The passage
      v1. Paul sets out to examine a position argued by libertine members of the Corinthian congregation, namely, that eating food associated with idols is not a problem for a believer, given that the idol-gods are no gods. These libertines, "the strong", claim to have acquired a spiritual independence, a "knowledge", that guides their Christian life (and their ethically insensitive behavior). As Paul puts it, "we know that (as you claim) `all believers have a special gift of knowledge.'" The problem is, the Christian walk is not one of self-sufficiency controlled by some special gift of spiritual insight (especially when that insight is flawed, as here), but is one of love, of the upbuilding of our brothers and sisters in Christ, and this shaped by a growing knowledge of the revealed will of God.
      v2. As far as Paul concerned, those who claim to have acquired "this knowledge" have not even begun to know the wisdom of God in Christ, the acquiring of true knowledge.
      v3. True knowledge is reflected, not in some ethereal spiritual wisdom, but in the way love is expressed toward our brothers and sisters. The person who loves is the one who is growing in knowledge. Note that the reference to "God" in this verse is probably a later addition to the text. "The person who loves is the person who is growing in true knowledge."
      v4-6. So now, to the subject at hand: eating food associated with pagan worship practices. First, Paul quotes from their letter and agrees with their "knowledge"; "we acknowledge with you that `an idol has no existence in itself' and `there is only one God.'" Paul then explains further that for a believer there is only one God, the Father, the source and purpose of life, and only one Lord, Jesus Christ, the agent and means of life. Yet, Paul qualifies his words because the libertines' spiritual insights are not as complete and flawless as they suppose. There may be no real god associated with idol worship, but these "so-called gods" are very real to those who believe in them. And of course, there are demonic forces associated with idol-worship, a point that Paul will develop later.
      v7. Paul now makes the point that the libertines' "knowledge", which gives them their sense of assurance, self-awareness and independence, is not possessed by all believers. For many, their past experience with paganism has left an indelible mark - "some are still gripped by the idol by force of habit", Thiselton. As a consequence, those whose self-awareness is weak, are easily led into sin by the thoughtless behavior of others.
      v8-9. Paul again quotes a slogan from the libertines: "food does not bring us before God's judgement seat." Of course, Paul agrees, eating or abstaining is of no interest to God, but he goes on to qualify his words: demanding our rights at the expense of another person's damnation is of interest to God.
      v10-12. Paul now drives home his point. It is precisely because God is indifferent about food that we should not demand our rights of free action independent of the welfare of our brothers and sisters. To demand rights of free action based on a questionable spiritual insight which then destroys a brother or sister's faith, is to "sin against Christ."
      v13. Paul concludes by saying that if eating causes a brother or sister's downfall, then he is quite willing to "never eat meat again."

Knowledge and love
      Chapters 8 to 10 serve as a useful quarry for those who want to support their agenda over the will of others in the Christian fellowship. The opponents, like those who eat food associated with idols, should restrain their desires for the sake of their brother (or "gospel ministry", as the case may be!). The problem is, the passage can't be used this way. Issues outside the revealed will of God, issues which may divide the Christian fellowship, should be resolved harmoniously, without one group demanding their rights over another, cf. Rom.14.
      Matters of conflict in a Christian congregation are often resolved on the basis of logic. The side with the most forceful argument (or Bible verses) wins. In confronting the issue of eating food associated with idols, Paul questions the veracity of a form of conflict-resolution which relies on "knowledge" (a special authoritative spiritual insight which promotes assurance, self-awareness and independence) rather than on love - acceptance, forgiveness, ...... "Everything one does that affects relationships within the body of Christ, should have care for brothers and sisters as its primary motivation", Gordon Fee.
      The claim to a special gift of "knowledge", of spiritual insight, does not serve as the basis of Christian behavior. True knowledge centers on the unity of God expressed in the redemptive work of Christ, a knowledge that always leads to compassion. It is very easy to use our theology, insights, "personal revelations", gifted status... as a club with which to establish our agenda over the personal sensibilities of others. Such an approach leads to personal pride and disunity in the Christian fellowship. Beware of such tyranny.

