1 Corinthians 8:9Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

You do not correct and raise up your brother. Let that be. But why do you place an obstacle before him and bring him to a fall, when you ought to offer a hand? You do not wish to help him. At least do not throw him down. If he is corrupt, he needs correction. If he is weak, he needs healing. Meanwhile, he is not only weak, but also your brother.

Second, it is determined by the time when they are opened and performed. Third, it is determined by the place where they are performed. Fourth, it is determined by the quantity and measure of these pleasures. Finally, fifth, it is determined by their influence or scandal for others who do not take part in these enjoyments and habits. Harm to the soul, body, and household of those who take part in these amusements or habits is the first bad feature. The scandal of others is the second dark side of these amusements. It is a grave sin. Verse 13. For this reason the Apostle said, “If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” What is said of food may also be said of every modern pleasure named above. Let us take card playing, for example. “Is it a sin to play cards?” people sometimes ask. Is it a sin? For whom, and when, were cards invented? They were invented for the insane king Charles VI in the fifteenth century. Why? In order to distract, at least somewhat, his brooding head, which was incapable of anything intelligent. They were meant to dissipate the king’s already idle life with an equally idle and easy amusement. Does this mean that card playing was intended for the insane and for lovers of idleness? Can a serious person, wholly devoted to official duties, family responsibilities, or learning, really have idle, surplus time not needed for the rest of soul and body? What is the aim of modern card playing? It is not merely passing time, but also acquiring something, winning some sum of money. Thus, for example, because of these motives, a husband and wife leave their family, often with small children, for the whole night in the hands of hired persons. They themselves hasten to the house of play. They spend the whole night there, to the detriment of parental duties and to the harm of their health. Turning night into day and day into night, they have no time to occupy themselves properly with the upbringing of their children. They play and lose money. After losing, they return home out of sorts because of the money spent. They are grumbling, dissatisfied, and condemning and blaming everyone except themselves. Sometimes people fall into unpayable debts because of card playing. From this they burden themselves with needless cares and unpleasantness. In this way golden time is wasted, priceless health perishes, and a man’s life is shortened. His days are diminished through the unnatural use of time. Sometimes his whole estate in life perishes, along with mutual conjugal love and respect. Higher duties are forgotten toward family, toward service, and toward neighbors who need our help, counsel, and time. For them, among card players and sleepless nights, those who play lack time, money, and zeal. During card playing, conversation useful to all is removed and suppressed, as is the exchange of good thoughts. A whole gathering, diverted by cards in different places, sinks into a sad silence unworthy of thoughtful and educated people. Finally, occupation with cards is a whim and an excess, not a necessity. Tell me after this: is it a sin to play cards? Shall we speak of smoking? Is smoking not a sin, and still more the use of narcotics? A. Tobacco as a plant is poison. Slow poisoning by poison is blameworthy. B. The young take up tobacco by imitating their elders, and the undeveloped imitate the more educated. They do this without any need, without awareness of benefit or pleasure, simply because young people, even adolescents, want to appear mature and grown in social habits sooner. Is such a custom not strange and blameworthy? Does it not appear especially shameful when, for its sake, a poor man, still an adolescent or youth, spends the last hard-earned kopeck of his poor parent? Or when he sacrifices for it from his own sufficient means, yet gives not even a penny to dire poverty for a piece of bread? C. We pass over in silence the misfortunes and fires that often come from careless smoking. After this, is the use of tobacco not a sin for many? If, according to the Apostle’s word, one must refuse a certain food because of possible scandal to one’s neighbor, then all the more must a Christian cut off whims and useless habits in himself. He must not become a burden to his neighbor, a scandal to him, or a harm to his own soul.

By pointing to the harm that can come from this liberty to the less developed, or, as he says, to the weak, he lets us understand two things. First, things exist in themselves and have only material significance. Second, they stand in relation to the people who come into contact with them, and so they can also have moral significance.

