1 Corinthians 8:4-13 - Homiletics

Aspects of responsibility.

"As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols," etc. This paragraph suggests three general remarks.

I. THAT THE MORAL OBLIGATIONS OF ALL MEN ARE DETERMINED BY THEIR RELATION TO THE ONE GOD AND HIS SON . "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one." There are many objects in the world that men call gods, and treat as gods, but they are really nothing, their existence imposes on them no moral obligation. There is One, however, and only One, from your relation to whom there grows up all moral obligations. "One God." Monotheism is demon strated by all nature, by all consciences, as well as by the Bible.

1. He is a Father. "The Father, of whom," etc. The Creator of the universe, but the Father of spirits; spirits are his offspring.

2. He is the Source of all things. "Of whom are all things." The mighty universe and all it contains are but streams from him, the Fountain of life.

3. He is our End. "We in him," or "unto him," more properly. The supreme End of our existence and Object of our love. In connection with him there is another, "one Lord Jesus Christ." This one Lord Jesus Christ was not only his creative Agent, "by whom are all things," but his redemptive Agent, the Mediator between God and men. And we by him," or "through him." As Christians, we are what we are through him. Now, the will of this one God, as coming through Christ to us, we are morally bound to fulfil. An obligation this which not only can never be abrogated, but never modified by any circumstances, age, or revolution.

II. THAT WHAT MIGHT BE WRONG FOR ONE MAN TO DO MIGHT NOT BE SO FOR ANOTHER . The apostle teaches that those in the Corinthian Church who had reached the conviction that an idol was nothing in the world, and that consequently there was no harm to them personally in eating of the sacrifices that were offered to idols, would commit no wrong in doing so. The meat itself had not been corrupted because it had been offered to idols, it was as good as any other meat, and as their consciences were not against it there would be no wrong in them participating in it as food. On the other hand, those who had a superstitious idea that they ought not to touch the meat they saw the priests feeding upon in heathen temples, would commit wrong in using it as food. "Meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse." The right or the wrong depended on each man's conscience. That which is against a man's conscience may not be against the eternal law of right, but is against his own sense of right, and therefore should be avoided; and that which is in accord with a man's conscience, though it may not be in accord with the principles of absolute rectitude, would not be wrong to him. Though sincerity is not a virtue, it is always relatively binding; insincerity is always an absolute sin. Thus what is relatively wrong to one man is not so to another. Here is the principle, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." "To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." Therefore, "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

III. THAT TO OFFEND THE CONSCIENCE OF A GOOD MAN , HOWEVER WEAK , IS A WRONG IN ALL . "Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak." Respect for the weak consciences of good men:

1. May require self denial on our part. A truly enlightened and healthy minded Christian may feel at perfect liberty to do that from which a weak minded disciple would recoil with horror. The apostle, for example, might have felt at perfect liberty to sit down in heathen temples, and feast on meat that had been offered to idols, for his great soul had risen up out of the letter and form of religion, concerning meats, and drinks, and ceremonies, and statutory laws, and exulted in that "liberty wherewith Christ makes his people free." Therefore any restriction in such matters would involve more or less self denial, and this Paul willingly accepted, rather than "offend" a "weak brother." On this principle it becomes all to act. Men who have reached the higher stages of Christly life may feel at liberty to do many things; but if they are surrounded by good people whose consciences are in the strongest antagonism to all such things, it is their duty to deny themselves of such liberty.

2. Is urged on the strongest considerations.

(a) It may "become a stumbling block to them that are weak." This means, I presume, an occasion of sin. Their faith may be shaken, and they may become apostates; and, more,

(b) they may be "emboldened," encouraged to do the wrong. Without your moral strength, imitation of you will be pernicious.

(c) It may ruin them. "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" Christ died for all, tasted death for every man; yet his death, it seems, does not necessarily ensure the salvation of any. What a solemn thought, that the conduct even of an advanced Christian may lead to the spiritual ruin of others!

3. Is exemplified in the sublime resolve of the apostle. "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Here is benevolent expediency, the strongest ground on which the temperance reformation can be wisely and effectively advocated. In this sublime utterance you have the self sacrificing and magnanimous spirit of the gospel. Give up all rather than ruin souls. Such an utterance as this is characteristic of Paul. "But I could wish that I myself were accursed for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh."

CONCLUSION . Where, in the state or in the Church, can you find a man who approaches in spirit the sublime philanthropy of Paul? In the state we have men who call themselves reformers, who grow eloquent in proclaiming the rights of man and the glories of liberty; but can you find either in their speeches or deeds the matchless spirit of philanthropy, beaming and booming in these words of the apostle?—"Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." Are not our reformers, alas! more or less traders and hirelings? Where even in our Churches do we find preachers aglow with this unconquerable love for man? And yet this is Christianity, this is what the world wants, what it must have ere it can be morally redeemed. "There never did," says Sir Walter Scott., "and never will, exist anything permanently noble and excellent in a character which was a stranger to the exercise of resolute self denial. Teach self denial, and make its practice pleasurable, and you create for the world a destiny more sublime than ever issued from the brain of the wildest dreamer."