(A) Introduction. (Read the reference)

Paul deals in this chapter with a problem brought to his attention by the Corinthian church: Now about food sacrificed to idols. v1.

Why was this a problem? The trouble was that a lot of the meat eaten by Gentiles in Corinth had been sacrificed to idols.

If an individual or family made a private sacrifice to mark, for example, a wedding, birth of a child, success in business or recovery of health part of the animal was burned on the altar of the pagan god, part was given to the priest and the rest consumed at a celebratory meal. Obviously many of the Christians in Corinth had family members and friends who organised events such as these and received invitations to attend. They faced a difficult decision: to go and eat meat sacrificed to an idol or to stay away and offend their non-Christian relatives.

It might be argued that nothing like this happens anymore - but I am not so sure! Increasingly Christians are invited to attend family gatherings on a Sunday that involve missing church services. More and more sporting activities for young people are organised for a Sunday. Should parents allow their children to participate or insist church attendance comes first?

There were also many public sacrifices to pagan gods in Corinth. A tiny part of the meat was again burned, the priest took his cut and the rest was distributed to public servants like the magistrates. Both the priests and state functionaries sold surplus meat to the town butchers. It was almost impossible for customers to know whether the meat they bought was sacrificed to idols or not. In these circumstances should they buy it? Perhaps, it would be better if they became vegetarians.

Christians with a tender conscience may feel they are faced with a similar dilemma when it comes to purchasing cheap electrical goods that may well be the product of exploited foreign labour.

In chapters 8, 9 and 10 Paul deals with the issues raised by meat sacrificed to idols. In the passage under consideration he tackles those with 'the knowledge' who believe that they are free to eat just what they please. In doing so he establishes some important principles that are often overlooked today but are nevertheless of importance. The arrogant intellectuals of Corinth did not only sin against their weaker brethren but, in the words of the apostle: You sin against Christ. That is a most serious accusation!

(B) Knowledge without love puffs up but does not build up.

(1) It is likely that when Paul wrote: We know that we all possess knowledge, he was quoting from the Corinthian's letter to him.

The Corinthians were not using the word 'knowledge' quite as we use it. Knowledge, as distinct from ignorance, is a good thing. Ignorance keeps many from being reconciled to God. John wrote: No-one has ever seen God, but the Only Begotten Son, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. Jn1v18.

A group of believers at Corinth were saying something like: 'We have the knowledge'. 'We have the doctrine'. We're in the know'. We're all enlightened (reformed!) here'. In other words they claimed to be a religious elite - the curse of the church through the centuries.

(2) To be like the Corinthians with 'the knowledge' is dangerous because:

(a) It puffs up. Men and women who think that they have 'the doctrine' and know it all are often proud and arrogant. This was true of the Pharisees and lawyers in the time of Christ. They were the educated ones, they knew, and dismissed Christ's teaching. See exposition on John7v14to24.

I am afraid that down the centuries there have been some Christian scholars of all persuasions who have 'the knowledge' and it has made them hard, unyielding and cruel. The Inquisition is a good example of how knowledge without love can result in behaviour as far removed from the teaching of Christ as it is possible to get. Sadly the ugly disputes between Protestants, and the divisions that fragment them, are further instances of what happens when 'the knowledge' becomes more important than Jesus' new commandment to believers - that they love one another as he loved them.

(b) It precludes learning more and knowing better: The man who thinks he knows (something) does not yet know as he ought to know.... . v2.

In this life none of us have 'the knowledge' or 'the doctrine'. As Paul put it later in his letter: Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; .... Now I know in part. 1Cor13v12. We should, in the opinion of Peter, be growing in knowledge all the time: But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 2Pet3v18. Paul urged the Colossians: And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way, bearing fruit in every good work, growing in knowledge of God ..... . Col1v10.

(c) Love is superior to knowledge. This is a hard pill for some to swallow who are so proud of their doctrine. It is actually a very surprising thing for Paul to write. He was by far the best scholar among the apostles. We might have expected John to write this but no, it is the Theologian Paul, who asserted: But the man who loves knows.

According to Jerome Murphy-O'Connor this is the oldest version of the text. He reckons later copiest added references to God in order to improve the sense. It is undoubtedly true that: 'But the man who loves knows', fits the context better than the NIV version because Paul is dealing throughout the chapter with a perception of the weaker brother born of love. Paul's argument is that if we genuinely love our fellow Christian we will know how to behave towards him. If we desire the highest good of our Christian brothers we will be thoughtful, considerate, careful, prayerful, gentle and disciplined.

(C) Knowledge without love discomfits the vulnerable.