Some difficulties in exegesis
      The actual problem addressed by Paul is somewhat unclear. It is quite possible that temple meat is the food Paul is referring to, but certainly food that is associated with idol worship. It may well be that much of the food available in Corinth was processed as part of pagan worship, and so, buying and eating this food is the issue Paul is addressing. On the other hand, the issue may be more specific. It is possible that some of the believers were actually participating in the local cultic festivals at Corinth. These are social, as well as religious occasions, part of everyday life. Whatever the actual situation, these libertine Corinthian believers, "the strong", seem to think that their "knowledge", their gifted spiritual insight, gave them freedom to either buy and/or attend. They may also see in the Lord's Supper some protection from sin, and it also seems that they question Paul's authority to direct them on this matter.
      We are also unclear as to the "knowledge", "this knowledge" in NIV: the actual content of the gifted spiritual insight possessed by the Corinthian libertines that seemed to promote in them a sense of liberty/freedom and assurance. It certainly blinded them to the damage they were doing to believers of a more sensitive nature, "the weak" (probably law-bound believers, of whom many would be converted Jews). Such "knowledge" may well be heretical, a form of Gnosticism, or just be a form of Christian theology which is incomplete, warped and badly applied. Although Christian theology is always influenced by the secular environment, it is surely best to see the Corinthian problem as primarily Christian, rather than platonic. Given the central place of the law/grace debate in the early church, there is a good possibility that the "knowledge" is based on a flawed version of Paul's doctrine of justification where the slogan "for freedom Christ has set us free" has overpowered the notion of responsibility, ie. the indicative has overpowered the imperative. They now "possess knowledge" and so are free. We do well to remember Luther's words in his "Liberty of a Christian Man": "A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all." The Corinthian libertines have seemingly forgotten the paradox and adopted a form of perfectionism. Paul's task is to remind them of the imperative to love one another.

Greek text

v1
      peri + gen. "about" - concerning, about. Paul now writes on an issue raised in a letter from the Corinthians: "on the subject of", Thiselton.
      twn eidwloqutwn (oV) "food sacrificed to idols" - The meaning of this word is unclear. The NIV follows the traditional line of food (possibly "meat")"sacrificed / offered" to idols. The issue Paul deals with is that of eating "meat consecrated to heathen deities", REB. His position is that it is acceptable to eat such foods, when purchased as part of normal commerce, 10:25-33, but unacceptable to eat such foods at cultic meals in pagan temples. The principle of love, of leading a brother astray, guides this conclusion.
      oJti "that" - A majority of commentators believe that the conjunction here is introducing direct speech, "we know that (as you claim) `all have knowledge'", Bruce, cf. REB. Paul is saying that he is fully aware of the slogan used by the Corinthian libertines, "the strong": "all of us possess knowledge." The "all / everyone" is probably "all believers." Paul goes on to show that when it comes to divine knowledge and its application, the libertines "knowledge" is flawed, 8:7.
      ecomen (ecw) "we [all] possess" - have. As a claim of the Corinthians the expression needs weight, so "possess", as NIV.
      gnwsiV (iV ewV) "knowledge" - We are tempted to view this "knowledge", possessed by the Corinthian libertines, as a special spiritual gift of insight which serves to promote their assurance, self-awareness and freedom. So, eating at pagan feasts is not a problem for such self-aware believers. Obviously, we need to distinguish between the libertines flawed knowledge and the business of knowing divine wisdom/knowledge. Paul simply uses the anarthrous noun gnwsis, "knowledge", as a technical identifier for the libertines' particular spiritual insight, but this sense does not come out in the different translations. Few translations try to distinguish the libertines' "knowledge' from the act of knowing God's will. The NIV uses "this knowledge" to identify the libertines' gnwsis, although without quotation marks.
      fusioi (fusiow) pres. "puffs up" - causes conceit, haughtiness, arrogance, pride. The present tense is probably gnomic, expressing a universal principle. "Puffs a person up with pride", TEV.
      oikodomei (oikodomew) "builds up" - edifies, builds up, strengthens. The person who loves will consider the welfare of others; "love makes us helpful to others", CEV.

