Specifically they inquired concerning the matter of whether or not Christians should eat meat sacrificed to idols. In a wider context this question actually deals with the proper exercise of Christian liberties.
Thankfully to their benefit and ours Paul dealt with their question directly and also addressed the wider issue of the exercise of Christian liberties.

Let us remember that the Corinthian church was like an immature adolescent, arrogant, enthusiastic, brash, argumentative,
over-enthusiastic and having all the other attributes of adolescence.

Since we are discussing the exercise of Christian liberties, we should remember and understand that all Christian behavior must take place from the point of view of an exercise of wisdom, something which demands a certain degree of spiritual maturity.

In addition, Christian behavior must take into consideration the central matter of love. Christians should not disobey the commandments under the guise of showing love. They should certainly behave as God behaves, showing his approach which happens to involve mercy, sensitivity, kindness, and love.

It is sometimes argued that this Christian group that Paul addresses had a clear biblical understanding of grace and law, freedom and bondage and were strong in doctrine. This position automatically colours what Paul is saying, assuming that he was speaking to people that we acknowledge were of great understanding. But that is not really so.

Paul never stated that the Corinthians understood doctrine to any great extent. They certainly knew some and they were certainly growing, but they had deficiencies. Their attitude toward the so-called “weaker brethren”, as opposed to those that thought they were “stronger”, reeked of a significant lack of knowledge about mature Christian behaviour.

In addition, this matter of food and its relationship to the laws of God, as well as whether or not associating with pagans in particular areas of social life, was in fact associating with idolatry.

This lesson seems to involve teachings that are inherently controversial, for we are dealing with issues to which it appears the scriptures do not directly speak and in areas governed by ‘conscience’, a part of our being which many think has nothing to do with the requirements of God.

But we must note that though some of the things we do might even be right and lawful, we have to ensure that their practice does not injure others.

One other problem with the exercise of liberties is that some believers have taken to applying logic, human wisdom / knowledge and a rationalisation of scripture to justify certain behaviours that are against biblical principles. Not surprising the Corinthians with their pathological fascination with knowledge were in this latter group.

The question of eating meat offered to idols was not new, but was a question which was raised shortly after Gentiles began to come to faith in Christ. The apostles including Paul and early church leaders at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 21:20) had made certain specific proclamations.

In that council the apostolic decree in Acts chapter 15 made it clear that Gentiles had to follow the Noachian law restrictions which Scripture is applied to all peoples, for it reached back door prior to Abraham. See Genesis 9:1-7. There were non-controversial prohibitions; the first three dealing with things devoted to idols, which included food dedicated to idols, eating the blood of an animal, eating meat obtained from animals killed by strangulation and from which the blood obviously had not been properly drained.

The other requirement was an ethical one dealing with sexual immorality in general and which also referred to laws about that matter in Leviticus.

Given this specific as well as the general nature of the decree it cannot really be held successfully that refraining from idolatry, murder, and fornication would be the only moral laws that Gentiles Christians would have to keep. Obviously they would have to refrain from blasphemy, robbery, and also pay attention to matters of justice.

There are some who look at these requirements as being in conflict with the teaching of Paul on justification by faith alone. Some people deny that Paul would ever have accepted the Jerusalem Council decree, for it conflicted with his teaching and practice.

They argue that Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 and 10:25-33 which states his teaching and practice conflicts with the decree, and that if he had accepted it, his gospel would have been compromised, placing Gentiles under the Law.

Some even say further that the decree contradicts Galatians 2:6 where Paul said that the leaders there added nothing to his message. They try to explain that the Jerusalem decree is not an historical event, or alternatively that the decree was issued after the writing of Galatians.

But any rational examination would see that the decree conformed with the leading of the Spirit.

Some of the Corinthians however used some reasoned argument which Paul outlines in our text, to conclude that the practice was a matter of indifference. They felt it made no difference whether one did or did not eat meat offered to idols and even went so far as to regard those with scruples on the matter as ‘weak’.

