standards due to your own weaknesses?

Conclusion

The point isn’t to create a list of absolutes. Instead, Paul’s point is that a spiritually mature person is thoughtful of the needs of others. Rather than living for self, they think through the intended or unintended consequences of their actions.

Appendix: Alternate Reading Considered

We have outlined the traditional academic interpretation view above. However, a more recent academic view has been espoused by David Garland among others. Instead of seeing idol meat as fine in chapter 8 and sinful in chapter 10, this view contends that Paul was outlawing all idol meat.

Under this view, the “weak” are not a separate party in Corinth. Instead, they were a hypothetical party created by Paul that serve as a contrast to all the believers in Corinth. Like the imaginary opponent in Romans, the “weak” are a literary construct used by Paul to argue against the Corinthian “know-it-alls.” In other words, the “strong” or “know-it-alls” constituted all the believers in Corinth. David Garland writes,

The issue does not revolve around the one with a weak conscience; Paul’s goal is to change the activity of the knowers, who, despite their imagined theological sophistication, are in danger of being partners with demons.[]

What he actually says is that he fears that an individual will be drawn into idolatry again. Paul’s solicitude for the weak person is not over the possibility that he or she might suffer from unnecessary pangs of conscience. His concern is explicitly expressed in 8:11: such a person may perish eternally![]

If this was part of their argument, theoretically they are correct; eating does not affect one’s relationship to God or bring God’s judgment. We should not take this statement, ‘We do not lack if we do not eat, nor do we gain if we do eat,’ to hint that Paul sides with those who think that eating idol food is unobjectionable. Life is not lived in the theoretical abstract, and eating food sacrificed to idols can lead to partnership with demons (10:20). Mishandling the Lord’s Supper can lead to sickness and death (11:29-30). Paul’s illustrations from the OT in 10:1-13 reveal that idol food is not as harmless as they assumed. It can kill—most significantly, it kills a person’s relationship to God. Kosher laws may be a matter of indifference, but idol food is not. Nothing is unclean in itself, unless it is known to be idol food. 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. Consuming food in an idolatrous context or food plainly associated with idolatry is not a matter of indifference but one that has deadly consequences. Paul subtly corrects their view by pointing out that attending idol banquets can cause far greater harm than they have imagined. They might wound others eternally and harm themselves eternally. Rather than implying that neither eating nor abstaining from idol food makes any difference, this verse lays the foundation for his statement in 8:13, “I will absolutely never eat meat.” Abstinence, in this case, benefits others and oneself.[]

Paul is not afraid that they might offend the weak in some way but that they might cause them to fall away from their Christian faith.[]

We disagree with this view, because (1) it creates an artificial literary convention without substantiation and (2) it doesn’t cohere with chapter 10, where Paul explicitly states that eating meat sacrificed to idols is permissible. The point is not the meat, but the way it affects fellow believers.