I Cor. 8:13 ... "If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble."
When a pagan took an animal to a temple to sacrifice it to the idol that he worshiped, very often only a small portion of the animal was actually burned in the fire. The remainder was taken to the market place where it was sold for fresh meat. When a Christian bought some of this meat, he could think of it simply as a food item to be taken home, cooked, and eaten for the nourishment and the enjoyment thereof. Or, he might think of it as meat that had originally been offered to an idol and, as such, still had the stigma of idolatry attaching to it. To such a person it seemed that to eat of the meat was in some way to involve himself in idolatry and thus to sin. The person, however, who could dissociate the meat from its idolatrous origin and look upon it simply as common food, felt that there was no sin involved in eating it. In Gentile regions, such as Corinth, where Christian communities sprang up, this matter of meat offered to idols constituted a real problem.
In I Corinthians 8, Paul deals with this problem in a straightforward way. He first points out that since idols are nonexistent, meat offered to them is the same afterwards as before. That is, nothing from what is nonexistent could attach to the meat to make it defiling. Christians who understood this clearly, as Jewish Christians surely did, could eat the meat without a thought in reference to idols. Paul states, however, that "not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled," (v.7). Here he is doubtless referring in large part to Christians who had lately been converted from idolatry. The former practices and ideas involved in them were still too vivid and strong. Perhaps their minds, trained by the Gospel, told them that the idols were false and powerless, but their hearts yet felt their influence. When Paul discussed this same problem in Romans 15, he designated as "strong" those who could eat the meat in question without misgivings. Those who felt it sinful to do so he called the "weak." Because they were weak, however, they were no less Christian brethren than those who were strong. Therefore they were to be respected and treated with kind consideration. He cautioned the strong brethren who were enlightened that "knowledge makes (one) arrogant, but love edifies," (I Cor. 8:1). That is, love should be the rule that guides, not a knowledge that dogmatically asserts one's right to do what does not offend himself and cause him to sin. So, in v.9 the apostle advises, "But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak." In other words, they must not offend their weaker brothers by eating the questionable meat. Love would help them forbear in order to preserve the fragile consciences of the weaker Christians.
Today we are not faced with the problems of idolatry as such, but there are numerous situations where things allowable to Christians with greater knowledge are temptations and serious occasions of stumbling to those less enlightened. Our text instructs us that the law of love forbids us to exercise our liberty before our weaker brethren lest we confuse them, trouble them, or perhaps ensnare them in a situation where they will violate their consciences and sin. The liberty is ours to use only when we know that it is troubling no brother or sister in Christ. And before we proceed to engage in that thing, we must be very sure such an influence is not being exerted. We must notice the warning in v.12 that "in wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