v2
      ei + ind. "-" - Introducing a conditional clause, 1st class. See v3. "if someone assumes they have already arrived at `knowledge', then they have not yet begun to know as they aught to know."
      egnwkenai (ginwskw) perf. inf. "he knows" - to have known. Since Paul is referring to the libertines' claim to special knowledge, both NJB and REB translate the infinitive as a noun, "knowledge", in order to help convey its technical sense. The perfect tense, a past action with ongoing consequences, conveys the idea claimed by the libertines that they have come to know and now know.
      ti "[he knows] something" - anything. This pronoun is a variant reading and not present in some early key texts. It serves to qualify "knowledge", "if anyone fancies that he has some kind of knowledge", REB. Yet, Paul is going to demonstrate that the libertines so called "knowledge" is faulty and is leading them into sin, so the variant probably should not be read; "if anyone imagines he has `this knowledge'".
      oupw egnw (ginwskw) aor. "does not yet know" - not yet he knew. The aorist is obviously ingressive (inceptive) where the emphasis is placed at the beginning of the action. So, Paul is saying that when it comes to the knowledge business, the libertines haven't even started the journey.

v3
      ei + ind. "-" - if [anyone loves, then that person has known]. Introducing a conditional clause, 1st class, which makes "an assertion for the sake of argument", Porter, cf. Wallace. The "if" clause (protasis) is assumed true for the purpose of making the argument in the "then" clause (apodosis). Given that the writer is establishing an argument, it is possible to present the argument as a statement, as NIV, although in this case, a conditional argument is best.
      de "but" - Adversative, establishing a counter condition to v2; "if on the other hand, .."
      agapa/ (agapaw) "loves" - Acting with consideration for the welfare of others, compassion.
      ton qeon .... uJp autou "[the man who loves] God [is known] by God" - God ..... by him. Some important texts do not have "God .... by him" and many commentators (eg. Fee, Thiselton, Conzelmann...) hold that the shorter text is most likely original.
      egnwstai (ginwskw) perf. pas/mid. "is known" - has been known / has known. Probably in the middle voice in the sense that the knowing is experienced by the person who loves. The person who loves is the person who is growing in true knowledge, divine knowledge, while the person who claims to have arrived at "knowledge", but doesn't love, shows by their behavior that their knowledge is flawed. "If, on the other hand, someone acts with loving compassion toward others, then that person is the one who is growing in true knowledge."

v4
      thV brwsewV twn eidwloqutwn "eating food sacrificed to idols" - eating idolatrous sacrifices. The actual issue, not fully explained in v1, is now carried in the genitival phrase, "eating food / meat offered / sacrificed / consecrated to /associated with heathen deities / pagan gods / idols / pagan temples." "Eating meat sacrificed to idols", BAGD, expresses a narrow interpretation of the phrase, while a broader interpretation may be safer, "eating food associated with idols", Thiselton.
      oidamen (oida) perf. "we know [that]" - The "we" is probably the apostles, specifically Paul, and he is saying that he acknowledges the belief ("knowledge") held by the Corinthians.
      oJti "that" - The hoti here probably serves to introduce two quotations, possibly even direct quotations from the letter sent to Paul; "we acknowledge with you that 'an idol has no existence in itself' and 'there is only one God.'"
      ouden eidwlon (on) "an idol is nothing at all" - nothing an idol. The adjective ouden, "no one", is best understood as a predicate. An idol is an inanimate object representing the divine, but as Yahweh is the only God, then "an idol is (represents) nothing (is a nonentity)".
      en kosmw/ (oV) "in the world" - "An idol represents nothing that is real (that exists in the world)." Of course, although Paul affirms this "knowledge", he does so with serious qualifications. He will later explain that dark powers lay behind pagan religions.

