1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
In this section, the Apostle answers the Corinthians’ question about eating food that had been offered to idols. The final conclusion of the matter comes two chapters later (see 1Cor 10:19-31). In between are two tangential topics – chapter nine shows Paul defending his apostleship and chapter ten warns against coveting wicked things and tempting God. The subject of eating meat offered to idols reflects once again the clash of Jewish and Gentile cultures in the church at Corinth. The Greeks were a religious people, but their system of multiple gods, temples and rituals was blatant idolatry in the eyes of the Jews.
To what extent should Gentile Christians avoid associations with their old worship system? Surely liberals and conservatives alike agreed that a Christian could have nothing to do with Greek idol-worship! However, several scenarios concerning these foods (both meat and grain) was not so easily discerned. In a manner not that different from Judaism, the priests of Gentile temples would receive an animal from a worshipper and kill it. Then he would offer some of its meat on the altar, keeping a portion for his services, and return the rest to the donor (1Cor 9:13). The meat that was not consumed in the offering was either eaten at a feast to the god (1Cor 8:10), eaten at home with friends (1Cor 10:27-28), or sold at the common market (1Cor 10:25). In the later two instances, the food had no obvious link to the idol. Was it acceptable for Christians to eat this food?
We infer, from this book and the Acts, that certain insinuations and ulterior motives lurked below the surface of this question, for Paul felt it necessary to interrupt his answer and devote an entire chapter to validating his Apostleship (ch9). The famous Jerusalem Council, with Paul present, had already pronounced the Church’s position on eating food offered to idols (see Acts 15). The city of Corinth was evangelized shortly thereafter (Acts 18), so they surely knew the doctrine being taught in all the churches (1Cor 4:17) was that Christians should abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled (Acts 15:28-29). Christ, in His revelation to John, warned the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira: I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam…to eat things sacrificed unto idols (Rev 2:14, 20).
It appears that the Corinthians were challenging the Jerusalem directive and even the Apostle’s authority. Perhaps that is not so surprising, for they also knew from the same Jerusalem Council that fornication was unacceptable, yet they were tolerating that in their church as well (ch5). I speculate from Paul’s answer that the gist of their question was: “Since we know that an idol is only a piece of rock, how can it be sinful to eat meat offered to idols?” The actual writing was probably much longer and worded so as to influence the Apostle’s response.
The concise answer about eating meat offered to idols is that while food itself cannot contaminate the spiritual life of a person, it may become a cause for stumbling in the church and could signify fellowship with devils (1Cor 10:14-21). So Paul says the wise course of action is to avoid eating food offered to idols, especially if others are observing you. Essentially his line of argument is to agree with the liberals that an idol has no power in itself, but then he demonstrates that this knowledge does not make eating idol-food right. Several other considerations must be incorporated into that discernment, not the least of which is brotherly love and self-denial. In the end, however, the Apostle ends up rejecting the eating of idol-food on factual grounds: “Am I saying that an idol as a god exists? No, but the Gentiles offer their sacrifices to demons, not God, and clearly you cannot fellowship with both demons and God” (1Cor 10:19-21). Demons do exist. Have nothing to do with them.
Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Visualizing the word-picture is amusing. I see a man-shaped balloon named “education” inflating itself with nothing but hot air, while the agape man goes about working to build up the walls of the church. Almost invariably the man with higher education thinks that the thoughts of his mind are superior to those of others. Yet, Education does not automatically bring Wisdom. This Scripture makes that plain warning: “Knowledge puffs up yourself, but charity builds up others.” The epistles to the Corinthians reveal that the basic cause of all their problems was over-reliance on their own wisdom and logic rather than following the Scriptures and the wisdom that is judiciously imparted by the Holy Spirit to those who ask (James 3:17).
Following Knowledge alone has two major flaws: it excludes living according to the principle of love (Eph 5:2; 2John 1:6), and it ignores the fact that human knowledge is never complete. Later in chapter 13, the supremacy of love over all else, knowledge in particular (1Cor 13:2), is proven by one of the purest, most striking pieces of literature the world has seen.
The Apostle does not contradict the many passages that teach knowledge and wisdom are valuable above gold and silver, for the pursuit of true knowledge is nothing less than seeking that God who alone is all-knowing. Rather, his warning is that to rely on the intellect alone will lead to arrogance and pride. In just a few years, the Apostle’s words would come true, for the Gnostics came teaching that salvation was achieved by attaining perfect Knowledge (i.e. Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” bk 2, ch30). They believed that by Knowledge one could ascend to a higher eternal level than that achieved by pursuing righteousness, which would only allow the soul to rise to an intermediate level. This is the sort of knowledge that puffeth up.
