SERMON: “Love and Liberty, Part 2” (1 Cor. 8:4–13)
“Love and Liberty, Part 2” (1 Cor. 8:4–13)
Series: “1 Cor: Holiness from Messes” #29 Text: 1
Corinthians 8:4–13
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: May 31, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
Introduction
It’s fascinating to observe how health-conscious many people
have become. In one sense, this is a net positive for society. We’ve faced a kind of pandemic known as obesity,
which can shorten lives through various health complications. This stems partly from living in a prosperous
society where we move less and food (both healthy and unhealthy) is abundant. I’m certainly working on exercising more and
eating less, and I appreciate the videos, tips, and recommendations out there!
Yet some begin to go overboard. Health and fitness can become their entire
identity, where they constantly discuss their struggles and offer unsolicited
advice to others. This worsens when they
add religious demands — some claim it’s sinful to be overweight,
imposing their subjective standards on others’ consciences and ignoring
genetics, life circumstances, or other factors. I once even read a comment suggesting one
should leave a church if the pastor was obese! Certain splinter groups even forbid specific
foods or drinks and demand certain fitness levels to somehow draw a person
closer to God.
This is one example among many where personal convictions
cross into legalism in areas the Bible does not directly address. These morally “gray” areas are known as adiaphora
— the “indifferent things” of the faith — and we began considering that this
past Sunday. These are not necessarily unimportant
issues, but they involve incidentals of worship, daily living, family,
recreation, work, holy days, and activities which God has neither commanded nor
forbidden. Each believer must develop
personal convictions about such matters.
The example of one such issue is in our text — the question
of eating meat offered to idols. Some
held strong opinions and feelings on both sides of this issue. Paul addresses those who, from one
perspective, seemed more mature because they understood their liberty to eat in
this area while others hesitated.
It’s possible to have the right ideas about these questions while
applying them wrongly. As we continue to
see the need for love to be above all else in questionable situations, we note
three issues today. First, Christian
love will seek knowledge about personal liberty (vv. 4–6). Second, Christian love will orient us toward
others from personal liberty (vv. 7–10).
Third, Christian love will consider the cause of Christ over personal
liberty (vv. 11–13). Let’s consider this
together:
First, Christian Love Will Seek Knowledge about Personal Liberty (vv. 4–6)
Therefore,
concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is
nothing 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 one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
Again, last time, we noted that it is important that we gain
knowledge, and Paul is picking back up on the thoughts he established in v. 1. Christians are not called to deal with
questionable issues by pretending they don’t exist. They also, in the name of love, shrug their
shoulders at what everyone else is doing while refusing to study the issue for
themselves. Ignorance isn’t a spiritual
virtue, after all — knowledge just must be balanced by love of God and the
brethren.
So, Paul begins with a “therefore” to establish this. He quotes the Corinthians’ slogan and
supports it theologically. The “strong” believers correctly understood a
Christian monotheism: idols are powerless.[1] Yet Paul will show their application lacked
love.
Once again, it’s important to note that Paul isn’t excusing
actual or objective idolatry, though some subjectively thought their brethren
were committing that act. The “stronger”
Corinthian Christians correctly knew an idol “is nothing.” The Greek can be read to say that they have no
real existence[2]
or power. Why? Idols are inanimate, being only stone, metal,
or wood. This is why Scripture
repeatedly mocks them: they cannot speak, hear, walk, help, or hinder (Psa. 115:4–7;
Jer. 10). Paul and all mature Christians
grasp this truth and don’t get spooked while walking by an idol, and some
Christians might have used this as a slogan “to justify consuming meat
sacrificed to idols.”[3]
Paul doesn’t stop there. He says they know two things: that “there is
no idol in the world” and that “there is no God but one… and one Lord, Jesus
Christ.” Paul alludes to the Shema
of Deuteronomy 6:4 — “Hear, O Israel! Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one!” This great statement, memorized by successive
generations of Jews, affirms the oneness of God and excludes all other pretenders.
And there are demonic pretenders. Verse 5 adds nuance: “For even if there are
so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and
many lords...” Paul acknowledges pagan
claims without endorsing them. As one
study notes, “Some were outright fakes and some were manifestations of demons,
but none were truly gods (Ps. 115:4–7; Acts 19:26).”[4] Paul later says there are demonic realities
behind some idolatry (1 Cor. 10:20), and Daniel 10 demonstrates that there are real
malevolent spirits behind world powers.
Yet, these are not gods. In fact,
Christ has disarmed them at the cross (Col. 2:15), so Christians need not fear
the existence of the demonic.
Paul takes the Shema and applies it christologically
in v. 6,[5]
further emphasizing its importance. Both
“Lord” and “God” from Deuteronomy 6:4 now apply (distinctly yet unitedly) to
Father and Son.[6] Paul affirms
strict Jewish monotheism while placing Jesus within the divine identity. This means that, while the Father is the
source of all things and we live for Him, Jesus is the agent of creation and
sustenance (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), and we exist because we are His new
creations. The hint in these verses, though,
is that this understanding demands our obedience!
