Christians And The Food Sacrificed To Idols
Having made the first qualification that the way of love supersedes the way of knowledge, Paul returns to the question of εἰδωλοθύτων with the specific issue at hand being the right to βρώσεως “eating.” This verbal noun, not found in verse 1, emphasizes the actual eating of idol food. Thus the issue is not idol food itself but the consumption of it. Again, Paul quoted from the slogan of the Corinthians in order to qualify their rationale to have the freedom or rights to do as they will with regards to eating idol food.
The slogan, just like verse 1, begins with οἴδαμεν ὅτι. This is the claim of knowledge by the Corinthians. There are two propositions to what they affirm― οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κόσμῳ “an idol is nothing in the world” and οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς “there is no God but one.” These two propositions together form a strong affirmation of monotheism. These propositions form the content of the knowledge that the Corinthians claimed everyone possesses (v. 1). Surely we have here propositions that echo the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4 and perhaps other idol-rejecting texts of the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Deut 32:17; 2 Kgs 19:18; 2 Chr 13:9; Ps 115:4-8; Isa 37:19; 44:9-20; Jer 2:11; 5:7; 10:3-6; 16:20; Hos 8:6). There is continuity in the belief that Yahweh alone is God and idols, be it real or imaginary to the pagan worshipers, are insignificant and non-existent in the world compared to Yahweh. This slogan is certainly affirmed by Paul to some extent as he expounds on his understanding of Christian monotheism in verses 5-6. Verses 5-6 is not part of the slogan of the Corinthians. Fee convincingly shows this to be the case as he points out that the explanatory γὰρ is a strictly Pauline feature, the anacolouthon makes little sense as a Corinthian slogan, and the many gods and many lords in verse 5 are set in contrast to the one God and one Lord in verse 6.
To the Corinthians, the knowledge that there is only one God and that idols do not have any ontological reality should give Christians the liberty to eat idol food and participate in cultic meals. There should be no reason to avoid contact with idol temples or idol food since they do not exist. However, while Paul affirms the belief in one true God, he also acknowledges the supposed reality of the “so-called” gods and the actual existence of many gods and many lords whether in heaven or on earth. While these “so-called” gods do not exist, Paul recognizes the reality of idolatry and the demonic influence that it has upon those who participate (10:19-20). In verse 6, Paul gives “an authoritative statement of the content of Christian faith.” By the use of the adversative ἀλλά “yet” Paul forms an antithesis against the “many gods” and “many lords” to heighten God’s being one and the Lord’s being one. This emphasizes the uniqueness of the only God. Moreover, the parallel between “one God” and “one Lord” are followed by the personal designations “the Father” and “Jesus Christ” respectively. Paul uses the key words “God,” “Lord,” and “one” from Deuteronomy 6:4 in which “God” and “Lord” both refer to the deity who is declared to be “one.” Thus the title κύριος being designated of Jesus Christ ought to affirm that He is God as the Shema designates this same title to God. Following the appellation in each case is a set of prepositional phrases that express both the divine activities of each person and indirectly the functional subordination of Jesus to the Father. God the Father is the ultimate source and the ultimate destiny of all things and Jesus Christ is the divine mediator through whom God created all things and redeemed us. Shen, also observes that “inherent in this mediatorial work of Christ is His propitiatory sacrifice for the sinner, whom Paul vividly portrayed as ‘the brother for whom Christ died’ (8:11).”
With this assertion of Christian monotheism, Paul argues that the Corinthian believers have a relationship to God and therefore their action must be governed by this relationship as well as the relationship to other believers and not by their rights. This ought to be the knowledge that they possessed. Ironically, they who claimed to possess knowledge (8:1, 4) do not really know as they ought to know (8:2, 7)! Therefore, Paul, referring to those Corinthians who claimed to have knowledge, declares that not everyone know this. The knowledge that Paul refers to in this verse is no longer the knowledge that the Corinthians claimed to possessed―an idol is nothing and there is no God but one. Otherwise, Paul would have educated these believers because this is the fundamental truth for a believer to know. Furthermore, the usual identification of those who do not have knowledge are those whose conscience are weak. However, Paul never faulted their weak conscience in abstaining from idol food but he warned the ones who presumed on “knowledge” to eat idol food with impunity. In contrast, there are those who do not act according to the knowledge of those Corinthians but according to their own conscience. As they have been accustomed to idol worship up to the present, whenever they eat idol food, it is generally taken as food sacrificed to idols. Since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. Moral conscience is probably what is in view. This refers “to a kind of moral referee that pronounces on the rightness or wrongness of one’s action.” The idea of weak does not refer to one who lacks knowledge as is often understood. For example, Raymond E. Brown says the weak are those “whose understanding is imperfect and who might think that sitting and eating in the temple of a false god involves worship of that god and thus might commit idolatry by eating.” Rather it denotes one who is physically weak or ill and figuratively refers to one who is powerless, vulnerable. It is in this sense that Paul can identified with the weak (1 Cor 9:22). In such case, Paul is sympathizing with those whose conscience are easily exposed to doing what is morally wrong. When they sinned, they are defiled in the sense that they are made guilty. As moral conscience “is not primarily concerned with preparation for approaching decisions (conscientia antecedens) but with assessing and condemning acts already committed (conscientia consequens),” the weak when he/she has succumbed to wrongdoing will feel the guilt of what has been committed.
