Corinth, meats offered to idols.  The latter is the more probable, and would be the more important in Rome.  The two opinions on the point represented two tendencies of mind, which always exist; one more scrupulous, and one more liberal.  Paul has been giving the former class the lesson they needed in the former part of this chapter; and he now turns to the ‘stronger’ brethren, and lays down the law for their conduct.  We may, perhaps, best simply follow him, verse by verse.

We note then, first, the great thought with which he starts, that of the final judgment, in which each man shall give account of himself.  What has that to do with the question in hand?  This, that it ought to keep us from premature and censorious judging.  We have something more pressing to do than to criticise each other.  Ourselves are enough to keep our hands full, without taking a lift of our fellows’ conduct.  And this, further, that, in view of the final judgment, we should hold a preliminary investigation on our own principles of action, and ‘decide’ to adopt as the overruling law for ourselves, that we shall do nothing which will make duty harder for our brethren.  Paul habitually settled small matters on large principles, and brought the solemnities of the final account to bear on the marketplace and the meal.

In verse 13 he lays down the supreme principle for settling the case in hand.  No Christian is blameless if he voluntarily acts so as to lay a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in another’s path.  Are these two things the same?  Possibly, but a man may stumble, and not fall, and that which makes him stumble may possibly indicate a temptation to a less grave evil than that which makes him fall does.  It may be noticed that in the sequel we hear of a brother’s being ‘grieved’ first, and then of his being ‘overthrown.’  In any case, there is no mistake about the principle laid down and repeated in verse 21.  It is a hard saying for some of us.  Is my liberty to be restricted by the narrow scruples of ‘strait-laced’ Christians?  Yes.  Does not that make them masters, and attach too much importance to their narrowness?  No.  It recognises Christ as Master, and all His servants as brethren.  If the scrupulous ones go so far as to say to the more liberal, ’You cannot be Christians if you do not do as we do’ then the limits of concession have been reached, and we are to do as Paul did, when he flatly refused to yield one hair’s-breadth to the Judaisers.  If a man says, You must adopt this, that, or the other limitation in conduct, or else you shall be unchurched, the only answer is, I will not.  We are to be flexible as long as possible, and let weak brethren’s scruples restrain our action.  But if they insist on things indifferent as essential, a yet higher duty than that of regard to their weak consciences comes in, and faithfulness to Christ limits concession to His servants.