Love often works in spite of knowledge. We may understand by knowledge that a person deserves his earthly difficulties (because of his own decisions), but love will help him anyway. The puffed up man, meanwhile, will justify his refusal to help by invoking words of knowledge. So knowledge of itself is not wrong, but to be controlled by knowledge alone is to break the great commandment, Love thy neighbour as thyself (Mat 22:39).
We know that all have knowledge. Yet just a few verses later we read, Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge (1Cor 8:7). Both are said in relation to eating food offered to idols. I really do not understand this. Maybe Paul is here quoting (with a touch of sarcasm?) part of the Corinthians’ question to show its inadequacy to resolving the question. Maybe he intends to show that both sides have, by knowledge, closed this matter in their own minds, thereby proving his point that “knowledge” alone cannot win the argument. The contention concerning circumcision reached the same conclusion in Acts 15:2.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
This is ironically true to the point of being humorous! From poorly educated people who over-value their own judgments to more educated people who take pride in their superior knowledge, it is amazing how Man is wired to believe he knows better than the rest. The Apostle is merciless: “The man who thinks he has full knowledge of any topic is only puffing himself up; he cannot be trusted to give correct judgment on the matter.” A truly wise person who does have a lot of knowledge, invariably recognizes that he does not know it all. No man does. The deeper one studies a topic, the more complex it becomes; new questions arise, new truths color and challenge previously-set conclusions. The prudent man feels his humility more deeply even as he stretches the limits of his learning. He recognizes in clarity the surpassing wisdom of God and the frailty of his own mind.
Paul’s solution to the problem of Knowledge is beautiful. Instead of elevating Knowledge, love God. The prophet Jeremiah said this hundreds of years earlier: “Let him that wishes to glory in something, take pride in that he knows Me, the all-wise, all-good, eternal One” (Jer 9:23-24). Such an one really does have something to boast about – no matter his position, his education, his influence, his level of wealth. See my notes for 1Cor 2:5; 3:18.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
An idol is a powerless, empty image (Is 44:9-19), but that doesn’t approve eating meat sacrificed to idols. Otherwise, the first and second commandments would be trivial (Ex 20:3-5). The fact is that many people fervently believed in the power of gods, they worshipped idols and sacrificed to them instead of acknowledging Jehovah God. According to the Word and the rule of common-sense, that is sinful.
Theoretically however, to the person who believes in the one true God, a heathen temple is nothing and its “sacred” sacrifices and rituals are nothing (Gal 4:8). He knows the “god” is a myth and is entirely unaffected by it. Even then it would not be expedient to follow this knowledge (1Cor 10:23) on account of inevitable opportunities to offend the consciences of both brethren and unbelievers (v7).
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Arians attempt to use this verse to argue that Jesus is not God, separating the two by a narrow reading of the text. They say the Father is God, but that Jesus is only a Lord. Yet they end up in great difficulties, for God is called Lord many times in the Scriptures. Arians are further damaged by the statement, We in Him (the Father) and by Him (the Son), for the Scriptures often present the believer in Christ. These interchangeable terms and actions of the Father and Son can only be understood within the framework of the Trinity. The Father and Son are not one and the same (John 14:23), but together they are God and should be honored equally (John 5:23; Mat 11:27).
The actual intent of this verse is to form a contrasting parallel between Gentile worship and Christian worship. “The Gentiles have many gods and many lords, yet for we Christians there is but one Father God and one Lord Jesus Christ.” This statement fully agrees with the doctrine of the Trinity.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
Many in Corinth would be offended to see a Christian eating idol-meat and even Gentiles sacrificing to their idols would be confused to see a follower of Jesus eating food that had been dedicated to a god that was certainly not the Christian God. Those familiar with the ten commandments would also be offended, for to eat idol-meat was tantamount to worshiping the idol.
The idol-food eaters in this case were probably converted Gentiles. Having been delivered from idolatry, they now understood and believed in the one and only true God and His Son Jesus Christ. By their “greater knowledge” these men believed themselves to be free to eat idol meat. However, they should have been the first to recognize that many do not have that knowledge, for they also had believed in the power of the gods. Again we arrive at the inadequacy of knowledge alone.
The word conscience (suneidesis) is used in the NT to describe the mental capability of perceiving the difference between right and wrong. Many felt it was morally wrong to eat meat offered to idols, probably by the Ten Commandments. Suddenly the issue becomes “rational knowledge” versus “sole reliance on written revelation,” which is a fundamental root of the liberal-conservative conflict today. The liberal will reason his way to doctrine, while the conservative eschews reason in favor of unquestioning reliance on written revelation.
