1 Corinthians 8: 1-3, The danger of (mere) knowledge
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.
Love is more important than mere knowledge. (Knowledge, in itself, is not wrong, but merely insufficient.)
Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God.
Love is more important than mere knowledge. (Knowledge, in itself, is not wrong, but merely insufficient.)
1 Corinthians 8:4-6
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Be careful not to mislead an ignorant, naive brother.
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Be careful not to mislead an ignorant, naive brother.
1 Corinthians 8: 7-13
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.
When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.
When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
The principle here is a solid one. The food offered to idols is irrelevant. But the reactions of your brothers and sisters may be very important. Love is much more important than knowledge!
Sadly, like many scriptural principles, this can be abused. I've seen legalistic church leaders say, "Such-and-such is wrong." Then when someone says, "No, it is not", they respond with, "Well, we've told LOTS of people that it IS wrong and so if YOU do it, you will 'offend the weaker brother'. So it is still prohibited." This "weaker brother" argument has been used in prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, casual dress in church, going to movies, going to dances, reading Harry Potter, subscribing to cable, watching the Simpsons...; the list of legalistic prohibitions in fundamentalist churches can be quite long, driven by abusing this good principle.
In my experience, the "weaker brother" (or sister) is more likely to be hurt by legalistic restrictions, restrictions which give the impression that Christianity is a mere set of rules. This legalism has destroyed many, replacing the valuable Gospel with a horrible tangle of moral codes.
In the next chapter Paul moves on principles about ministry, including some personal details about his own motives.
Sadly, like many scriptural principles, this can be abused. I've seen legalistic church leaders say, "Such-and-such is wrong." Then when someone says, "No, it is not", they respond with, "Well, we've told LOTS of people that it IS wrong and so if YOU do it, you will 'offend the weaker brother'. So it is still prohibited." This "weaker brother" argument has been used in prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, casual dress in church, going to movies, going to dances, reading Harry Potter, subscribing to cable, watching the Simpsons...; the list of legalistic prohibitions in fundamentalist churches can be quite long, driven by abusing this good principle.
In my experience, the "weaker brother" (or sister) is more likely to be hurt by legalistic restrictions, restrictions which give the impression that Christianity is a mere set of rules. This legalism has destroyed many, replacing the valuable Gospel with a horrible tangle of moral codes.
In the next chapter Paul moves on principles about ministry, including some personal details about his own motives.
No comments:
Post a Comment