King James Version
1 Corinthians 8
13 verses with commentary
Food Offered to Idols
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
View commentary
Now as touching things offered unto idols (περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, peri de ton eidolothyton)—Paul addresses meat sacrificed in pagan temples, a volatile issue in cosmopolitan Corinth. His pastoral response pivots on a crucial contrast: Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth (ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ, ἡ δὲ ἀγάπη οἰκοδομεῖ). The verb physioi (φυσιοῖ, "inflates, puffs up") depicts pride as spiritual bloating, while oikodomei (οἰκοδομεῖ, "builds up, edifies") uses architectural imagery—love constructs, knowledge merely inflates.
The Corinthians prided themselves on theological sophistication ("we all have knowledge"), but Paul subordinates gnosis (knowledge) to agape (self-sacrificing love). This becomes the interpretive key for chapters 8-10: intellectual correctness without pastoral sensitivity destroys rather than edifies the church. The "strong" believer who flaunts liberty wounds the "weak" brother—making orthodoxy an instrument of harm rather than help.
The Corinthians prided themselves on theological sophistication ("we all have knowledge"), but Paul subordinates gnosis (knowledge) to agape (self-sacrificing love). This becomes the interpretive key for chapters 8-10: intellectual correctness without pastoral sensitivity destroys rather than edifies the church. The "strong" believer who flaunts liberty wounds the "weak" brother—making orthodoxy an instrument of harm rather than help.
And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
View commentary
If any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know (καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι, kathos dei gnonai, "as it is necessary to know")—Paul deflates intellectual pride with devastating irony. The Corinthians' theological sophistication masked spiritual ignorance. True knowledge (gnosis in its proper form) is relational and humble, not merely propositional.
The phrase "as he ought to know" points to knowledge's proper purpose and method. Knowledge that breeds arrogance rather than love has failed at its fundamental task. This echoes Jeremiah 9:23-24, where genuine knowledge means understanding God's hesed (loyal love) and mishpat (justice), not merely accumulating facts. The "strong" Corinthians knew theology but hadn't grasped that love must govern knowledge's application.
The phrase "as he ought to know" points to knowledge's proper purpose and method. Knowledge that breeds arrogance rather than love has failed at its fundamental task. This echoes Jeremiah 9:23-24, where genuine knowledge means understanding God's hesed (loyal love) and mishpat (justice), not merely accumulating facts. The "strong" Corinthians knew theology but hadn't grasped that love must govern knowledge's application.
But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
View commentary
But if any man love God, the same is known of him (ἔγνωσται ὑπ' αὐτοῦ, egnostai hyp' autou, "has been known by Him")—Paul reverses the equation: what matters isn't our knowledge of God, but God's knowledge of us. The perfect tense egnostai indicates completed action with ongoing results—God's electing knowledge establishes and sustains the believer.
This echoes Galatians 4:9 ("to be known by God") and anticipates 1 Corinthians 13:12 ("then shall I know even as also I am known"). Biblical "knowing" (ginosko in Greek, yada in Hebrew) signifies intimate, covenant relationship—God's choosing love precedes and enables our response. The one who loves God proves thereby that God first loved and chose him (1 John 4:19). Love, not intellectual achievement, marks true knowledge of God.
This echoes Galatians 4:9 ("to be known by God") and anticipates 1 Corinthians 13:12 ("then shall I know even as also I am known"). Biblical "knowing" (ginosko in Greek, yada in Hebrew) signifies intimate, covenant relationship—God's choosing love precedes and enables our response. The one who loves God proves thereby that God first loved and chose him (1 John 4:19). Love, not intellectual achievement, marks true knowledge of God.
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.
View commentary
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols (περὶ τῆς βρώσεως τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων, peri tes broseos ton eidolothyton)—Paul now applies his love-knowledge principle to the specific case. The theological facts are correct: an idol is nothing in the world, and there is none other God but one. The Greek ouden (οὐδέν, "nothing") is emphatic—idols have zero ontological reality.