v5
      gar "for" - Explanatory: Paul expands on the quotes. Even if there were other deities, as far as believers are concerned, there is only one God, v5-6. In a parenthesis, bracketed in the NIV, he foreshadows his argument that there is indeed something behind the idol worship, subjectively for the worshiper, and objectively in the presence of dark powers, 10:14-22.
      eiper "if there are" - if it is true. "If it is true, for the sake of argument, that there are."
      legomenoi (legw) pres. pas. part. "so-called [gods]" - ones being called. Entities such as imagination, psychological manipulation, through to demonic powers, and given the title of "god".
      wJsper "as indeed" - even as. Introducing a parenthesis where Paul qualifies his words by making the point that, of course, such powers do exist. Both "gods" and "lords" are placed in inverted comers by the NIV to highlight the idea that the titles are descriptives of those powers. "And indeed there are plenty of `gods' and plenty of `lords'", Barclay.

v6
      all "yet" - but, rather, on the contrary. An anacoluthon, ie. Paul has lost track of his syntax and used an adversative rather than "for even if (v5) ....... yet for us ..." Missing in some manuscripts, but probably dropped to tidy up the grammar.
      ex "from" - out of, from [whom all things]. Identifying God as the origin of all things.
      kai hJmeiV eiV auton "and for whom we live" - and we to him. We find our origin / source / being in God and we find our future in/into him: "from whom everything derives, and in whom is the goal of our existence."
      di "through" - through, by means of [whom]. Expressing agency; Jesus is the agent of creation. "through whom everything derives."
      kai hJmeiV dia autou "and through whom we live" - and we through him. Jesus, through his redemptive work, is the means of our existence. "Everything was made by him and by him life was given to us", CEV.

v7
      all ouk en pasin "but not everyone" - but not in everyone. The adversative underlines this statement; "but it is not everyone who possesses this knowledge", Barrett.
      hJ gnwsiV (iV ewV) "knows this" - knowledge. Again, Paul is using the technical identifier, gnwsis, "this knowledge", Barrett, a point missed by the NIV in translating the noun with a verb. "Not everyone possesses the 'knowledge' of you libertines." Not just the knowledge that "an idol has no existence in itself", but the totality of the supposed gift of their spiritual insight. So, the opening clause is tongue in cheek.
      th/ sunhqeia/ (a) dat. "are [still] accustomed" - by reason of being accustomed / habituated [until now of the idol]. The variant "conscience" is rejected by most commentators. The dative forms a causal clause: "some are still gripped by the idol by force of habit", Thiselton.
      tou eidwlou (on) "to idols" - of the idol. Objective genitive therefore, "to the idol." The singular is interesting. Is the accustomed devotion to a particular deity?
      esqiousin "eat" - eat [as if / like an idolatrous sacrifice]. Fee argues that the eating is taking place in the precincts of a pagan temple in the presence of the idol. Other commentators argue that the food has been sourced from the local temple, but purchased in the local market, and thus, an association with the idol is what is in the mind; "as if it were part of an idolatrous sacrifice." Either way, it's dangerous for those who are not self-aware.
      hJ suneidhsiV (iV ewV) "conscience" - the conscience, self-awareness, consciousness [of them being weak]. Numerous meanings are possible, ranging from "a kind of moral referee that pronounces on the rightness or wrongness of one's actions", Fee, to a form of conscious self-awareness that promotes freedom. "As a consequence, those whose self-awareness is inferior, are led into sin."
      asqenhV adj. "weak" - "Weak" covers all bases, but possibly "vulnerable / insecure / inferior"
      molunetai (molunw) pres. pas. "it is defiled" - is defiled, tainted, polluted. The sense is to render unclean and therefore "to lead into sin."

v8
      ou parasthsei, paisthsi (paristhmi) fut. or pres. "does not bring us near" - will not present, stand near, alongside of / does present, stand near, alongside of. The base meaning of "present / stand by" is used here in the sense of present before / stand in the presence of God, for either reward or punishment, so "food will not bring (does not bring) us before God's judgement seat", Jeremias. The variant present tense, although not well attested, fits better if the clause is actually a quote from the Corinthian letter sent to Paul. The clause looks very much like another claim of the libertines. The libertines are arguing that God is quite indifferent when it comes to food, including food associated with pagan temple worship.
      oute ean + subj. "if [we do not eat] - neither if [we do not eat]. Introducing a conditional clause, 3rd class, where the condition stated in the "if" clause (protasis) is assumed a probability. Paul is agreeing with the libertines, but as usual, with a sting in his argument. Yes indeed, there is no divine blessing or censure either in eating or abstaining from food, unless of course, by eating we lead a brother astray, v9. A translation in the positive makes more sense: "We gain no additional merit if we eat, and we are none the worse if we refrain", Bruce.
      uJsteroumeqa (uJsterw) pres. pas. "no worse" - are we lacking, falling short, going without. In the abstaining business, we are not without "want / lose no advantage" in relation to God.
      perisseuomen (perisseuw) "better" - we are better, abound. In the eating business, we are not without "gain / abundance" in relation to God.