Their conscience being weak is defiled. Each man’s conscience is different. To act contrary to our conscience is a sin. In saying a man’s conscience is weak the Apostle doesn’t mean “feeble” or “poor.” Some translate it, “tender” (see my note for verse 11).
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. 9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
In these verses, the Apostle speaks of food in general, not that which has been offered to idols. Abstaining from certain foods does not increase one’s spiritual stature, nor does it build up the church. Practicing Jews would disagree, as would Muslims and others. The Christian however, knows that bare food is not a matter of sin, for God created all creatures good; we receive them as food with thanksgiving (Mat 15:11; 1Tim 4:3-4).
Them that are weak – referring to the Jews who esteemed certain foods to be unclean. Read Romans 14, where Paul speaks of offending a Christian brother by eating “unclean” meat (Rom 14:13-14). Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died…it is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak (Rom 14:15-21). A stumblingblock is something that would cause a conscience to be defiled (v7), it is any cause whereby another commits sin (v13).
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
Were the liberal group in the church at Corinth actually eating out in idol temples? Or is Paul making a hypothetical case, perhaps sprinkled with hyperbole? It is a hard to imagine that even these ‘giants of knowledge’ would accept invitations to eat with unbelieving friends at restaurants dedicated to a particular god, for these were wicked, immoral environments (see Bruce’s essay at 1Cor 1:1). Not coincidentally, the NT often groups eating meat offered to idols with sins of fornication (Acts 15:20, 29; Rev 2:14, 20). See that link also at verses 7-8.
No, Paul is not authorizing liberal Christians to go ahead and eat food offered to idols, for later he outright condemns that practice (1Cor 10:19-21). Rather, the argument of verses 10-11 runs parallel to the right/wrong aspects of the matter: “You should choose to refrain from eating idol-food for the sake of your brother in Christ, for he believes it to be a wicked practice. Even if lawful, it is not be expedient, for you will embolden the man with tender conscience to act contrary to its voice.”
In contemporary terms, the two conscience groups of this three-chapter section are Conservative and Liberal (instead of weak and strong), for it is difficult to imagine as weak the brother who considers it a sin to eat meat offered to idols. Obviously, a conservative conscience does not automatically make one weak, nor does a liberal conscience necessarily mean one is strong. The liberal Christian thought it lawful to eat meat offered to idols and apparently to enter even into an idol’s temple and feast with unbelievers. The conservative Christian thought that very unwise, if not openly sinful. The liberal said, “There is no power in an empty idol! Besides, I’m going to witness.” The conservative responded, “Your testimony for Christ has no place in that ungodly place.” We are simply repeating the situation of Christians going to parties, sports events, movies, etc.
Notably, there is no hint in these chapters that the liberal man with Knowledge should instruct his brother’s conscience to believe it lawful to eat food offered unto idols. That practice had never been acceptable in the churches of Christ (see note on v1). The spiritual immaturity in Corinth made it necessary for Paul “to speak unto them as unto carnal and not spiritual men” (1Cor 3:1-2). Therefore he instructs the liberal Christian to live as his more conservative brother even if his conscience would allow him to live otherwise. Might not the liberal brother be offended and leave the church? Perhaps that is why Paul appeals to him as the strong brother.
At other times, Paul chided the conservatives for judging their more liberal brethren (i.e, keeping the sabbath in Col 2:16). Here though, he chides the liberals to respect those of conservative conscience. These contrasting responses were not arbitrary, but can be traced to the basic truths of their respective matters. The sabbath law ceased with the Old Covenant, so Paul required the sabbath-keepers to cease judging those who had no conscience to keep the sabbath. Eating meat offered to idols is condemned by the New Testament, so here Paul requires those with liberal conscience to honor their brothers’ conscience and refrain from that ungodly practice.
It is a lesson for churches today, who must frequently make similar determinations. Following the Apostle’s method, we note that the brotherhood is well edified in these actions when all sides work together for peace, acceptance and unity. Wisdom, commitment and truth working by love is essential.
THOUGHTS ON THE CONSCIENCE OF MAN (see also notes for Rom 12:2; 14:21).
The conscience is defined as “the faculty by which humans decide right and wrong, and which provokes feelings of guilt or innocence.” The conscience is a part of every soul at birth and is given by God for the purpose of moral guidance. It is a highly sensitive, dynamic, “early warning system” that works closely with the intellect in matters of human morality. God has also set eternity in their heart (Ec 3:11; NASB). These are “first truths” that God has engraved within every man.
