http://biblebitbybit.blogspot.com/2016/01/1-corinthians-8.html
Posted by 1 Corinthians on Sunday, 10 January 2016
B. Counsel concerning Christian liberty (chaps. 8-14).
Paul’s reply to the Corinthians’ question concerning the propriety of eating the meat of an animal offered in a pagan sacrifice touched off an extensive response, probably because he sensed that this particular issue was another manifestation of the Corinthians’ self-centeredness, which produced other similar problems in the church.
Two words which seemed to epitomize the Corinthians’ point of view were “freedom” (eleutheros, 9:1, 19; eleutheria, 10:29) and “rights” (exousia, 8:9; 9:4-6, 12, 18). Paul used and qualified these words in these chapters by stressing the importance of a love for others which sought their “good” (symphero, -os, 10:24, 33; 12:7; cf. 6:12) by “strengthening” or “building” them up (oikodomeo, -ia, 8:1, 10; 10:23; 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26). These two themes, “me first” or “you first,” and Paul’s development of them as they affected believers in relation to pagan worship and Christian worship, unified these chapters. Secondarily Paul showed that the former attitude ultimately brought God’s disapproval (adokimos, 9:27) and His discipline (10:5-10; 11:30-32).
1. christian liberty in relation to pagan worship (8:1-11:1).
Ordinarily the Greeks and Romans burned the less desirable portions of an animal in the course of their sacrifices and retained the choicer parts for personal consumption at banquets celebrating the sacrifices. If a sacrifice were made in connection with a state function, the meat which remained was frequently sold in the marketplace. The Corinthians’ questions apparently concerned (a) the acceptability of buying and eating meat from one of these sacrificial animals; (b) the acceptability of eating this meat as an invited guest in a friend’s home; (c) the acceptability of attending one of these pagan sacrifices and enjoying the meal of celebration which followed in the temple precincts. Paul spoke to each of these issues.
a. The principle of brotherly love (chap. 8).
Paul struck right to the heart of the matter in these preliminary verses by stating a basic principle: love is superior to knowledge (cf. chap. 13).
8:1. Much as he had begun his reply on marital questions, Paul may have quoted a Corinthian sentiment (we all possess knowledge) with which he basically agreed but which required qualification. Knowledge was essential in correctly responding to their questions but those who thought they had it did not, as Paul would show.
8:2-3. In the first place, knowledge about God was always partial (13:12). In the second place, true knowledge led to God and a love for Him which Paul knew must issue in love for others (cf. 1 John 4:20-21).
8:4. With the principle stated it now remained to be applied to the particular instance in question. The statements which follow the two thats (an idol is nothing at all and there is no God but One) may well have been Corinthian affirmations with which Paul could wholeheartedly agree. An “idol” indeed was “nothing” (Ps. 115:4-8), for there is only one God (Deut. 4:35, 39). Hence eating food sacrificed to idols was, in itself, inconsequential.
8:5-6. The pantheon of the Greeks and Romans, not to mention the gods and lords of the mystery religions, were indeed numerous, but one God alone is real (Deut. 10:17). The Father is the source of all (Gen. 1:1) and the One for whom the Corinthians should live (1 Cor. 10:31). The Lord Jesus Christ was the agent of Creation (Col. 1:16) and the One through whom the Corinthians lived (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 1:23).
8:7-8. If all Corinthian Christians could have agreed that an idol was nothing and that there was only one God (v. 4), then they might have eaten the idol meat with impunity. However, such was not the case. All, in fact, did not possess knowledge. The conscience of some Christians was not strengthened on this point by the truth. They were still ignorant and had not come to the point where they could accept eating this kind of meat as a matter of indifference. For them it was wrong, and so to eat it was sin (cf. Rom. 14:23). Paul denied the validity of their scruples, but in the advice which followed he suggested that the solution would be found in love, not in knowledge.
8:9. When knowledge uninformed by love dictated one’s behavior, Paul warned that spiritual harm would result. The exercise of . . . freedom by the knowledgeable could in certain circumstances become an obstacle, a stumbling block in the weak Christian’s walk with God (cf. v. 13).
8:10. As an illustration Paul posed a situation in which a weak Christian saw a knowledgeable brother enjoying a meal in an idol’s temple and was by this example encouraged to join in, even though he could not do so with the clear conscience before God that the knowledgeable Christian enjoyed.
8:11. As a consequence the conscience of this weak believer was seared (cf. 1 Tim. 4:2), and his capacity to distinguish right from wrong was lost (cf. Titus 1:15) leading to his spiritual ruin and physical death (cf. 1 Cor. 10:9-10; Rom. 14:15). Apollytai, rendered is destroyed, often refers to physical death (e.g., Matt. 2:13; Acts 5:37). The selflessness of Christ was an example for the knowledgeable. If Christ loved this brother so that he was willing to give up His exalted rights and even His life (Phil. 2:6, 8), surely the strong could give up his right to eat such meat.
8:12. To be arrogantly indifferent to the need of weaker Christians results in sin not only against them (for you . . . wound their weak conscience; cf. v. 7) but also against Christ of whose body they are members (12:26-27; cf. 1:30; Matt. 25:40, 45). Paul experienced this point acutely on the Damascus Road (Acts 9:4-5).
8:13. In summary Paul stressed the priority of brotherly love. He did not demand that the knowledgeable relinquish their right, but he illustrated how he would apply the principle to himself. Paul did not want any brother to fall (cf. v. 9) but to be “built up” (cf. v. 1), and knowledge governed by love accomplished that.
As a final note to this chapter it should be understood that Paul did not say that a knowledgeable Christian must abandon his freedom to the ignorant prejudice of a “spiritual” bigot. The “weak brother” (v. 11) was one who followed the example of another Christian, not one who carped and coerced that knowledgeable Christian into a particular behavioral pattern. Also it was unlikely that Paul saw this weak brother as permanently shackling the freedom of the knowledgeable Christian. The “weak brother” was no omnipresent phantom but an individual who was to be taught so that he too could enjoy his freedom (Gal. 5:1).
Excerpt from:
Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985).
The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures.
Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.
