NOTES for Co1 8:8-9

So-called food offered to idols was a fairly serious problem for the first Christians. The problem was that one church community could very well include both Jews and recent pagans. At the same time, it is important to remember that the mass paganism of the Gospel era was no longer a deeply religious phenomenon. Those whom we call pagans would more accurately be called simply secular people; most of them, before turning to Christ, thought little about religion, if they thought about it at all. Such people habitually ate the food familiar to them, without thinking at all, and perhaps having completely forgotten, that formally the meat bought, for example, in the city market had been dedicated to the gods who patronized that very market.

The result was that formally all food sold in the markets was dedicated to pagan gods; it was all food offered to idols. But the recent pagans who had turned to Christ were no more troubled by this than they had been before their conversion. They simply did not think about any gods or any religion when buying food in the city market, either before conversion or after. Jewish Christians, however, took everything much more seriously. They never bought meat or other products in the city market; they had their own shops, where all products were guaranteed kosher.

Of course, after the coming of Christ, everything described above no longer had fundamental significance, all the more for pagans, from whom no one had ever demanded observance of kashrut. Nevertheless, when Jews and recent pagans found themselves at one table, it could happen that food formally dedicated to pagan gods appeared on that table. And if such a dedication meant exactly nothing to the former pagans and changed nothing, for Jews the situation was clearly a stumbling block. They could not shake the thought that they were sinning against God by eating food dedicated to pagan gods, and their conscience condemned them, although objectively they had no reason for concern. In such a situation Paul advises that this kind of concern not be ignored. One should not put a brother in a situation that is difficult for him and fraught with temptation if it can be avoided. Of course, the question can arise: how far can the demands of those who are scandalized by one thing or another go, and what is truly worth giving up in order to meet someone else's religious scrupulousness?

The answer is not hard to find in the apostle's letter: there the question concerns things that are spiritually indifferent to the one ready to make an accommodation. Things that do not touch the essence of his spiritual life. For a recent pagan, for example, it made no difference at all whether the meat on the table was kosher or had been bought in the city market. In that case it is better to meet the one to whom it does matter halfway, because the recent pagan's spiritual life does not suffer in the least from such a step.

But the spiritual life of his Jewish brother can suffer: constant inner discord does not contribute to normal spiritual life at all. This is the general rule Paul advises following: a person who is less religiously scrupulous should yield to one who is more religiously scrupulous insofar as such concessions do not destroy his own spiritual life. Then many problems of church life will resolve themselves, and there will be more peace in church gatherings.