v9
      blepete (blepw) imp. "be careful" - see to it, beware. "Make sure that ..", NAB.
      hJ exousia (a) "the exercise of [your] freedom" - [lest somehow] the power [of you]. BAGD supplies three meanings: i] a freedom of choice and right to act; ii] power, capacity; iii] authority. The first meaning is obviously intended. The sense, "this 'freedom/liberty' of yours", is best, expressing the libertines' freedom of action, the claim to right of choice, on ethical matters due to their "knowledge". "You must be careful that this liberty of yours does not turn out to be the very thing which becomes a barrier in the way of those who are weak in the faith", Barclay.
      proskomma (a) "a stumbling block" - hindrance, a cause of stumbling, offence, sin. "Barrier", Barclay, or "obstacle", Bruce, is probably not strong enough, in that it is a believer who is being "tripped up", "caused to stumble", even "led into sin." The "weak" brother is obviously weak/insecure in faith; "their faith is not as robust" as the self-aware believer, Phillips.

v10
      tiV .... hJ suneidhsiV outou asqenouV ontoV "anyone with a weak conscience" - anyone .... the self-awareness / consciousness of him being weak / insecure.
      gnwsin (iV ewV) "this knowledge" - knowledge. The NIV again rightly identifies the claim of the libertines to a special gift of spiritual insight with "this knowledge", although inverted comers would better identify the ongoing use of this term, "you `have knowledge'", Bruce.
      en eidwleiw/ (on) "in an idol's temple" - Possibly indicating the substance of the issue at hand, ie. participating in pagan feasts, or just an illustration of the wider issue of associating with idolatrous practices by eating consecrated food. "Sitting eating in the temple of some false God", NJB.
      oikodomhqhsetai (oikodomew) fut. pas. "emboldened" - will be built up. "Emboldened" and "encouraged", NRSV etc., miss the play on words here. The libertines go to a building to "build up / edify" a brother to damnation. "May not his conscience (self-awareness) too, weak as it is, be `built up' to eat meat sacrificed to idols?", NAB.

v11
      di oJn "for whom" - because of, for the sake of whom [Christ died]. Your so called claim to spiritual insight "has destroyed someone Christ died for", CEV.
      apollutai (apollumi) pas. "is destroyed" - cause the ruin of. Instead of building up, the libertines "demolish / ruin." Probably in the sense of undermining faith and therefore, salvation, but also possibly just disturbing a believer's walk, "a stunting of the Christian life", Bruce.
      en th/ sh/ gnwsei "by your knowledge" - in your knowledge. Possibly instrumental, as NIV, but also possibly local, "in the sphere of your knowledge"; "the insecure brother is surrounded by / caught up in your spiritual knowledge" and yet is not properly able understand it, or apply it.

v12
      ouJtwV "in this way" - thus, so, in this way. This adverb leads the sentence, referring back to the eating in v10 and its consequence in v11, and now describes this as "sin"; "in such a way as this", Thiselton.
      aJmartanonteV (aJmartanw) part. "you sin" - sinning. Temporal participle, as NIV, or means; "by (means of) sinning in this way", Moffatt.
      tuptonteV (tuptw) pres. part. "wound" - striking, beating. "Wound" is often used of wounding someone's feelings, as "wound their over-scrupulous conscience", Williams. "Damage" caries the sense better; "striking a blow at", Barclay, is a bit to literal.
      eiV "against" - to, for, toward [Christ]. When we "damage" the inferior / insecure / vulnerable consciousness / self-awareness of a believer, we don't just sin against them, we also sin against/toward Christ.