A Matter of Conscience

1 Corinthians 8:7–13 AV

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. 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. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 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; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

A letter that the Corinthian church sent to Paul asked whether it was permissible for Christians to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Apparently, this had become an issue in the church that had divided its members between the two sides.

But eating food offered to idols was not the real problem. In fact, it wasn’t a problem at all because, as Paul wrote in verse 4, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. Idols have no real power. The blocks of wood and stone that men bow down to can neither help them nor hurt them. So, how could there be a problem with eating meat sacrificed to idols? Meat that had killed as part of a pagan ritual is just meat — nothing more.

The real problem in Corinth was much deeper. Paul launched a direct attack on it in verse 1 when he wrote, Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Some in the Corinthian congregation were acting as if knowledge, all by itself, was superior to love. As long as a man understands and practices the truth, he can trample over the consciences of his weaker brothers without fault.

Several months ago, I gave you a modern example of the same idea. A certain seminary professor who touted knowledge but displayed very little love was asked by the seminary’s board to write a paper on love. When he refused to do so, the board fired him. Knowledge without love had bred arrogance in this man and destroyed his ability to work with others.

Strong or Weak?

Whether a person is strong or weak on a particular issue is determined by whether he agrees with you or not. If one is an Arminian, he will most likely believe that Calvinists are weak on free will; and of he’s a Calvinist, he’ll argue that Arminians are weak on God’s sovereignty.

In Corinth each side considered itself strong. Those who had no problem eating sacrificed meat were strong because they knew their rights and lived by them. They could eat meat offered to idols because they knew that it couldn’t defile them. But those whose consciences didn’t allow them to eat this meat also believed that their position was strongest. They had the Word of God on their side. Not only do the first and second commandments prohibit the worship of gods other than Jehovah and the use of images, which was clearly involved in the sacrifice, but the decrees of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 stipulated specifically that Gentile Christians were to abstain from food that had been sacrificed to idols (vv. 28–29). And ironically, Paul seems to have given them even more ammunition just two chapters later, where he equated eating sacrificed meat with fellowshipping with demons.

The truth, however, is that neither side had the knowledge that it claimed, and in that sense both sides were much weaker than anyone knew. Both misunderstood or failed to apply certain things. Verse 7 begins with these words: there is not in every man that knowledge. The weak did not understand that meat offered to idols was only meat, that it did not require those who ate it to participate in idol worship, and that the decrees of the Jerusalem Council were targeted at a specific problem (maintaining harmony between Jewish and Gentile Christians). And the strong had not considered how their eating of this meat relates to their weaker brothers, who had not yet come to the same understanding.

This means that Paul had two issues to address. One was the weak conscience of those who could not eat meat offered to idols. The other was the arrogance of those who did.

A Weak Conscience

Let’s consider the weak first. Throughout our text Paul used the word weak only in reference to those whose consciences didn’t allow them to eat sacrificed meat. They were weak because their consciences were easily wounded. The strong can take the meat or leave it, not caring what others would or would not do or think, but the weak had no choice.

Who were these people with weak consciences? Verse 7 tells us. They were believers who lived with conscience of the idol. That is, their consciences was still being informed by the idolatry that they had practiced before they became Christians. Because of this, they couldn’t separate the meat from the ceremony in which it had been sacrificed. In their minds eating the meat would be the same as participating in the ritual sacrifice that produced it and would, therefore, be sin.

Now, you need to understand two things about this.

First, those who would not eat were acting according to their conscience. The conscience is not the voice of the Holy Spirit whispering to our minds. Even unbelievers have a conscience. Al Capone may have murdered almost three dozen people, but he loved his son and spent time transposing music for him to play on the mandola. Rather, the conscience is simply the mind addressing ethical issues according to the standard that a person has been taught and to the degree that he has accepted that standard. Naturally, the conscience of a man who lived his whole life in idolatry would be very sensitive to first and second commandment issues. But that doesn’t mean that consciences are infallible. In this case, the consciences of the weak were clearly mistaken.

Second, although the consciences of the weak were wrong to believe that eating sacrificed meat automatically implicated them in idolatry, they were right to believe that eating it as long as they believed that it was sin would have been sin. Addressing a similar situation in his letter to the Romans Paul wrote, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean (Rom. 14:14); and again, He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). If you’re wondering how something that is not a sin in itself can become a sin just because someone believes it to be a sin, Charles Hodge explains. He wrote, “A person who does anything which he supposes God has forbidden or which he is not certain God has allowed clearly has a sinful disregard for divine authority.” The sin is acting as if what God days doesn’t matter.

The situation the weak faced in Corinth is not unlike situations that Christians face today. The problem is no longer eating foods that had been offered as part of a pagan sacrifice. It’s learning to deal with the sins that used to reign over us. Take drunkenness or drug abuse as an example. There’s nothing wrong with using pharmaceuticals or consuming alcohol. However, a believer whose weak conscience does not approve of certain drugs and alcohol because of prior abuse is better off avoiding such things until he understands the Word better.

But this is only part of what Paul told the weak. Avoiding things that one considers sinful, whether rightly or wrongly, is good. But the weak also need instruction, so that they can learn to appreciate God’s grace even more. So, Paul gave them the instruction they needed in verse 8. He wrote, 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. That is, there is no food on earth that can improve anyone’s standing before God or make him a better Christian. Nor is there any food that can harm him. Avoiding meat offered to idols doesn’t make one believer superior to another, and consuming it doesn’t make him inferior.