(1) Part of 'the knowledge' possessed by the intellectuals at Corinth was, indeed, shared by Paul. Again it is probable that Paul quoted the enlightened faction when he wrote: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one. v4.

Paul did not want the Corinthians to be in any doubt what his view on idols was. He told them that, although there were many so-called gods and lords, for the Christian: There is one God .... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things come and through whom we live.

(2) Now the Corinthians concluded that because the idols were not gods, and didn't even represent gods, they were nothing at all - just lumps of shaped stone, wood or metal. Any sacrifice to idols was, therefore, meaningless. The meat sacrificed to non-existent gods was just food and nothing more. So the enlightened Christians at Corinth believed they could attend a feast in a pagan temple safe in the knowledge that pagan gods did not exist, that the sacrifice was meaningless and the food served up was just food. The liberated brothers attended the celebration to be sociable and to party - not to participate in any way in the sacrifice.

(3) Paul informed the Corinthians that they were wrong! They were not showing enough concern for their brethren who were bothered by idols. There remained in the church believers who didn't see the idols as objects of stone, wood or metal but rather thought of them as false gods. Paul wrote: But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak it is defiled.

Christians who considered the idols to be false gods and believed the sacrifices were to false gods would be comprised if they ate part of that sacrifice in the temple to the false god. It also upset and troubled them to see other Christians carrying on this way.

(4) A long suffering reader might ask, "What has all this ancient history to do with us?" Well there remain instances where knowledge without love harms vulnerable Christians:

(a) Liberating knowledge, which is what the intellectuals at Corinth had, may compromise the vulnerable. Christians with 'the knowledge' who feel free to attend multi-faith services should consider how their actions will affect their weaker brethren. The liberated Christian might know that in a multi-faith service he is worshipping the one true God but the vulnerable brother may consider that false gods are being honoured as well.

I think we have to take Paul's advice seriously when it comes to how we spend Sunday. I have 'the knowledge' when it comes to Lord's Day observance! Sunday is not the Sabbath! It is not primarily a day of rest but a day of worship. As far as I am concerned any form of recreation is permissible on a Sunday so long as it does not interfere with meeting for worship. However, I have to consider the views of weaker Christians who feel that they could not both play sports on a Sunday and keep it special.

(b) Superior knowledge can make non-academic Christians feel inadequate. It is not a good idea to so show off our knowledge of the Bible and Christian doctrine to such an extent that others are overwhelmed by a sense of inferiority. We should never forget that Jesus adapted his teaching to the capabilities of his hearers to understand and receive it.

I have 'the knowledge' when it comes to the relationship of Science to the biblical account of Creation. I strongly believe that the two should be harmonised as far as possible. God has revealed himself both in what he has created and the Scriptures. I think some of the things that fundamentalists believe about Creation and the Flood just plain silly. But I leave the topic alone in my own church because the old folk who attend have no education in Science and cannot assess the truth of what I say on the subject. If I tried to demonstrate that the biblical account of the Flood is of a local flood they would be upset and think I was denying Scripture. Of course they should trust me .... !! But I can understand those who have not had my education feeling uneasy because they are not equipped to follow my line of reasoning.

(c) Questioning knowledge can distress new Christians who find believing difficult. It is so easy as a teacher or preacher to spend a lot of time pointing out the difficulties of Scripture. There are problems, and an honest Bible expositor sometimes has to deal with them, but it is best to be positive. It is possible to spend a lot of time dealing with the discrepancies between the synoptic gospels and John's account of the life of Jesus. But this is not as important as using the gospels to teach men and women about Christ.

It is not good for an eminent scholar to be too sceptical. This may well create doubt in those whose faith is not strong. It is a terrible thing if what Paul writes is true of us: So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. v11. I shouldn't want to appear before the judgment seat of Christ with this accusation upon my head.

(d) Discriminating knowledge that excludes dissidents. Some Christians with 'the knowledge' use it as a touchstone of orthodoxy to identify the unsound. This attitude makes insiders - those with 'the doctrine' - whether it is the 'Articles of Faith' or some other man devised list of beliefs - while everyone who disagrees with them are outsiders. The very jargon that those with 'the knowledge' use excludes. Now a new convert expects to be welcomed gladly and accepted into the family of God. Those young in the faith who stumble upon this exclusive spirit may well be shaken in their beliefs.

Lest anyone think I am particularly hard on Reformed Baptists let me say that one of the worst experiences of my life was going as a student at the University of London to the fraternity of Baptist students at the Bloomsbury Central Baptist church and being told: "This is no place for a Grace Baptist." Those were the very words that the chaplain to Baptist students in London used when I turned up. I had previously met the man at a Christian camp. I was so looking forward to meeting him again. I expected a welcome. Instead, I got the equivalent of a bucket of cold water thrown over me. I am afraid the disappointment has remained with me for over 40 years!

