Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor. 8:6)

People of a certain age may remember when it was common to argue that Christians should never patronize restaurants that served alcohol. Classes or groups who wanted to hold a fellowship meal in a local eatery limited themselves to alcohol-free “family restaurants” to ensure participation from members who did not want to appear supportive of the alcohol industry. 

These days, as most counties have gone from “dry” to “wet,” bars in local restaurants along with aisles of wine and beer in grocery stores have become so commonplace that many of us rarely think about the issue. Young people might find the whole idea to be completely alien. 

Some readers might think it equally strange to consider a hot-button topic raised in 1 Corinthians 8: is it permissible to eat meat that had been ritually sacrificed at a pagan temple before being brought to market? 

A troublesome question (vv. 1-3)

The point of contention, which Paul deals with over the space of three chapters, is broader than the question of eating meat ritually offered to idols: it concerns the larger issue of the relationship between a believer’s individual freedom and his or her concern for the larger Christian community. [DD] 

How does one live as a Christian within a culture where other gods or ideals predominate? Before asking the question of ourselves, we must understand the context of the question at Corinth. After all, we are reading someone else’s mail, and we need to appreciate their situation. 

Corinth was a cosmopolitan city steeped in Greek and Roman traditions that included the worship of numerous gods. The temples also served as social hubs where people gathered for banquets in dining halls attached to the sanctuaries. Animal sacrifices around outdoor altars were a customary part of worship there, but very little was burned: most of the meat was cooked and served in the temple banquet halls or sold in local markets. 

Some believers in Corinth thought eating such meat was wrong, while others saw it as a non-issue and had little patience with those who quibbled. They seemed to think of temple banquets as little more than themed restaurants, and their attitude suggested that everyone should know better than to think it should matter. 

The division of opinion probably had social roots. The church’s wealthier and more educated members were more likely to be invited to temple banquets, which they may have seen as a necessary aspect of business or societal networking, like attending a Rotary Club meeting at a local restaurant or celebrating a friend’s wedding at a private club. Poorer and less educated members probably ate little meat to begin with, and they may have been more prone to lingering suspicions about the pagan gods’ power. 

Paul’s initial response was to change the direction of the question: “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (v. 1). With this statement, Paul insists from the beginning that love trumps knowledge. Those who think they are so smart – “who claim to know something” – still have things to learn, he said (v. 2). What’s important is not what we know, but that we are known by God (v. 3). [DD]

This is a reminder that salvation arose from God’s initiative: it’s not what we know about God that counts, but that God knows us. We did not earn our salvation or gain it through obtaining knowledge, and we should not let what we know (or think we know) lead us to look down on those we consider to be less enlightened. 

The heart of the problem (vv. 4-6)

Those who had no qualms about eating meat offered to idols reasoned that in Christ they had come to know the only true God. If other gods did not exist, then pagan idols had no substance and meat waved before them was only meat (v. 4). In responding, it’s likely that Paul was quoting from the letter he had received, apparently penned by the faction that favored eating meat from the temples. 

Paul did not disagree with their logic, but he questioned its application. He acknowledged that the pervasive “gods and lords” of Corinth and elsewhere were only “so-called” gods rather than real entities – but that did not change the widespread acceptance and power of their pervasive cults (v. 5). Later, Paul would connect sacrifices to idols with the worship of demons (10:20) – not all believers saw the idols as meaningless.

Continuing his effort to keep the focus on the believers’ relationship with God, Paul cited what may have been part of a hymn known to the Corinthians: “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (v. 6). [DD]

The point for Paul was not whether other gods existed, but that all things existed because of God, and Christians existed because of Christ. Believers have a purpose beyond themselves: we are to live for God. As such, our priority is to love God and to love others, rather than to serve ourselves.

The loving thing to do (vv. 7-13)

Paul then returned to the matter at hand, beginning with the claim some were making that “all of us possess knowledge” (v. 1), a way of saying “we all know that idols aren’t real.” Paul begged to differ, arguing that “ … not everyone … has this knowledge” (v. 7a). Some in the church had worshipped idols for so long that “they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol” (v. 7b). Being “weak” in the faith on this matter, the thought of going back to the temple or eating “idol meat” disturbed them. 

Paul’s response indicated that the “we all know” faction was excluding fellow church members who thought differently. They might legitimately argue that eating meat offered to a non-existent god would not affect their relationship to the real God (v. 8), but Paul insisted they should “take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (v. 9). [DD]

The word rendered “liberty” in the NRSV normally means “authority.” Paul’s concern was that stronger believers should not focus on their rights, but should also consider others when making decisions. Suppose one convinced a weaker believer that it was okay to dine at the temple, but the experience of eating there drew the weaker brother or sister back into the sway of the pagan cult they had known for so long (v. 10). “So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed,” Paul wrote (v. 11). 

Paul used strong language – the danger was not that the weak would be offended by other’s exercise of “knowledge,” but that they would be destroyed. Paul reminded readers that Christ had died for those believers. If Jesus gave his life for the sake of the weaker brothers and sisters, shouldn’t the stronger believers be willing to change their eating habits to preserve them?

Those who sin against family members by “wounding” their consciences also sin against Christ, Paul said (v. 12), citing his own willingness to forgo meat altogether rather than to lead weaker members to violate their conscience and go astray (v. 13). 

Good enough: but how might this matter apply in our own day? We may also know fellow Christians who choose not to eat meat, not because of scruples involving idol worship, but out of concern for animal rights or for the environment. In either case, the central message of the text is that love and concern for one another is more important than exercising one’s prerogatives. 

But the text also raises the question of where the idols are in our own day. Are we tempted to put such trust in the materialistic ethos of our culture that we disregard the poor or seek only “our kind” when doing outreach? Are we so concerned with our own pleasure that we fail to consider others’ needs? Are there some who put allegiance to the nation on par with allegiance to God, leading weaker members to confuse patriotism with faith?

While we must take Paul’s point seriously, we must also be careful, as Richard B. Hayes has noted, not to let “the most narrow-minded and legalistic members of the church” hold the rest of the Christian community hostage to their strict interpretation of how Christians should behave (First Corinthians, Interpretation [Westminster John Knox Press, 2011], 145). We may have different opinions about whether dancing or drinking wine or same-sex marriages are acceptable, for example, but those are not issues that should lead weak persons to desert the faith. 

On the other hand, Hayes notes, we must remember that “idolatry can actually lead to destruction.” Our world has its own idols, he wrote, and “If we are tempted to be casual about dalliances with the idols that rule our culture’s symbolic world (primarily the gods of wealth, military power, and self-gratification), we would do well to reread 1 Corinthians 8 and consider the possible risks for those among us who are seeking to escape the pull of these forces” (Ibid.).

Eating meat offered to idols may not be an issue for us, but Paul’s discussion of it still provides us with plenty to chew on.