This attitude of the puffed up Corinthians is actively seen today, for many Gentiles including the so-called early Church Fathers have tried to label Jewish practice as incorrect and not supported by Pauline teachings.

What we must remember is that the Gentile Christian communities up until the second century, used the holy Scriptures, and consider themselves as apostolic. They shared the Old Testament with the Jewish people. But eventually some Gentile Christians begin to adopt an anti-Jewish self-definition despite Paul's warning in Romans 11.

Not only did they increasingly view the teachings of the Old Testament as the same as the subsequent rabbinical interpretations which developed in Judaism after the Exile, rejecting most of these interpretations carte blanche without proper analysis of the difference between what the Bible taught and what rabbinical Judaism taught, but they showed that they were confusing laws which relate to diet and purity and idolatry.

One commentator advises:
“On principle, Jewish food laws are foreign to Gentile Christianity. So much is also reflected in the massive Christian misunderstanding surrounding them. Ever since the Church Fathers-authors who emblematically represent the Gentile Christian Church- New Testament exegesis typically confuses laws belonging to different halakhic areas, especially diet and purity laws… Thus while the discussion story in Mark 7:2-23 is about purity, Christians commentators ancient and modern highlight verse 19 to the effect that “(Jesus) declared all food clean”-dietary laws being implicated.
Similarly, Peter’s dream in Acts 10 which urges him to swallow his hesitation and enter a Gentile home-which as we shall see points to idolatry and impurity-is explained to mean that he should literally eat unclean foods. Moreover both passages are often linked together in discourse aimed at proving that all the Jewish food laws are null and void for followers of Jesus.
In the framework of Jewish law, however, the rules about forbidden foodstuffs constitute a category apart from those defining impurity off the human body and of objects.

Dietary laws are concerned with things one does not eat, i.e. “unclean” animals, God, and the combination of meat and milk. These prohibitions are always valid for all the Jews and are defined by inherent qualities which are not transferable. They operate anywhere independently of Temple and the priesthood and they apply still today without fundamental change.

By contrast, impurity proper is a temporary and transferable status which basically prohibits objects or the human body from involvement in sacrificial rites. This “Levitical impurity”, as it is also called, is structured by a number of degrees and is transferable in removes which more or less correspond to the holiness of the sacrifice concerned and the degree of impurity. Here one distinguishes sources of impurity, the strongest of which is a human corpse or part of it, then bodily excretions like sperm, gonorrhea or blood, and furthermore leprosy and carrion. Also, purification procedures corresponding to the weight and the remove of the impurity serve to restore purity.

The impurity of fans and the food at stake in the distortion is confused with biblical dietary laws, and confusion is carried to the extreme by the suggestion that forbidden foods render one impure….

We see how a vehement rejection of Jewish purity and diet laws goes hand-in-hand with a consistent confusion between both areas. Not only does this seem arbitrary, but there is also a telling contradiction. For the Church Fathers also betray the rules on idolatry, diet and purity are observed within their own churches…..
Clearly, it is not the contents of Jewish food and purity laws which makes the Church Fathers condemn them, but their being labeled as Jewish. For similar practices observed in their own Gentile Christian communities are labeled positively.”

This author points to the teachings of confusion in a succession of well-recognized Christian writers from the fourth century.

But it is to be noted that Paul's gospel was directed emphatically at both Jew and Greek, not excluding anybody. For Paul idolatry was out of the question for any one. Peter, Barnabas and the other Jews obviously agreed with Paul when they withdrew from table fellowship with non-Jews and he rebuked them. That they had violated the Jerusalem agreement is hard to make sense to say that Paul had a right to be so violent in his objection, if in fact he disagreed with the specific decrees of the Jerusalem Council.

Paul outlines the innate danger with human wisdom and knowledge, it tends to ‘puff-up’ and make us proud, thus leading us astray by our vain self-confidence.

