For meat destroy not the work of God—Mē heneken brōmatos katalye to ergon tou theou (μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ). Katalyō (καταλύω, destroy/tear down) is violent—demolish, dismantle. To ergon tou theou (the work of God) is the believer God has regenerated, the church God is building. Paul's rhetorical question shocks: will you demolish what God is constructing over brōmatos (food)? The disproportion is staggering—food is temporal, God's work eternal. Heneken (for the sake of) reveals twisted priorities: sacrificing eternal treasure for temporal appetite.
All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence—Panta men kathara, alla kakon tō anthrōpō tō dia proskommatos esthionti (πάντα μὲν καθαρά, ἀλλὰ κακὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι). Panta kathara (all things clean) echoes v. 14—Paul affirms the strong's theology. Yet kakon (evil/wrong) for the person eating dia proskommatos (with stumbling block/offense)—either causing others to stumble or stumbling yourself by violating conscience. Objective purity doesn't equal subjective permission—context, conscience, and love govern application.
Historical Context
Paul's 'all things pure' echoes Jesus' declaration (Mark 7:19, 'This he said, making all meats clean') and Peter's vision (Acts 10:15, 'What God has cleansed, call not common'). The New Covenant abolishes OT food laws (Colossians 2:16-17, Hebrews 9:10). Yet Paul doesn't wield this truth as weapon—love constrains liberty. This pastoral balance shaped Christian ethics: affirm truth robustly while applying it sensitively. The Reformers rediscovered this: freedom in Christ from human traditions (Galatians 5:1) yet voluntarily limiting freedom for weaker believers' sake.
Questions for Reflection
How does the phrase 'destroy the work of God' (<em>katalye to ergon tou theou</em>) reframe your attachment to personal freedoms?
What's the difference between affirming 'all things are pure' (<em>panta kathara</em>) theologically while recognizing it's 'evil' to eat in certain contexts?
How do you balance holding firm on truth (nothing unclean) with pastoral wisdom (don't cause others to stumble)?
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
For meat destroy not the work of God—Mē heneken brōmatos katalye to ergon tou theou (μὴ ἕνεκεν βρώματος κατάλυε τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ). Katalyō (καταλύω, destroy/tear down) is violent—demolish, dismantle. To ergon tou theou (the work of God) is the believer God has regenerated, the church God is building. Paul's rhetorical question shocks: will you demolish what God is constructing over brōmatos (food)? The disproportion is staggering—food is temporal, God's work eternal. Heneken (for the sake of) reveals twisted priorities: sacrificing eternal treasure for temporal appetite.
All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence—Panta men kathara, alla kakon tō anthrōpō tō dia proskommatos esthionti (πάντα μὲν καθαρά, ἀλλὰ κακὸν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ τῷ διὰ προσκόμματος ἐσθίοντι). Panta kathara (all things clean) echoes v. 14—Paul affirms the strong's theology. Yet kakon (evil/wrong) for the person eating dia proskommatos (with stumbling block/offense)—either causing others to stumble or stumbling yourself by violating conscience. Objective purity doesn't equal subjective permission—context, conscience, and love govern application.