(D) Knowledge without love trips up the weak.

Paul, once again, quoted an example of the Corinthian's 'knowledge': But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. v8. We might expect the apostle who attacked legalism in all its forms to agree wholeheartedly with this. But Paul wrote: Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. v9.

Paul realised that there were weak Christians in Corinth who had scarcely broken free from idolatry. The old god's still exerted a pull. Many pagan superstitions persisted. This has been the case wherever Christianity has made numerous converts from paganism. Some African believers retain a sneaking belief in the power of the witchdoctor and in time of trouble return to the old ways. Even amongst 21st century British Christians there lingers a throwback to paganism in the unscriptural belief that hell is a place of ongoing misery and torment.

Paul knew that if superstitious Christians were encouraged to attend the feasts at which meat dedicated to idols was eaten in the temple's of the Greek gods some could easily be reintroduced to paganism. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols. So this weak brother for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. v10and11.

It is very bad to set an example that trips up a fellow Christian. Paul asserts: You sin against Christ.

How do Christians act like this today? They must be doing something that is permissible but something that nonetheless trips a weaker Christian up. Unfortunately at this juncture all my reference books are singularly silent! One of the things that trips me up is the failure of commentators to see parallels between Paul's age and our own!

There are at least six ways we might exercise freedom that is unhelpful to the weaker brother:

(a) I believe that I am free to drink alcohol. If Jesus drank wine then so can I. But if I entertained a Christian with a drink problem to a meal I would not serve any alcoholic drink. We would drink fruit juice together. It would be wrong to encourage anyone with a tendency to abuse alcohol to drink it.

(b) I believe it is good to show affection to other members of the family of Christ. I kiss the ladies of my church. However, I am sure it is important to show some restraint. Excessive kissing and embracing can trip up the weaker Christian in a variety of ways. It can be used as an opportunity to express more than affection. It can be misunderstood as meaning more than affection. It can be embarrassing and unwelcome to the more undemonstrative. Some unpopular folk who receive markedly less affection might feel jealous. It is absolutely not appropriate to argue that they shouldn't and if they feel jealous that is there problem. That is the very attitude Paul was attacking.

(c) In my experience many young Christian ladies feel free to wear very revealing clothes. I have just occasionally pointed out to one or another that they are encouraging men to lust. This invariably brings the response: "I'm not going to change what I wear because you are a dirty old man." Once again this is exactly the attitude that Paul addressed in this chapter. He would tell a pretty young thing who is showing too much cleavage or too much thigh to consider the weaker brother.

(d) There are other more mature ladies who are very extravagant and spend far too much on clothes, hair dos and the like. They do not consider that they are doing anything wrong. They are exercising their freedom to look their best. Some gentlemen are also very fashion conscious and must have the latest designer footwear, motorcar or electronic gadget.

Paul would instruct those who spend a lot of money on themselves to be careful not to make weak Christians envious and discontented. It is not good snorting, "That's their problem." No it is not. According to Paul it is your problem. You are the one who is tempting the weaker brother into sin and threatening to destroy him for who Christ died.

(e) Something that trips me up is the tendency of some Christians who attend growing churches to boast about all the Lord is doing for them. To detail all the amazing things God is doing in marked contrast to the little that God appears to be doing in my own church makes me feel a failure. I feel like giving up. If God is not blessing our declining fellowship perhaps it is because he is displeased with me. So why carry on? I can almost hear someone say, "What a pathetic, self-pitying, ungracious Christian you are John." I daresay that is true. I should rejoice with those that rejoice. However, triumphalism does trip me up and Paul would say that my weakness must be taken into consideration.

(f) Finally there are those preachers who feel free to preach rather vacuous, very long sermons. God has given them liberty to expound the word at inordinate length! I've even heard some of them boast, "I can't be doing with less than three quarters of an hour." This trips Christians up with a low concentration threshold who are easily bored. They come to the conclusion that there are better ways to spend their time than sitting in church listening to a tedious monologue. These weak and tenuous Christians drift away and are lost. Is it altogether their fault? Paul would argue that we should do everything in our power to prevent the weaker Christian being lost.

(E) Conclusion.

Do we take Paul seriously? Do we love our weaker brethren sufficiently to modify our behaviour so that it does not trip them up? Is this something that is really important to us? It ought to be! It was crucially important to Paul. Listen to his concluding words: Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so I will not cause him to fall. v13. Paul was prepared to give up eating meat entirely if this would prevent a weak Christian from making spiritual shipwreck. Paul really loved his fellow Christians. Do we?