This monotheistic confession echoes the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God is one LORD"). Paul affirms the "strong" party's theology: since idols are non-existent, meat sacrificed to them is metaphysically unchanged. The error isn't their doctrine but their failure to apply it pastorally. Correct theology divorced from love destroys; theology governed by love edifies. Chapters 8-10 will nuance this: while idols are "nothing," demons operate through idolatry (10:19-21), so the issue is complex.
This monotheistic confession echoes the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4, "The LORD our God is one LORD"). Paul affirms the "strong" party's theology: since idols are non-existent, meat sacrificed to them is metaphysically unchanged. The error isn't their doctrine but their failure to apply it pastorally. Correct theology divorced from love destroys; theology governed by love edifies. Chapters 8-10 will nuance this: while idols are "nothing," demons operate through idolatry (10:19-21), so the issue is complex.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
View commentary
For though there be that are called gods (εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί, eiper eisin legomenoi theoi, "if indeed there are so-called gods")—Paul acknowledges polytheism's ubiquity while denying its reality. The participle legomenoi ("called, so-called") is dismissive—these entities are titled gods but lack divine essence. The parenthetical as there be gods many, and lords many recognizes the Greco-Roman pantheon's vastness without conceding legitimacy.
Paul's distinction between theoi (gods) and kyrioi (lords) reflects pagan religious taxonomy—"gods" were supernatural beings, while "lords" could include deified emperors and patron deities. The phrase "whether in heaven or in earth" encompasses celestial and chthonic deities. Paul's rhetorical strategy grants the cultural phenomenon (gods exist as cultural constructs and demonic deceptions, cf. 10:20) while asserting theological reality: only one true God exists.
Paul's distinction between theoi (gods) and kyrioi (lords) reflects pagan religious taxonomy—"gods" were supernatural beings, while "lords" could include deified emperors and patron deities. The phrase "whether in heaven or in earth" encompasses celestial and chthonic deities. Paul's rhetorical strategy grants the cultural phenomenon (gods exist as cultural constructs and demonic deceptions, cf. 10:20) while asserting theological reality: only one true God exists.
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. in: or, for
View commentary
But to us there is but one God, the Father (ἀλλ' ἡμῖν εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, all' hemin heis theos ho pater)—Paul counters polytheism with a Trinitarian monotheistic confession. The Father is the source of whom are all things (ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, ex hou ta panta)—the preposition ex indicates origin. Creation flows from the Father. Believers exist in him (εἰς αὐτόν, eis auton), indicating purpose or goal—our destiny is the Father.
And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι' αὐτοῦ)—the preposition dia ("through, by means of") identifies Christ as creation's instrumental agent (cf. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). This is one of the New Testament's highest Christological statements: Paul applies the Shema's monotheism to include Christ as divine agent of creation and redemption. The parallel structure (Father as source, Son as means) affirms Christ's full deity while maintaining distinction of persons.
And one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι' αὐτοῦ)—the preposition dia ("through, by means of") identifies Christ as creation's instrumental agent (cf. John 1:3, Colossians 1:16). This is one of the New Testament's highest Christological statements: Paul applies the Shema's monotheism to include Christ as divine agent of creation and redemption. The parallel structure (Father as source, Son as means) affirms Christ's full deity while maintaining distinction of persons.
Do Not Cause Another to Stumble
Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
View commentary
Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge (ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐν πᾶσιν ἡ γνῶσις, all' ouk en pasin he gnosis)—Paul pivots from theology to pastoral reality. Not all believers possess the mature understanding that idols are metaphysical zeros. For some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol—the phrase "conscience of the idol" (syneidesis tou eidolou) describes believers whose syneidesis (συνείδησις, "conscience, moral consciousness") remains traumatized by their idolatrous past.
These "weak" believers intellectually affirm monotheism but psychologically cannot escape associations between meat and demon-worship. When they eat, their conscience being weak is defiled (μολύνεται, molynetai, "is stained, polluted"). The pollution isn't metaphysical (the meat is neutral) but psychological and spiritual—they sin by acting against conscience (Romans 14:23, "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"). The "strong" must limit liberty to avoid pushing the "weak" into sin.