Of course, the issue here is not the idols
but the eating of meat sacrificed to them.
This connects to the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:20) and earlier in the
letter. Paul agrees with the well-taught
believers: idols are nothing, so food offered to them is not inherently
defiled. Yet, we’ll soon see that isn’t
the whole matter.
Still, knowledge itself matters. Christians must not ignore issues or shrug in
“love” without study. Ignorance is not a
virtue. Yet knowledge alone puffs up (v.
1), while love builds up. The “strong”
had correct theology but needed love to guide its use, bringing us to the next
point:
Second, Christian Love Will Orient Us Toward Others from Personal Liberty
(vv. 7–10)
However, 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. But food will not commend us to
God. We neither lack if we do not eat, nor abound if we do eat. But see to it that this authority of yours
does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge,
dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be built up
to eat things sacrificed to idols?
Everyone hasn’t developed all the same convictions about
issues. Now, that doesn’t mean that
everyone’s opinion is equally right, but it does mean Christians should pause
for a moment in humility. This is
especially true if the reason someone has a different conviction is because he’s
younger in the faith or perhaps overly sensitive to a particular issue. If a Christian thinks himself more mature but
proceeds with his personal liberty without regard to his brother, he actually
demonstrates immaturity and selfishness.
That’s why Paul begins v. 7 with a contrast. Not every believer had processed the
implications of monotheism. Some, former
pagans, for instance, still associated meat with idols due to lifelong habit. Their consciences remained tender and
misinformed.
Thus, for them, to eat meat sacrificed to an idol meant
crossing a line in their soul. As an
example, we might think of the person who has strong struggles with addiction to
alcohol, or who has been saved from a family that overindulged — while the correct
knowledge would be that drinking isn’t a sin, that person might feel like they
are participating in something unholy to drink.
The “weaker” Corinthians thought the idol was real, or at least felt
guilt, shame, and fear with the act of eating, like they had just committed idolatry.[7] This defilement does not occur because the
food is able to defile, but the act becomes an unclean thing to them (Rom.
14:14, 22–23).
Love requires patience here.
The conscience has been created by God within human beings and “is the
capacity to evaluate acts or intentions as either right or wrong.”[8] Because we live in a fallen world, the
conscience is touched by sin and can be wrong like anything else in us. Yet, those with true knowledge would know it
is safer for their “weaker” brethren to operate according to conscience. Violating conscience risks greater spiritual
harm.
In fact, consider the corrective Paul gives to the “knowledgeable”
in v. 8. He says that food is
spiritually neutral. The kingdom is
“righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,” not in “eating or
drinking” (Rom. 14:17). As one study
notes, “No one is superior or inferior before God based on what food he chews
and swallows (cf. Mark 7:18–19; Acts 10:9–16; Rom. 14:17).”[9] Neither asceticism nor indulgence earns favor
with God. Some “strong” believers may
have thought temple dining demonstrated superior spirituality, or that forcing
others to eat made the “weaker” brothers more spiritual, and Paul rejects this.[10]
Then comes the warning in verse 9: “But see to it that this
authority of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.” The term “authority” in this verse is most
often translated “right,” meaning that they have permission to engage in this
activity or the liberty to do so. Note also
that he doesn’t say “ ‘so-called’ authority” like he said “so-called gods” in
v. 5. In other words, the “strong” had
genuine freedom in neutral matters.
Yet, liberty must serve love, not selfishness (Gal. 5:13). As one study explains, “Paul warns those who
are theologically correct on the issue of eating food offered to idols not to
exercise their rights in a way that harms a fellow believer who has a weak
conscience on this issue (v. 9).”[11] Paul says some might become a “stumbling
block,” an obstacle causing someone to fall.
He doesn’t simply mean that some can get tripped up in some minor way, but
that some unbelievers might never find salvation and some Christians might fall
into idolatry or guilt-ridden compromise.[12]
Paul illustrates this problem in v. 10. He writes, “For if someone sees you, who have
knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak,
be built up to eat things sacrificed to idols?” He’s likely not hypothetical here, for temple
banquets were not just religious; they were also opportunities for social
gatherings such as weddings, birthdays, etc.[13] A knowledgeable Christian could eat there with
a clear conscience by simply not engaging in any idolatrous acts, but a weaker
brother might “attach religious significance to it and become confused about
allegiance to Christ.”[14] That could embolden him to eat against
conscience.
Paul uses “built up” of the conscience
ironically in this verse.[15]
Though the word here for “building up”
is almost always positive, in context, Paul intends the reader to understand this
as a bad situation — perhaps because some of the “strong” Corinthians thought they
were helping. It’s not that the weaker
brother is gaining a stronger, more informed conscience, but that he is
learning to be bolder in ignoring his conscience. Love should build up positively (8:1), but
selfish liberty “builds up” the weak toward sin. The weak are, in a sense, become “puffed up,”
with nothing of substance. This path
leads to ruin.
