But see lest anywise this your right [to eat] itself be a stumbling-block to the weak.
The question at Corinth was whether a Christian could eat meat that had first been offered to an idol. Paul has already granted the knowledge that settles it: an idol is nothing. Now he puts a guard on that freedom, because someone else is watching.
Some at Corinth pressed a claim, and the word Paul picks up is theirs.
The next question was about eating things offered to idols. It seems to have been raised by the conduct of those who pleaded their liberty or right (exousia) in such a matter. The apostle examined this plea and dealt with it. In doing so he raised a point they had clearly overlooked. He fully admitted that the idol is nothing (v. 4), yet knowledge in such matters is not everything; for knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
Paul does not withdraw the liberty. He asks how we carry it.
The liberty of God's children is absolute, but they are expected to use it as imitators of God. We have to consider not ourselves only, but both our brothers and the world. A believer may be walking without care and yet with an untroubled conscience. But this is dangerous. We must take care. While we enjoy our liberty — in one sense blamelessly — we can become a stumbling block to others without knowing it. A showy use of liberty rarely fails to injure both the boaster and those who watch his ways. True grace, because it is free and knows its happiness in fellowship with God, makes no effort to seem free. Instead it will seek to use its liberty in love. It considers the weak. It neither despises them nor tempts them by a bad example to act in anything beyond their faith.
Weakness here is not moral failure. It is a conscience that cannot yet act on what the mind knows.
There will always be many believers who cannot see such matters in the calm, level light of pure knowledge. They do not rise above their feelings and other personal impressions. Once they knew the meat had been offered that way, they could not get away from the feelings it stirred. They had "conscience of the idol" and it troubled them constantly. Their conscience was weak, because it lacked the clear and happy knowledge Paul enjoyed. Being weak, it was defiled.
The danger is imitation. A weaker believer copies the act without sharing the conviction behind it. This reaches far beyond the question of meat.
Suppose someone had liberty to eat meat offered to idols, with no scruples of conscience. He must still be careful not to stumble those whose conscience is weak. True knowledge is considerate, not overbearing... This principle applies to all kinds of situations we may be in today. A weak Christian may see another go somewhere his own conscience forbids. Because the stronger Christian went, he goes too. The stronger has therefore encouraged the other to ignore his conscience. God would not let any believer perish. But my heartless treatment of him is, in effect, showing no concern about whether he perishes. And Christ died for him!
Paul goes on to warn that the weak brother may be destroyed. One writer explains what is lost, and what is not.
The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means instead that a wounded conscience would put the weak brother out of action. It would destroy him as to his spiritual state, and so as to his testimony and service. No believer who falls under a cloud through a defiled conscience is of any use in the wars of the Lord.
Yet the safety of the sheep should not soften the warning.
It is of the greatest importance to let Scripture have its full effect on the soul. We must not blunt its edge with the dogmas of systematic theology... The same authority that says "My sheep shall never perish" also warns us. We must not cause a weak brother to perish by a self-indulgent, unloving use of our liberty. It will be our wisdom, and certainly our moral safety, to listen to the one as well as to the other.
Waiving a liberty is not giving it up. You can still hold it before God.
"Are we then never to use our undoubted liberty?" Yes, says the apostle. If you have faith to use it, keep it to yourself before God. Use it in private, not in public, when using it might stumble a weak brother.
- Knowledge — the Corinthians were right about the idol. But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Being right was never the whole question.
- Right — the word Paul takes up is exousia, a liberty or right. He never denies it; he places a guard on it.
- Love — true grace makes no effort to seem free. It uses liberty with the weak in mind, and never pushes them past their faith.
- Restraint — a weak conscience copies the example without the conviction. A Christian under that cloud is no use for service — and Christ died for him.
- Result — hold the liberty before God in private, not in public. Do not blunt the warning by telling yourself the sheep are safe anyway.
For if any one see thee, who hast knowledge, sitting at table in an idol-house, shall not his conscience, he being weak, be emboldened to eat the things sacrificed to the idol?
Paul pictures a Christian who is sure that an idol is nothing. This man sits down to a meal inside the idol's own temple, and another believer watches him. The question of the verse is not what the food does to the eater, but what the sight does to the watcher.
The verse sets two Christians side by side. They are not in the same place. One feels at ease, because he has worked out what an idol really is. The other still feels the pull of what he has left behind.
Two Christians are in view here. One has a faith so sound that he feels at ease even in an idol's temple, because he knows the idol is no god at all. The other hates idolatry, but still believes in idols. The thoughtless freedom of the first pours a false boldness into the spirit of the second. It rushes him into an act which, in his case, is not done to God. So the act is not of faith, and is therefore sin. Such examples only build up what the truth must afterwards pull down.
The strong man's example builds something in the weak believer. But it builds him the wrong way.
What if the weak one copied it with a conscience that was not free? What if he was emboldened, or built up the wrong way, and the brother for whom Christ died perished? Scripture describes an act by where it tends. It does not soften the act by the resources of grace that step in to stop the outcome.
So what is the ruin Paul warns about? One writer says the man does not lose his soul. He loses his usefulness.
The perishing has nothing to do with the salvation of the soul. It means instead that a wounded conscience puts the weak brother out of action. It destroys him as to his spiritual state, and so as to his testimony and service. No believer who falls under a cloud through a defiled conscience is of any use in the wars of the Lord.
Another writer warns us not to let doctrine dull the warning.
It is of the greatest importance to let Scripture have its full play on the soul. We must not blunt its edge with the dogmas of systematic theology. The same authority that says "My sheep will never perish" also warns us against causing a weak brother to perish. That happens through a self-indulgent, unloving use of our liberty. It will be our wisdom, and certainly our moral safety, to listen to the one as well as to the other.
Care for a weaker believer is the argument here. But that is not the only thing wrong with the picture.
Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one. Yet they thought that because they saw this, they might sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong... But more than that, they had no business being there at all. The question of being there at all was settled for good by their place at the Lord's table, and their sharing in the Lord's Supper. Granted, the idol was nothing. Yet behind it were demons. By sitting and eating at the idol's festival they would be in fellowship with demons.
The setting is ancient, but the pattern is not. Someone watches what you allow yourself, and copies it without your reasons.
Suppose the one who had knowledge sat and ate in the idol's temple. This might embolden others to do the same thing, at a moment when their own conscience spoke against it. We can apply this principle to all sorts of situations we find ourselves in today. A weak Christian may see another go to a place his own conscience forbids. But because the stronger Christian has gone, he goes too. The stronger has therefore encouraged the other to ignore his conscience.
- Sight — The verse turns on what people see. Your liberty is never private. Someone reads it as permission.
- Boldness — The watcher gains nerve, not knowledge. Your example builds him the wrong way, and he acts on your certainty instead of his own.
- Conscience — He then does what his own conscience forbids, so the act is not of faith, and it defiles him.
- Ruin — Scripture names an act by where it leads. Here it leaves a brother Christ died for out of action, wounded in testimony and service.
- Love — Knowledge alone produced this scene; only love asks what a sight will do to the one who sees it.