These "weak" believers intellectually affirm monotheism but psychologically cannot escape associations between meat and demon-worship. When they eat, their conscience being weak is defiled (μολύνεται, molynetai, "is stained, polluted"). The pollution isn't metaphysical (the meat is neutral) but psychological and spiritual—they sin by acting against conscience (Romans 14:23, "whatsoever is not of faith is sin"). The "strong" must limit liberty to avoid pushing the "weak" into sin.
But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. are we the better: or, have we the more are we the worse: or, have we the less
View commentary
But meat commendeth us not to God (βρῶμα δὲ ἡμᾶς οὐ παραστήσει τῷ θεῷ, broma de hemas ou parastesei to theo)—Paul asserts food's spiritual neutrality. The verb paristemi (παρίστημι, "commend, present, bring near") is used elsewhere of presenting sacrifices or standing in God's presence. Dietary choices neither advance nor hinder our standing with God.
For neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse—spiritual maturity isn't measured by dietary freedom. This demolishes both the "strong" party's pride in eating and potential "weak" party pride in abstaining. Paul levels the playing field: both eating and abstaining are adiaphora (things indifferent). What matters is love, not liberty. This principle governs all disputable matters (Romans 14:17, "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost").
For neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse—spiritual maturity isn't measured by dietary freedom. This demolishes both the "strong" party's pride in eating and potential "weak" party pride in abstaining. Paul levels the playing field: both eating and abstaining are adiaphora (things indifferent). What matters is love, not liberty. This principle governs all disputable matters (Romans 14:17, "the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost").
But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. liberty: or, power
View commentary
But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock (πρόσκομμα, proskomma, "obstacle, offense")—Paul's warning is sharp. The noun proskomma denotes something that trips someone, causing them to fall. Your exousia (ἐξουσία, "right, liberty, authority") can become another's proskomma (stumbling stone).
To them that are weak (τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν, tois asthenesin)—the "weak" aren't second-class Christians but those whose consciences are more sensitive on disputable matters. Love requires the "strong" to voluntarily limit liberty. This is Christian freedom's paradox: true liberty is freedom from needing to exercise all rights, enabling freedom for serving others (Galatians 5:13, "by love serve one another"). The "strong" believer proves strength not by asserting rights but by surrendering them for others' sake.
To them that are weak (τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν, tois asthenesin)—the "weak" aren't second-class Christians but those whose consciences are more sensitive on disputable matters. Love requires the "strong" to voluntarily limit liberty. This is Christian freedom's paradox: true liberty is freedom from needing to exercise all rights, enabling freedom for serving others (Galatians 5:13, "by love serve one another"). The "strong" believer proves strength not by asserting rights but by surrendering them for others' sake.
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; emboldened: Gr. edified
View commentary
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple (ἐν εἰδωλείῳ κατακείμενον, en eidoleio katakeimenon, "reclining in an idol-shrine")—Paul provides a concrete scenario. The verb katakeimai describes the Greco-Roman dining posture (reclining on couches), indicating formal meals, not merely purchasing meat at market. The "strong" believer, confident idols are nonentities, accepts social invitations to temple banquets.
Shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened (οἰκοδομηθήσεται, oikodomethsetai, "be built up, encouraged")—bitter irony drips from Paul's reuse of "edify" from verse 1. The weak believer's conscience is "built up" not unto godliness but unto sin—emboldened to violate his own conscience by imitating the "strong" believer's example. To eat those things which are offered to idols—the weak person isn't liberated but destroyed, acting against conscience and thus sinning (Romans 14:23).
Shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened (οἰκοδομηθήσεται, oikodomethsetai, "be built up, encouraged")—bitter irony drips from Paul's reuse of "edify" from verse 1. The weak believer's conscience is "built up" not unto godliness but unto sin—emboldened to violate his own conscience by imitating the "strong" believer's example. To eat those things which are offered to idols—the weak person isn't liberated but destroyed, acting against conscience and thus sinning (Romans 14:23).