He then lays down the principle that love must be the overriding consideration in Christian behaviour. Christian behavior is founded on love, not knowledge and the goal of the Christian life is not knowledge, but love. Consequently liberties must never be exercised if such practice will cause a problem for another brethren.

The practice was, that when these sacrifices were made to heathen gods, a part of the animal was given to the priest that officiated, a part was consumed on the altar, and a part (probably the principal part) was the property of the one making the offering. This portion would then be either eaten at home as food which was in a sense blessed by having been offered to an idol; or at a feast in honour of the idol; or it would be sold at the market, in the same way as other meat. The question then arose, whether it would be right to eat that meat, either when invited to the house of a heathen friend, or when it was exposed for sale in the market.

Beyond the edicts of the Jerusalem Council, some felt that eating this meat somehow countenanced idolatry. On the other hand, there were those who felt it was acceptable and saw the scruples of their brethren as needless.

Some have traditionally seen this chapter eight as Paul accepting of the argument that the eating of meat offered to idols was acceptable to those who considered it so but Paul was merely outlined their argument, to show the Corinthians the grave consequences of the practice. Later in this letter Paul shows the evil associations of the practice. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
(1 Cor. 10:14-22).

The ‘meat eaters’ in Corinth seem to have taken pride in their superior knowledge and spirituality, not unlike some of the ‘spiritual’ types of our day. Paul while initially appearing to support their logic, will show that they had fallen short of true spirituality in their lack of love and concern for the effects of their behaviour on other brethren. As we study our text today, let us be reminded that true knowledge is governed by love.

THE TEXT

Verse 1. Now as touching… Having dealt with their questions about marriage and singleness (Lesson 5), Paul begins here to address the brethrens question regarding the propriety of believers eating meat offered to idols.

Given that the problem really stemmed from their lack of knowledge, and from mishandling of the knowledge that they had, instead of first talking about food, Paul first talks about the principles of knowledge and love. He makes an acknowledgement regarding knowledge then immediately strikes what must be considered a note of caution in our interpretation.

The emphasis here is the difference between being “puffed up” and “that which edifies”.

We all have…While it was true that the Corinthians knew the true nature of idols; that they were nothing at all or that Christian knowledge is common knowledge, available to all, as some interpret this phrase; knowledge tends to puff-up.
Note that this is not saying that knowledge is not important, but it will lead us astray if we think we know it all. For then it shows that we really do not know anything. Actively, as he will say in verses 2 and 3, the important knowledge is the knowledge that God has of those who love him.
Thus believers put themselves at risk by relying solely on ‘knowledge’ in their behaviour.
Some of the Corinthians were being condescending in their attitude, and this really amounted to being arrogant, and unaware of their deficiencies. Rather they should have considered charity (love) since this edifies or builds up. This is not to suggest that love and knowledge are opposing concepts, for scripturally they go together , with love as the guiding principle.
And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing (1 Corinthians 13:2).
And to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God (Ephesians 3:19).
And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment (Philippians 1:9).
That their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself (Colossians 2:2).
Note, love to God and each other is a better guide in determining what to do than mere knowledge. It will prompt us to seek the welfare of others and avoid what would injure them. It will make us affectionate and kind and will better tell us what to do, and how to do it in the best way, than all the knowledge we think we have.

Verse 2. Those who suppose themselves to be full of knowledge are in fact showing ignorance. This is especially true of those who think that they have arrived, and do not need to learn anymore, rejecting apostolic instruction. This makes them unsympathetic toward those that are considered by them to be inferior in doctrinal understanding. This was clearly their besetting sin, and it involved pride.

So Paul emphasized that their knowledge was partial.
Even that which has been revealed by God is never perfectly grasped
(1 Corinthians 13:8-13). Those who speak arrogantly of what they know are ignorant and self-deceived and often deceive others as well. (Romans 1:28-32; 2:17-23; Galatians 1:8; Colossians 2:18; 1 Timothy 1:7; 2 Peter 2:17-19). Paul himself does not hesitate to tell us when he is speaking the command of the Lord (7:10; 14:37), and neither does he fail to tell us when he is speaking his personal opinions or convictions (7:6, 25, 40).