Avoid Being a Stumbling Block (8:8-12)
Paul then takes up the cause of the weak in conscience as he continues to dissuade the Corinthians in eating food offered to idols in this section. Verse 8 states that “food does not bring us before God’s presence, neither are we worse off if we do not eat nor are we better off if we do eat.” The first part of the verse is easily understood that food, specifically idol food (v. 10), has nothing to do with our relationship with God. However, the second part seems to be saying the opposite about idol food. Normally, it will be understood by those who abstain from idol food that they are better off before God while those who eat idol food will be worse off. Furthermore, whose viewpoint is this? Is it Paul’s or the Corinthians’? Following the view taken by Fee, the writer believes that this is another argument of the Corinthians to which Paul will make another qualification.
What needs to be noted is that what is here said about food is almost exactly what Paul says elsewhere about circumcision (7:19; Gal 5:6; 6:15). Very likely this reflects Paul’s own position on being “kosher,” that food, like circumcision, does not “present us” to God. We are none the worse if we do not eat such food (as with not being circumcised) and we are no better if we do (as with being circumcised). Such are strictly matters of indifference to God.
This argument for the Corinthians meant they have the rights in any circumstances to eat food offered to idols. However, Paul thinks otherwise as uses an adversative conjunction δὲ and qualifies such argument by the imperative of warning βλέπετε. The warning is delivered in the strongest sense with the use of μή plus the subjunctive verb γένηται. It is because μή plus the subjunctive verb can be used after verbs of fearing, warning, watching out for, etc. and serves as a warning or suggests caution or anxiety. It has the force of a command. The Corinthians, by the exercise of their rights, should never become a stumbling block to the weak, that is, they should never be the cause to lead the weak to fall back into idolatry!
Paul now illustrates the possibility of the Corinthians causing the weak to stumble and utilizes a rhetorical question to stress the harm done by the one who has knowledge in verse 10. He is sarcastic as he addresses the Corinthian as having knowledge and then with tongue in cheek even uses the word οἰκοδομηθήσεται “will be built up” to describe what will result to the weak conscience when that person sees him participating in temple meals. Eating of cultic meals was a regular part of worship in antiquity even to Israel (Deut 14:22-26; Exod 24:11; 1 Sam 9:13; 1 Kgs 1:25; Hos 8:13). In fact, deSilva notes the pervasiveness of the pagan culture in those days by which anyone could easily have been influenced to participate in cultic meals.
As in any major city in the first-century Greco-Roman world, the traditional Greco-Roman gods were well represented in religious sites and activities. . . . There was no distinction between religion and secular life, no separation of church and state, as it were. Traditional Greco-Roman religion undergirded most aspects of society. The gods stood behind earthly rulers and authority, through whom they manifested their favor, each divinity was held to watch over the city, the guild and the family especially devoted to its providential care. . . . Civic festivals, the Isthmian games, meetings and dinners of the collegia, and private dinner parties all included some acknowledgment of one or another of these “many gods,” and acts of reverence toward these gods (whether heartfelt or not) surrounded, indeed cradled, most of life.
Thiessen, on the other hand, categorizes the weak brother to be member of the lower class and describes the scenario during those times:
Members of the lower classes seldom ate meat in their everyday lives. For that they were largely dependent on public distributions of meat which were always organized around a ceremonial occasion. . . . As a result, they knew meat almost exclusively as an ingredient in pagan religious celebrations, and the acts of eating meat and worshiping idols must have been much more closely connected for them than for members of the higher strata who were more accustomed to consuming meat.
The result of exercising one’s rights without consideration of other’s well-being is costly as Paul uses the verb ἀπόλλυται “is destroyed.” This word probably refers to eternal loss because one is behaving contrary to the dictates of conscience. “What is in view is a former idolater falling back into the grips of idolatry. Only one who takes seriously, as Paul did, the demonic character of idolatry (see 10:19-22) can appreciate the grip it has on the lives of those who are bound by its powers.” Ironically, the weak person is a brother for whom Christ died.
Paul brings the argument to a close by describing the gravity of the misuse of one’s rights based on the presumed knowledge one has. This is now expressed in terms of “sin.” It is not only sin against the brothers but also against Christ. The switch from singular to plural may suggest that the sin is against the church body. If that is the case, then this reflects the understanding of the solidarity of Christ with His body as a whole and the solidarity of a member to the body as a whole as well (12:12-27).
Give Up One’s Right Out of Love (8:13)
Paul concludes the argument in chapter with a personal commitment on his part to give up his own rights if eating meat will become a stumbling block to another. His commitment to what he has been teaching all along should be a strong reason for the Corinthians to follow suit as he walk the talk. This personal sacrifice for the sake of another’s welfare is not much. To put it very pointedly: “Christ laid down his life for the weak brother; you will not even lay down your fork and knife for him!” Paul will continue to use his own life as an illustration of what it means to give up one’s rights out of a loving concern for other in chapter 9.
Conclusion
Food offered to idols continues to be an issue among many Asians, particularly the Buddhists, Hindus, and those who practice ancestor worship. As a believer in Christ, we should never participate in any form of idolatry by taking part in the practices of offering food, incense, flowers, or anything to idols or ancestors. We should refrain from consuming food that has been offered to idols for the sake of the conscience of the weak. This is not saying that we can eat if the weak is not around. Paul does not give us the permission to do so even though he does not categorically prohibits in chapter 8. This he will do in chapter 10.
Though Paul addresses food offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8–11:1, the principles he set forth in chapter 8 dealing with the exercise of one’s rights based on love and knowledge rather than solely on knowledge can be applied in different areas of life today. Issues such as taking part in Marian procession and fiesta come to mind.