While every conscience is perfectly tuned at birth, life experiences will influence and reshape it. External sources such as social norms, family values, church doctrines and parental teaching are constant voices that can modify the tenants of a man’s conscience. Solomon lamented this loss of innocence: Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions (Ec 7:29). The job of Christian parents is to affirm Scriptural values in their child’s conscience – values that were there in perfection at the beginning. Thus did Jesus warn of the gravity in causing a child to sin (Mat 18:6).
When the conscience is purely and fully informed, it is an accurate, invaluable guide to discerning right and wrong (Rom 2:15). Conversely, if the conscience has been ill-informed, or adversely affected by surrounding cultural and religious values, its accuracy to truth will be faulty. Paul, for example, had acted from a poorly informed conscience when he persecuted the Church. The Scriptures speak of purifying or purging the conscience, which is to allow the water of the Word to wash away the errors that have crept into the conscience.
Every part of man, including the conscience, is affected by living in this fallen world with its countless deceptions, errors and corruptions. Another important shaping factor is the native personality of the individual. Over time, these elements produce a different set of convictions in each person. The Scriptures describe the following groups: the good conscience (1Pet 3:21; 1Tim 1:5), weak (tender) conscience (1Cor 8:7), purged conscience (Heb 9:14; 10:2), wounded conscience (1Cor 8:12), defiled conscience (Tit 1:15), evil conscience (Heb 10:22), and even the seared conscience (1Tim 4:2). The conscience, intellect and free-will are basic, unique components in Man; together they form the character of the person.
In the beginning, Adam and Eve were entirely innocent – no knowledge of sin, no need for a conscience. They were given just one rule – don’t eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then Satan came and deceived them. They ate from the forbidden tree and their eyes were opened. Man became a free moral agent. Consequently, God put a conscience in the minds of every soul that is born into the world – an invisible lamp that subconsciously indicates what is right and wrong. The spirit (conscience) of man is the candle of the Lord, searching all the inward parts of the belly (Pro 20:27). The Apostle seems to recognize the difference between Adam’s sin and our own, saying: Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression (Rom 5:14).
The conscience may be enlightening, but only by the Word of God. Mature Christians should work to educate/purify the consciences of believers, but carefully. Convictions cannot be imposed or legislated, for the conscience is a unique mental faculty of each individual. His mind must understand any new knowledge and sincerely affirm it. The conscience is not the final word of a matter, but the Word of God (1John 3:20). Sometimes a conservative conscience speaks too conservatively (Rom 14:22); in Corinth the liberal conscience spoke too liberally. The end of the latter condition is worse (study Titus 1:15).
Constant sin and failure to love the truth (2Thes 2:10) will inevitably corrupt the conscience (1Tim 4:2). A deceived conscience will not bear correct witness to the individual. Instead, it will give a false sense of security and favor with God. It is a most dangerous situation! The more we listen to the voice of our conscience, the stronger it becomes. The Church of Jesus Christ has suffered much from men of evil, defiled consciences – from ungodly rulers and their associates to actual church leaders within. Looking back, we are stunned at the awful sins that have been perpetrated upon God’s people by way of false doctrine, government by force, persecution, torture and murder. Perhaps these men were acting in accordance to their (defiled) consciences, but their guilt remains.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Today the word offend means to hurt another’s feelings with cutting remarks, bitter criticism or scandalous talk (skandalizo is the Greek word). In the Scriptures however, the common usage of skandalizo is to stumble, sin, or fall away from the Truth (see note Mat 18:8). The New Testament warnings with respect to skandalizo fall on both parties – those who allow themselves to be offended and those who cause them to be offended (Mat 5:29-30; 13:21; 18:6). The latter group is presently under the Apostle’s exhortation. They are sinning against their brethren, wounding their consciences (v12), causing them to stumble and fall away (Rom 14:21). It would be an error to read this verse using today’s weaker meaning of the word offend, for there is a wide range of personal convictions, ideas and preferences among the members of any church body. The church is not enjoined to follow the strictest preference of each member, but to receive one another in the Lord (Rom 15:7). Love works for peace and health in the body, it accepts another’s oddities even though he doesn’t really understand them.
The issue of eating meat offered to idols was a touchy matter in the church of Corinth, with scenarios that ranged from gray areas to obvious sin. How could it not be idol-worship to go eat meat in an idol’s temple with the heathen? Yet to eat meat that may have been offered to idols in one’s home might be acceptable when the conscience has been more fully enlightened concerning the matter. The Apostle’s final word on the subject will come in chapter 10, and it is very instructive for similar issues today: movies, television, and internet are examples. These can definitely offend someone in the sense of causing them to sin. A carefully constructed guideline is important for the good of the church and for the education of both the liberal and conservative Christian.