He knoweth nothing…He has not learned what is most crucial on the subject nor has he learned the true use and design of knowledge: which is to edify and promote the happiness of others.

Paul's intent was to induce them to seek the welfare of their brethren. Knowledge, rightly applied, will promote the happiness of all.

Verse 3. The sense of the verse is that there is no true and real knowledge which is not connected with love to God. This will necessarily prompt a man to love his brethren and will lead him to promote their happiness.

Not only is Paul now focusing on love, but he is pointing out to the brethren the fact that God loved us first, accepted us, brought us to himself and therefore it was important that we understand that the important thing is we know that God loves us, and that he knows us.

When we concentrate on the knowledge that we love God, we automatically begin to focus on who God is, what he wants, what he is like and we want to see others through the eyes of God. We realize that he has patiently and lovingly brought us in, that is, we are known of him. The fact that the saints are known of God colors all of our behaviour.

Here is real knowledge. Here is something to know. Paul tells the Corinthians and us, that knowledge is not the occasion for pride, rather that they and us should rejoice in being ‘known’ by God. It is important to note, that the way we are known by God is not because of our knowledge, but because of the love which God has produced within us for Himself. Love takes priority over knowledge.
“… do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven” (Luke 10:20).
…known of him…Is to be special, chosen and elected even before one’s existence.
You only have I known of all the families of the earth: (Amos 3:2).

Verse 4-6. After setting out the governing principle regarding love and knowledge, here Paul again picks up the Corinthians argument. In these verses Paul sets out one of the foundational teachings of scripture; that there is but one God.
He brings them right back to consider the nature of God and the nature of those who love God. It is emphatically laid down in the early chapters of the Book of Deuteronomy:
“Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).

While there are many so called gods and idols in the world, the reality of Jehovah renders them all as nothing, they are the useless and vain inventions of men. There is but one God, He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, the world, the universe. He is the One from whom all things come and for whom all things exist (verse 6).

Paul speaks of Father and Son as the one true God, but it is clear that while he distinguishes Father and Son, he also considers them as One. The Father is the One from whom all things have come; the Son is the One through whom all things are, and through whom we exist
(verse 6). Contrary to the beliefs of the cultists, the deity of Jesus is not a contradiction to the existence and worship of God as the only God.

From this foundational truth accepted by all Christians, some of the Corinthians used a cascading series of logic to rationalize and make acceptable the eating of meats offered to idols, despite the edicts of the Jerusalem Council.

Paul traces the logic of their argument as one writer notes:
If there is but one God (and all Christians know this to be true), then there are no other “gods.” Idols are symbols or representations of these “no-gods.” These “no-gods” exist only in the minds of their heathen worshippers, and not in reality. Thus, since there are no other gods than God, idols really have no meaning or significance—they represent nothing. If idols are nothing, then the foods offered to them are of no significance either. Meats offered to gods which don’t exist are thereby assumed to have no negative or profane contamination by their use in false worship. If this is so, as some of the Corinthians have reasoned, then meats offered to idols are certainly free of moral contamination, and thus can be eaten without moral qualms. Those who fail to think on this high level are obviously weaker Christians, whose scruples are not to be taken into account. And if these “weaker Christians” follow the example of their “stronger brethren,” then they are so much the better for having done so, even though their consciences are pricked by eating this meat.

It is important to note that the great doctrine that God is One is inextricably linked to the command to love God. This knowledge about God cannot be separated from the command to love God.
The Israelites were not only taught to know of God’s exclusive existence, they were commanded to love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27). Love and knowledge were not to be divorced; they were to be interwoven.
The Corinthians error was that, not only were they not properly looking at the wicked forces behind the idol that would take advantage of their foolishness, but they also gave no thought to the effects of their behaviour on others (lack of love), Instead they prided themselves on their knowledge, that in reality there was only one God.