Forgetting this, or neglecting it, shows only the one-sidedness and narrowness of the understanding of free-thinking people. Indeed, if one judged an idol only from its material side, and if everyone judged it so, then of course it would be complete nothingness. But, as the Apostle says of his contemporaries, "some, even until now, remain with a conscience that acknowledges idols" (1 Cor 8:7).

In the same way, food can be spoken of either only from its material side, or also from its moral side. In the first case, food considered only as matter entering the mouth solely for the work of the stomach can neither defile nor sanctify a man (Mt 15:11). Or, as the Apostle says, it can neither bring him nearer to God nor remove him from God. In this respect there can be questions only about whether it is harmful or harmless to a person's bodily health.

But man is not merely an animal. He is a morally free being. Therefore all his actions, and consequently the very eating or not eating of food, can have not only physiological but also moral significance. It follows that it cannot always be indifferent and sinless either to eat or not to eat a certain kind of food, such as idol-offerings or non-fasting food at a time when it is forbidden. This is explained by the Apostle as follows.

This thoughtless act produces an especially ruinous effect on the weak and those not established in faith. Such people could see Christians eating idol-offerings as a direct betrayal of Christianity. Following others, they could truly betray Christianity themselves. These unhappy ones perished by following people who ate idol-offerings without the least thought of betraying the Christian faith. Yet these became the chief cause of the destruction of the weak.

Warning such people against eating things offered to idols, the Apostle says: "Take heed, lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak"; "wounding their conscience"; "you sin against Christ."

According to the explanation of St. John Chrysostom, "The Apostle says, 'Take heed,' arousing in the Corinthians fear, shame, and resolve not to do this. He did not say, 'this knowledge of yours,' or 'your perfection,' which would have sounded more like praise, but 'liberty.' By this he expressed rather their shamelessness, boldness, and pride. He did not say, 'to the brethren,' but 'to the weak,' who are of the brethren. He increases their guilt because they do not spare even the weak, and indeed their brethren."

"Your Master did not refuse to die for him, yet you pay him no attention. You are unwilling, for his sake, to abstain even from an unclean table. You allow him to perish after his salvation has been accomplished, and what is most grievous, for the sake of food."

They sin in this against Christ: first, because He takes to Himself what concerns His servants; second, because those who are wounded are His Body and His members; third, because those who wound the conscience of the weak, through their pride, destroy the work He accomplished by His death.

To this the Apostle now makes a remark: it is true that this is an indifferent matter, but one must take care not to cause a brother to stumble. The particle "but," both before "food" and repeated here in "take heed," and especially the words "this liberty of yours," support this supposition. The structure of the speech also appears somewhat more orderly.

But there is no need to insist on this. The structure of the speech loses nothing with the understanding already set forth. One may, however, leave this to choice.

Let us take the thought previously explained and continue. The Apostle speaks as if saying: the fact that, with such an understanding of the matter, you eat from the remnants of the sacrifices does not defile you. But it adds nothing to you in pleasing God, which is your chief work. Meanwhile, look at the danger. From this free relation of yours to sacrificial foods, a brother may stumble. This is no small matter. Therefore be careful.

"Take heed. He did not say, 'your liberty serves as a stumbling block.' He did not express this positively, lest they become more shameless. How then? He says, 'Take heed,' arousing in them fear, shame, and resolve not to do this. He did not say, 'this knowledge of yours,' or 'your perfection,' which would have sounded more like praise, but 'liberty.' By this he expressed rather their shamelessness, boldness, and pride.

"He did not say, 'to the brethren,' but 'to the weak,' who are of the brethren. He increases their guilt because they do not spare even the weak, and indeed their brethren. You do not correct and raise up your brother. Let that be. But why do you place an obstacle before him and bring him to a fall, when you ought to offer a helping hand? You do not wish to help him. At least do not throw him down. If he is corrupt, he needs correction. If he is weak, he needs healing" (St. Chrysostom).