This is true because a person’s position on eating meats is only a preference. Today, church members have all kinds of preferences — low-fat diets, natural foods, avoiding artificial sweeteners, refusing vaccinations, and so forth. There may be good reasons why individuals choose these things. They may provide health benefits, particularly for those with certain conditions. But let’s make sure that we don’t judge others by our own choices, believing our particular inclinations make us more spiritual and less worldly than people who choose other paths.

A Strong Disregard for Others

The next few verses — verses 9 through 12 — speak to those who consider themselves strong. In fact, what Paul wrote, particularly in verse 9, is almost caustic. Just look at the phrase, this liberty of yours. Both in Greek and in English, it exposes Paul’s contempt for the arrogance of those in the Corinthian church who had run roughshod over their weaker brothers.

There’s also an irony here. The stronger brothers in Corinth were in the right as far as their right (that’s actually what the word translated liberty means) to make their own choices regarding food. They had this right because the Lord had given it to them. Romans 14:14 says, I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself. However, anything, including food, can become unclean by how we use it. Eating food offered to idols, though not sinful in itself, can become sinful if we use it to entice less mature believers to violate their consciences.

Our liberty in Jesus Christ must never be used to injure others. To the contrary, we have been given liberty to seek more opportunities to love one another. In the book of Galatians Paul reminded the brethren of this very thing. He said, For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Gal. 5:13–14).

But in Corinth the strong were not using their right to further the good of their weaker brethren. Instead, they used it as an obstacle, perhaps even a trap, for the weak. Paul told them to stop it. He warned them that such behavior was not in anyone’s best interest. To help them see this, Paul asked them two questions. His first question is in verse 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?

Just as eating the meat sacrificed to idols wasn’t wrong, neither was the fact that some believers were partaking of that sacrificed meat in the dining hall of the pagan temple. In chapter 10 Paul clearly allowed this. He wrote, If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake (v. 27). In fact, eating in pagan temples may have been a condition of employment for Christians who were also city employees, like Erastus (mentioned in Rom. 16:23). But of course the observation that someone is eating in the temple gives the impression that he may have participated in the sacrifice. That is, his actions could easily be mistaken.

But it becomes a problem when it encourages weaker brothers, who believe that eating meat sacrificed to idols is wrong, to do the same, thus causing them to sin by violating their consciences.

In a way, though, this situation doesn’t seem very realistic. If a weak brother saw a strong brother doing something that he believed was sinful, wouldn’t it have the opposite effect? Wouldn’t he conclude that his brother had become altogether too worldly? Wouldn’t it make him question the stronger brother’s faithfulness to the Lord, and make him even more careful not to follow after him? But let’s remember that sin is not always rational. In fact, all sin is ultimately irrational. It assumes that the sinner can frustrate a sovereign God’s plans. This just goes to show once again that the conscience is not infallible.

We find Paul’s second question in verse 11. He wrote, And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? (cf. Rom. 14:15). This ought to hit every true believer right between the eyes. The word perish (ἀπολεῖται) is pretty strong. It can also be translated “destroy.” It refers to any kind of loss. Verse 12 suggest that the loss Paul had in mind was the wounding of a weaker brother’s conscience. Now, if Jesus Christ suffered, bled and died to save an individual, and we have to assume that Paul had true believers in mind since he consistently refers to the weak as brothers, then what right do we have to destroy him? Is our enlightened understanding sufficient justification for this? Are we really willing to undo what Jesus has done? Shall we fight against the Lord and his will to save others? I hope not.

Wounding a weaker brother’s conscience is a sin against that brother. But more importantly it’s a sin against Jesus Christ himself. Why is it a sin against Christ? Because there is only one body — one church — and Jesus Christ is its head. An attack on any part of the body is therefore an attack against him. Any failure to show love and compassion to a part of his body is a failure to show love and compassion to him. Listen to the words of Jesus: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me (Matt. 25:42–46). These words should make us so extremely careful to seek the good of others in the household of faith, and not their harm.

To conclude this evening, please consider verse 13 with me. Doing the right thing sometimes means that we have to walk a fine line. If we say nothing to our weaker brothers, we allow them to continue to sin by silently confirming their mistaken views. But if we say entice them to do as we do without giving them time to grow, we run the risk of encouraging them to sin by violating their sincerely held belief that that something is wrong. It’s often hard to know which is right. Paul will give us some guidance when we come to chapter 10.

In this particular case, though, we have Paul’s example. He was willing to set aside his rights permanently, if necessary, rather than violate the conscience of another believer. In fact, Paul went beyond the matter at hand. The words translated meat (βρῶμα) and flesh (κρέα) in verse 12 denote any kind of food or animal flesh, not just meat offered to idols. Unlike those who considered themselves strong, he would rather give up any and every type of food than do injury to a brother in the Lord. If the weaker brother is not ready to move on, this must prevail.

And where did Paul learn not to trample over others but to seek their good. Was it not from Jesus, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but took upon himself the form of a servant to give us life by his death on the cross? How much then are we willing to give up for our brothers?

Paul began this chapter with a contrast between love and knowledge. Now we see why. The Corinthians thought that the choice before them was either/or. They could have knowledge or they could love one another, but they couldn’t have both. Paul wanted them to understand that their love for Jesus must be both/and. True knowledge must always be coupled with love. Otherwise, it cannot edify and it is not knowledge. Amen.