Verse 7. Paul is in agreement with the Corinthians argument to this point (vs. 4-6) but will begin to show that the conclusion did not follow, that it was right to eat food sacrificed in the temple of an idol, as they obviously imagined.

Paul will come back to show them in Chapter 10, that it was not such a simple thing as they thought, and that they, the “mature believers”, could simply eat what they wanted and go to the pagan temple and participate in anything they wanted.

Going along with their conclusion for the moment, he first focuses on the brethren that were even less mature than they were, Paul points out that there was still a lingering regard for idols in the minds of some of the brethren, a legacy of their pagan past, and eating the meat sacrificed to idols would work against their ‘weak’ conscience.

So while it seemed acceptable for the saints with ‘superior knowledge’ to have the right to eat idol-meat, what of those who had not yet come to this same knowledge.

This now shifts the discussion from an emphasis on “knowledge” as a primary determinant of behavior to love for others who don't have the same knowledge.

One can see Paul's stressing to them that being right in knowledge is important for God, but it is also right to show love to the people of God. There is a responsible use of knowledge.

And their conscience being weak. They can’t disassociate the meat from the idol and its rituals or their conscience is overly sensitive and delicate on the issue. Thus if a ‘weaker’ brother were to eat such meat, he would stir up internal conflict against his conscience and thus he would sin.

Christians are urged to keep a clear conscience and exposure to this would certainly scar the conscience of the ignorant brethren. Paul is pointing out that not all Christians are as enlightened on the subject; and participation in their minds might lead them to think they are involved in idolatry

Verse 8. This is the view of those that advocate the eating of meat offered to idols. Their premise is that meat is insignificant in the spiritual life and in reality is of little consequence either way. It does nothing in the way of putting one in God’s favour. To them the mere eating of meat, or abstaining from it, cannot make a man better or worse in the sight of a holy God. The acceptable worship of God is spiritual and way beyond such things as meat. By this they imply it cannot be a matter of much importance whether a man eats the meat offered in sacrifice to idols, or abstains.

They seem to be suggesting that inner purity is all that matters, and that outward behavior is less than important. This one-sided unbalanced approach brings a warning.

Verse 9. Here Paul cautions that though their argument might have some validity, they had better be sure that as a minimum their indulgence did not become a stumbling block to others.

Paul is emphatic about liberties causing problems to others and places a heavy responsibility on those who think they are at liberty. The Apostle says by any means!

Paul’s does not here deal directly with the issue that eating meat or abstaining from it does change one’s spiritual status, but emphasizes that eating this meat can have a great impact on another brother.

He will deal with that issue of the spiritual impact of the relationship with idolaters and eating with them in chapter 10.

If something was a true liberty, one can partake of things approved by God in good conscience, just as one can abstain from it in good conscience, for they are not doing what they believe to be wrong. A truly weaker brother does not have the same liberty however.

Paul’s point is: It is of far more importance that a brother should not be led into sin, than it is that you, the stronger brother should partake of meat which you acknowledge (verse 8) is in itself of no importance."

…them that are weak… would be those professing Christians who are not fully informed or instructed in regard to the true nature of idolatry and who may still have a superstitious regard for the gods whom they previously worshipped.

Note, we should be careful that no conduct of ours leads a brother into sin. This is a general principle that is to regulate Christian conduct in all matters that are in themselves indifferent.

Verse 10. It is important to note that here Paul says that going to the temple to eat is not acting in love toward a brother, for the immature brother does not understand exactly what he can and cannot do. But note that he later argues that going to the temples does involve fellowship with demons. Let us never forget that.

Here the Apostle gives an illustration of the danger of thoughtless or uncaring exercise of a liberty. Should a weaker brother, or any Christian brother who is ignorant, or any one who might otherwise become a Christian, observe someone they regard as knowledgeable and spiritually mature in an idol’s temple, their view is not that the individual is exercising some liberty, he sees such activity as not sin. But because he views the stronger brother an example for him to follow, then he will think that he too can become more spiritual by eating idol-meat.

