Summary of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 8

We all have knowledge about food sacrificed to idols. But knowledge by itself, without love, does not help one spiritually, it may even inflate a person with pride. So if someone is proud in his knowledge, he does not yet have the right kind of knowledge. But if one loves God, he is known and loved by God.

Now about meat sacrificed in the temple of an idol: An idol is nothing. And the idols are not gods, they are nothing. Yes, there are many so-called gods and lords, but we know there is just one God, the Father, from whom all things exist, and we exist for Him. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things exist, and we exist through Him.

But not everyone has the right knowledge about idols, so as to know that food sacrificed to them is not changed, for the idol is nothing. However, some who eat food sacrificed to idols cannot get out of their head the notion that it is changed; they have grown up accustomed to thinking that way. So if they eat with that belief that the food is changed, then their conscience, which is weak, is defiled, and so the person sins.

Food does not in itself make us acceptable before God. If we do not eat such meat we will not lack anything. If we do it, we will not have any abundance.

But people who have the correct knowledge (that an idol, being nothing, changes nothing) should watch out that this knowledge of theirs does not result in scandal for the weak, i.e., in leading the weak into sin. For if someone sees a person who does have the right knowledge at table in the temple of an idol, will not the onlooker who sees this, be led to do what his weak conscience considers sinful, namely, to eating food sacrificed to idols?

Then that one who is weak in conscience would be destroyed by the knowledge of the one who knows -- that brother for whom Christ died! So one who acts this way, sins against the brothers, strikes their weak conscience, and sins against Christ.

Therefore Paul says with emphasis: if food leads my brother into sin, I would rather not eat meat forever, to avoid scandalizing my brother.

Comments on Chapter 8

We recall that in Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem decided that gentile Christians did not have to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law. Yet, as a concession to the feelings of Jews, it did ask the gentiles to avoid three things prohibited in the old law, one of which was eating food sacrificed to idols. When Paul was in the territory to which the letter was sent -- Cilicia and Syria -- he did preach this restriction (see Acts 16:4). But the rule did not apply outside that area. If the Vatican today sends a letter to the Bishops of one territory, it will have force only in that territory. So now at Corinth, far from Syria and Cilicia, Paul can and does reason: an idol is nothing. Nothing changes nothing. So the food is not changed.

So you may eat it. But he adds a qualification: do not do it if it would cause scandal. Scandal means any word or act which either is evil, or will be seen by another as evil, in such a situation that the other will likely be led into doing what really is wrong, or what he thinks is wrong. To do what one thinks is wrong, is to act in bad faith, and is a sin, even if the thing in itself is not sinful, e.g., if someone thought to eat a banana was a mortal sin, and in that frame of mind ate one, he would sin mortally -- not from eating the banana, but from doing what he considered wrong. (But we may not turn that around and say: if a person thinks a thing is all right even if it is not, he does not sin. No, he is obliged to align his conscience with the teaching of the Church. We recall what we said on 1 Cor 4:4 about involuntary sin. God's love of what is objectively right is such that He wants some make-up even in such a case. (We should add: today, in such immense confusion, when priests and even bishops are teaching falsely, we could understand a person thinking something is all right when it is not, and yet not being guilty, because of the confusion).

So Paul says that knowledge alone, without love, i.e., without considering the spiritual needs of others, is not good, it is apt to lead to the inflation of pride instead.

Now the possibility of scandal arises in this way: Some of Paul's converts had grown up thinking food was changed by being offered to idols. It was not changed. Should Paul instruct them: "Just say Paul says it is all right?" Paul fears many would not digest this thought, and so, if led by social pressure (probably at a dinner) to eat food sacrificed to idols, would do it in bad faith, and so would sin. For a long established fixed pattern of thought that one has grown up with is hard to dislodge, and therefore anything that tries to get into a person's mind that would clash with that established idea probably will not get in, or will not register.

Long ago the Church used to require abstinence from meat on all Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent. But then at one point the U.S. Bishops announced it was permitted to eat meat on Wednesday in Holy Week. There had been a confusion in the minds of the Bishops: the general law required abstinence on Fridays and Saturdays. The U.S.Bishops got permission to transfer the Saturdays to Wednesday. But for a long time they did not notice the permission did not apply in Holy Week. Hence it finally was clear that people could eat meat on Wednesday in Holy Week. That seemed very strange or perverse to many old people. Some of them reacted by saying: "No! That is not the way I was brought up!" To induce such a one to eat by social pressure at a dinner would probably mean the old person would be acting in bad faith -- unable to get the idea into his head. And so he would sin. There would be scandal. The case Paul has in mind has the same psychology.

Paul mentions a special case: suppose someone who does not grasp the truth about these foods sees you, who do know, reclining in the temple of an idol. Will that not lead the other to sin? Yes, it probably would. But we notice a problem. Paul surely does not mean one may take part in the rites of pagan temples. So there are two possible solutions: either Paul is here focusing on just one aspect of the matter (we recall how he focuses in relation to the law, especially as we saw it in Galatians 2:15, and in the glossary) -- or he has in mind a meal in a side room in a temple complex, so that the meal is not part of a temple ritual.

Paul speaks vehemently: We must not lead someone into sin by this sort of scandal -- that would be to destroy a soul for whom Christ died! So Paul says vehemently: He would rather not eat meat forever than scandalize another.