1 Corinthians 8:7 - Meaning and Application

The apostle has already allowed, and even confirmed, the view of some Corinthians that idols were nothing. Now he shows that their conclusion from that view was wrong, namely, that they were free to go into an idol’s temple, eat the sacrifices, and feast there with their pagan neighbors. He is not mainly arguing here that the act was wrong in itself. Instead, he is showing the harm that this freedom could cause weaker Christians, people who did not have the same level of understanding.

First, he tells them that not every Christian at that time was fully convinced that an idol was nothing. “However, not everyone has this knowledge” (1 Corinthians 8:7). Some were still eating the food “as a sacrifice to an idol,” because they still had some reverence, however confused, for the idol. Though they had become Christians and claimed the true faith, they had not fully shaken off the old way of thinking, and they still kept some respect for the idols they once worshiped.

Weak Christians may be ignorant, or may only partly understand even the clearest truths. That was true about the one God and the one Mediator, Jesus Christ, the only one who stands between God and people. Yet some Corinthians who had turned from paganism to Christianity still held onto a respect for their idols, which could not be joined to those truths. So when they had a chance to eat food offered to idols, they did not avoid it to show their hatred of idolatry. They did not eat it as something common and meaningless, either. They ate with a weak conscience, meaning they were guilty in their own minds, because they were still treating the idol as if it had real divine power. The gospel’s purpose was to turn people from lifeless idols to the living God. They were weak in understanding, did not clearly see the emptiness of idols, and so their eating became a form of idolatry and polluted them.

Some understand the verse differently, as speaking of weak Christians who felt defiled by eating such food because they thought it had become unclean in a moral sense. In either case, the lesson is the same: we should be careful not to do anything that would lead weak Christians to defile their consciences.

Second, he tells them that eating and drinking in themselves have no moral value either way. “Food does not commend us to God” (1 Corinthians 8:8). “If we do not eat, we are no worse off, and if we do eat, we are no better off” (1 Corinthians 8:8). It seems some Corinthians took pride in eating what had been offered to idols, even in the idol’s temple (1 Corinthians 8:10), because they thought this proved that idols were nothing. But eating and drinking are, in themselves, morally neutral acts. What we eat matters little in God’s sight. Food does not make us clean or unclean by itself. Meat offered to idols may be just as suitable for food as any other meat, and simply eating or not eating it has no spiritual merit.

It is a serious mistake to think that differences in food make any difference in how God sees people. Eating one kind of food or avoiding another does not make anyone more acceptable to God.

Third, he warns them not to misuse the liberty they thought they had in this matter. From 1 Corinthians 10:20 and following, it seems clear that they had no right to sit and eat in the idol’s temple. But even if they had that right, they still had to be careful how they used it. Their example might become a stumbling block to weaker believers, and could lead them into idolatrous behavior, or even pull them back into paganism.

“If someone sees you, who have knowledge,” Paul says, meaning someone who thinks he has a better grasp of the truth, “will not the weaker person be encouraged to eat food offered to idols?” The weaker person, who still thinks an idol is something real, may be led to eat it not as ordinary food, but as part of idol worship. That would make him guilty of idolatry. So they must not place such a trap before their weak brothers, whatever freedom they thought they had.

Paul supports this warning with two reasons. First, think of the danger to weak brothers, even those for whom Christ died. We should deny ourselves even lawful things if using them would cause a brother to stumble and put his soul at risk. “Through your knowledge,” he asks, “will the weak brother, for whom Christ died, be destroyed?” (1 Corinthians 8:11). Those whom Christ bought with his precious blood should be very dear to us. If Christ cared enough to die for them so they would not perish, we should care enough to give up some freedoms for their sake. We should not use liberty in a way that hurts them, causes them to stumble, or puts them in danger. A person has little of the spirit of Christ if he would rather keep his own freedom than protect his brother.

Anyone who has Christ’s Spirit will love those whom Christ loved enough to die for. He will work for their spiritual good, and avoid anything that would needlessly grieve them, much less anything likely to lead them into sin. Second, harm done to them is counted as harm done to Christ himself. “When you sin against your brothers and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:12). Injury done to Christians is injury done to Christ, especially to new and weak believers. Wounding their conscience is wounding him. He has special care for the lambs of the flock. He gathers them in his arms and carries them close to his heart (Isaiah 40:11). Strong Christians should be very careful not to offend weak ones or put a stumbling block in their way.

Can we be cold toward those whom Christ has loved so deeply? Shall we sin against Christ, who suffered for us? Shall we work against his kind purpose and help ruin those whom he died to save?

Finally, Paul strengthens the whole lesson with his own example: “If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Corinthians 8:13). He does not mean he will never eat again at all. That would be self-destruction, and it would be wrong to commit one great sin in order to prevent another.

We must never do evil so that good may come from it. But even if eating were necessary, eating meat was not necessary. So Paul says he would rather never eat meat again than cause a brother to sin. He valued his brother’s soul so highly that he would gladly give up a matter of Christian freedom, and avoid any food he could lawfully eat and enjoy, rather than put a stumbling block in a weak brother’s way. That weaker believer might follow his example without being sure in his own mind whether the action was right.

We should be very careful not to do anything that may cause others to stumble, even if it is harmless in itself. Christian freedom is valuable, but the weakness of a brother should sometimes lead us, and even bind us, to set that freedom aside. We must not cling tightly to our own rights or use them in a way that harms and ruins a brother’s soul, and so wrongs our Redeemer, who died for him.

If I can clearly see that doing something I am free to do will lead another Christian to do what he should not do, then I offend him, mislead him, or put a stumbling block in his path. That is sin, even if the thing itself is lawful. And if we must be so careful not to lead others into sin, how much more careful should we be to avoid sin ourselves? If we must not put other people’s souls in danger, how much more should we be concerned not to destroy our own?