The immature brother might think that eating in the temple of the idol brings him closer at the god so that he can share in the power of the God,( that is why they ate in the temple, and slept with the prostitutes based in the temple).

A problem then arises, because the ‘weaker’ brother’s conscience is not clear with respect to idol-meat and eating of it will be a sin for him. Thus the so-called knowledgeable one has set a bad example and set a stumbling block in the path of someone else. For that person will infer not only that it is right, but that it is a matter of conscience with the informed brother and will follow his example.

The end result is that when one insists on exercising a liberty, in spite of the fact that others do not or should not have that liberty, that person is encouraging his “weaker brother” to sin. The fact now is that the ‘weaker’ brethren is embolden to sin. The Corinthians were being wrong in their attitude, as well as wrong in going to the idol temple.

Verse 11-12. In these two verses Paul shows that the possible consequences of the eating of idol meat is far from being a matter of indifference and its implications have very grave consequences for both the ‘stronger’ and ‘weaker’ brother. One commentator writes:
In verses 11 and 12, Paul shows that eating idol-meat is not only a sin against a brother, it is a sin against our Lord. Here is how Paul’s argument plays out in these verses. Christ died for sinners, to save them from their sin and to sanctify them. Christ’s work on the cross of Calvary was to set men free from their sin, and to present them holy and blameless to the Father. Christ’s work on the sinner’s behalf was for their edification, for their spiritual birth, growth, and maturity. When a thoughtless, self-serving saint insists on eating idol-meat, he knows that his “weaker brother” will be encouraged to follow his example. But in so doing, the weaker brother is not edified; he is caused to stumble. Insisting on my right to eat idol-meat may cause a fellow saint to stumble, falling into sin, and in causing this, I find myself working at cross purposes with Christ. I am therefore not only sinning against my weaker brother, I am sinning against my Lord. This is a most serious offence indeed.

Paul’s argument is compelling. Christ suffered and died for the sins of his people and if our conduct turn someone to idolatry or sin, then we frustrate the work of Christ and render the shedding of his blood vain.

The idea of sin against the brethren is in the sense of injuring, offending, or leading into sin. When we violate the law to love one another and to seek their wellbeing, in so doing we sin against them. Though sin is properly against God, we sin against our brethren when we pursue a course of wrong or harm against them.
Clearly partaking of the meat offered to idols is not a harmless liberty.

Verse 13. Paul closes the subject for the moment and makes a declaration that was meant to be an example for the Corinthians. He declares that he is ready to give up meat altogether, if it would be the occasion for his brother to offend.

This is in effect a principle that establishes the relationship of love to knowledge and Christian liberties. No liberty should ever be exercised at the expense of love. No liberty should be a spiritual hindrance or stumbling block to a brother in Christ. One must be prepared to forfeit all liberties that cause another brother to stumble. No right should be exercised which is contrary to love and love always seeks to edify.

CONCLUSION

The strong and mature Christian is not only one whose understanding of the Scriptures frees him from unnecessary prohibitions but one who is also a spiritual saint prepared to set liberties aside, in the name of love and for the sake of his brethren.

For those matters which are liberties, the one who is truly spiritual will be willing to forego them if exercising his liberty is at the expense of another. The knowledge which informs us of a liberty must be subject to the love which puts the interests of our brother before our own.

We should be careful that when we exercise our liberties we might in fact be doing something wrong, breaking the Commandments of God. Caution is required.

But it is just as true that God requires both love and knowledge from his people. Let us endeavour to both love God and know God.

Where God’s commandments are clearly set out, our logic and reason must be set aside. Some of the Corinthian saints used their logic and reasoning to set aside the decree of the Jerusalem Council and eat meat offered to idols. Paul instructs us to subordinate our reasoning (often puffed up and distorted by our pride) to divine commands:
“We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).