|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 4, NUMBER 33, AUGUST 15, 2004 “I WILL EAT NO FLESH WHILE THE WORLD STANDETH, LEST I MAKE MY BROTHER TO OFFEND.” (1 Cor. 8:13) This is certainly a lengthy title to an article, but it aptly expresses the principle set forth by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8. There are several specific questions that are considered in this chapter, the details of which are not particularly germane to us. However, the underlying lesson contained therein is most assuredly applicable to you and me. The specific questions are: (a) Could a Christian attend a banquet in the temple of an idol? (b) Could a Christian eat meat sacrificed to an idol in the home of a believing or unbelieving friend? (c) Could a Christian eat meat sacrificed to an idol if he inadvertently bought it at the market? Verse 1 sets forth a basic principle by which all questions among brethren are to be handled. It says, “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” Any answer that they arrived at concerning these questions had to be arrived at by reasoning based upon God’s word tempered by love. Isn’t that how any controversy among brethren should be approached? Paul goes on and shows that in such consideration a person who thinks he has superior knowledge but does not approach the discussion with love doesn’t even know the most basic thing. Verses 4-7 emphasize that an idol is absolutely useless and meaningless. The pagan world was full of many different meaningless gods and idols, but there is only one true God. The problem was that not every Christian in Corinth had reached the same level of spiritual maturity and knowledge. Remembering that the Corinthian Christians had come out of a background of idolatry, it is easy to understand that not all of them viewed an idol as meaningless and worth nothing. Many still felt that to eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol was to still somehow be involved in its worship. Consider verse 8. “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.” In other words, food didn’t affect their relationship with God. The truth was that it didn’t matter if they ate or not, but not all of them had that same degree of understanding and knowledge. Look at verses 9 – 10. “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:” Again, not all Christians are at the same level of knowledge and spiritual maturity. Paul urged those who did understand the unimportance of idols to be mindful of their brothers and sisters in Christ who did not yet understand. They were not to let their knowledge be an occasion of stumbling to the others. Perhaps seeing their brother eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol would prompt the less mature brother or sister to violate their own conscience and eat. Certainly the spiritually mature would not want to invite a brother or sister to their home and serve them such meat that would cause them to violate what they believed. Verse 11 puts it so clearly. Paul wrote, “And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” That is such a powerful and logical statement. Christ died for all, including the brother or sister who had not yet achieved the same level of knowledge. That being the case, shouldn’t the more knowledgeable, more mature brother be willing to forgo even something that he had the liberty to do in order to help the weaker? The obvious answer to that question is yes. Indeed, verse 12 says, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” To demand all of our rights and all of our liberties even if it creates difficulty, and by that I mean an occasion to sin, to a weaker, less knowledgeable brother, is to violate the very character of Christ and to repudiate His work. A very simple example would be the non-religious celebration of Christmas. I believe that a Christian can engage in the secular celebration of Christmas – a tree, the giving of gifts, the gathering together with family, and so forth. I have known numerous Christians over the years who did not hold the same view. I believe it would be sinful for me to try to force them to attend a Christmas celebration, causing them to violate their conscience. Here is another simple example of the principle. I knew a Christian who believed it to be wrong for a Christian to attend a professional baseball game because alcohol was sold there. I really believed that he was wrong, but I would not have continually invited him to a baseball game. We may have discussed it, and indeed we did, but I would not try to force him to violate his conscience. These are not the best examples, but they help to understand. The real principle is to put the needs of others before myself. That is the real character and nature of the work of Christ. As Paul said, using Christ as the illustration, “in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves” (Philippians 2:3). To demand my own way or the exercise of all my liberties to the detriment of my brother or sister in Christ is totally un-Christlike and wrong. Thus Paul concludes 1 Cor. 8 with the words, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” Greg Litmer
|