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
View commentary
And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish (ἀπόλλυται γὰρ ὁ ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, apollytai gar ho asthenon en te se gnosei)—the present tense apollytai ("is perishing, being destroyed") depicts ongoing spiritual ruin, not necessarily final apostasy (though Paul's warning is dire). Your gnosis (knowledge), used without love, becomes an instrument of a brother's destruction.
For whom Christ died (δι' ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν, di' hon Christos apethanen)—Paul's knockout punch. Christ valued this "weak" brother enough to die for him, yet you won't surrender a meal for him? The infinite sacrifice of Christ exposes the selfishness of insisting on your rights. If Christ's love moved Him to cosmic self-sacrifice (Philippians 2:6-8), your love must move you to trivial self-denial. The "weak brother" isn't an abstraction but one for whom the Son of God bled—thus infinitely precious.
For whom Christ died (δι' ὃν Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν, di' hon Christos apethanen)—Paul's knockout punch. Christ valued this "weak" brother enough to die for him, yet you won't surrender a meal for him? The infinite sacrifice of Christ exposes the selfishness of insisting on your rights. If Christ's love moved Him to cosmic self-sacrifice (Philippians 2:6-8), your love must move you to trivial self-denial. The "weak brother" isn't an abstraction but one for whom the Son of God bled—thus infinitely precious.
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
View commentary
But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience (τύπτοντες αὐτῶν τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν, typtontes auton ten syneidesin astheousan, "striking their weak conscience")—the verb typto (τύπτω, "strike, beat, wound") is violent. Flaunting liberty doesn't merely disappoint but brutalizes the weak believer's conscience. The participle structure shows the sin's dual nature: sinning against brethren by wounding their conscience.
Ye sin against Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν ἁμαρτάνετε, eis Christon hamartanete)—Paul's climax. Wounding a believer is wounding Christ Himself (Acts 9:4, "why persecutest thou me?"). Christ so identifies with His people that offending them offends Him. This elevates "disputable matters" to ultimate significance: how you treat the weak brother in matters of Christian liberty reveals how you treat Christ. Knowledge divorced from love isn't mere immaturity—it's sin against Christ.
Ye sin against Christ (εἰς Χριστὸν ἁμαρτάνετε, eis Christon hamartanete)—Paul's climax. Wounding a believer is wounding Christ Himself (Acts 9:4, "why persecutest thou me?"). Christ so identifies with His people that offending them offends Him. This elevates "disputable matters" to ultimate significance: how you treat the weak brother in matters of Christian liberty reveals how you treat Christ. Knowledge divorced from love isn't mere immaturity—it's sin against Christ.
Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth , lest I make my brother to offend.
View commentary
Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth (οὐ μὴ φάγω κρέα εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ou me phago krea eis ton aiona, "I will never eat meat forever")—Paul's emphatic double negative (ou me) expresses absolute resolve. He personally pledges perpetual vegetarianism if meat-eating causes a brother to stumble. This isn't hypothetical posturing but apostolic example: love gladly surrenders even legitimate liberties for others' spiritual good.
Lest I make my brother to offend (ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω, hina me ton adelphon mou skandaliso, "lest I cause my brother to stumble")—the verb skandalizo (σκανδαλίζω) means to cause someone to sin or fall away. Paul's priority is protecting his brother's conscience above asserting his own rights. This is Christian maturity: the "strong" prove strength not by exercising all liberties but by surrendering them for love's sake. Chapters 9-10 will apply this principle to Paul's own apostolic rights, demonstrating he practices what he preaches.
Lest I make my brother to offend (ἵνα μὴ τὸν ἀδελφόν μου σκανδαλίσω, hina me ton adelphon mou skandaliso, "lest I cause my brother to stumble")—the verb skandalizo (σκανδαλίζω) means to cause someone to sin or fall away. Paul's priority is protecting his brother's conscience above asserting his own rights. This is Christian maturity: the "strong" prove strength not by exercising all liberties but by surrendering them for love's sake. Chapters 9-10 will apply this principle to Paul's own apostolic rights, demonstrating he practices what he preaches.