Mature Christians must consider others. Different convictions exist, especially among
newer or sensitive believers. Love
should motivate believers to deal differently with these issues. For instance, “knowledgeable” Christians
could choose private venues to eat rather than eating in public if they know
some might have a problem.[16] We should care if we are causing a brother to
stumble.
If we aren’t quite there, though, there’s one
final point that should catch our attention:
Third, Christian Love Will Consider the Cause of Christ over Personal Liberty
(vv. 11–13)
For through your
knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And in that way, by sinning against the
brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.
Therefore, if food causes my brother to
stumble, I will never eat meat again—ever, so that I will not cause my brother
to stumble.
Sometimes, Christians look down on other believers as unintelligent,
uneducated, or even potential obstacles to be overcome. Yet, Christ sees all of us as saints, as
dearly beloved brothers and sisters for whom He died. So, when we transgress against the body of
Christ, we sin against Christ. As such,
we need to have a different attitude toward our personal liberties, as the
Apostle Paul demonstrates here.
Consider what he says in v. 11: Some are being ruined by
these mature, knowledgeable Christians!
The term for “ruined” can mean eternal destruction,[17] and
if some who are not truly Christian sees them and stumble back into sin, that
could very well be the result. In this
context, though, Paul seems to be warning of severe spiritual harm for fellow
believers. With a seared conscience, a
person loses his ability to distinguish between right and wrong, leading to spiritual
ruin and even death (cf. 1 Cor. 11:30).[18]
This is a brother because Paul emphasizes the relationship —
it is a “brother for whose sake Christ died.” While this could refer to eternal destruction,
the next phrase is reserved for those who are the elect. Christians cannot lose their salvation
because Christ holds them in His hand, nor can their activities cause others to
lose theirs. However, a kind of temporal
destruction is still possible, the likely meaning here.
This is no abstract person, then. Christ’s concerns should be our preeminent
concerns, and this is someone He purchased with His own blood. If Christ loved him enough to die, how can we
treat him carelessly? Our knowledge must
never undo what Christ accomplished. We
must not tear down God’s work for food (Rom. 14:15, 20).
Verse 12 deepens the indictment. Paul writes, “And in that way, by sinning
against the brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin
against Christ.” By “ruining” a saint of
the Lord, you transgress against the Lord Himself, just as the devil
would. To the nations, Christ counts the
sins against “the least of these” His brothers as sins against Himself (Matt.
25:31–46) — would we willingly want to be in that category?[19] Paul discovered this all too well on the
Damascus Road (Acts 9:4–5).[20] Sinning against the church is sinning against
its Head. Thus, wounding a weak
conscience is serious; it’s like striking a vulnerable family member.
Paul gives another option.
In v. 13, he says, “Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I
will never eat meat again — ever, so that I will not cause my brother to
stumble.” The double negative is
emphatic. Paul would become a vegetarian permanently rather than harm a
brother.
This is not absolute law but principled love. As one study notes, “He does not actually
promise that he will never eat meat, but he states as strongly as possible that
he would absolutely give it up forever rather than allow someone to suffer
spiritual ruin by eating it.”[21] He models what he calls others to emulate.
Conclusion
Paul does not say the knowledgeable must surrender every freedom
to every person who might have a complaint,[22] and
he addresses the flip side of this in Romans 14. The weak brother is not a tyrant that gets to
dictate the convictions of others any more than the “strong” brother should
be.
Yet, the “strong” should loved and patiently teach the “weak,”
recognizing the differing convictions out there. And love leads us to willingly limit liberty
for others’ good at times. Let’s do so for
the glory of God!
So, may God’s love guide us in addressing adiaphora, whether
in entertainment, politics, health practices, Sabbaths, or holidays. Knowledge is good, but without love, it puffs
up. So, may we use our liberty to build
up instead of tearing down, considering Christ’s cause above our rights.
[1] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The
Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 379.
[2] Legacy Standard
Bible, (Three Sixteen Publishing, 2022).
[3] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael
S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R.
Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife Study
Bible, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Co 8:4.
[4] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word
Pub., 1997), 1741.
[5] Barry, et. al, 1 Co 8:6.
[6] Ciampa and Rosner, 383.
[7] MacArthur.
[8] Roy B. Zuck, A
Biblical Theology of the New Testament, electronic ed., (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1994), 265.
[9] Andrew David Naselli, Romans–Galatians, 2020, X, 297.
[10] David K. Lowery, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2,
521–522.
[11] Naselli.
[12] Ciampa and Rosner, 390–391.
[13] Ibid., 391–392.
[14] F. Alan Tomlinson, CSB
Study Bible: Notes, 2017, 1823.
[15] Barry, et. al., 1 Co 8:10.
[16] Ibid.
[17] J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, Eds., ESV Global Study Bible, (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2012), 1615–1616.
[18] Lowery, 522.
[19] Barry, et. al., 1 Co 8:12.
[20] Lowery.
[21] Ciampa and Rosner, 394.
[22] Lowery.