Untitled Sermon (5)
Intro:
Meat was offered to idols before being served in temples’ dining halls (often as part of worship) or being used for communal meals; some of the meat served at the marketplace had been offered to idols. One who ate in a temple would know the source of the meat; one who ate at a pagan friend’s home could never be certain. In pagan cities with large Jewish populations, Jews normally had their own markets.
Palestinian Jewish teachers debated what to do in many cases of uncertainty (such as untithed food), but would never have taken a chance on food that might have been offered to an idol. They believed that Jews outside Palestine unwittingly compromised with idolatry when invited to pagans’ banquets for their sons, even if they brought their own food. Following such teachings strictly (as some did) would have greatly circumscribed their relationships with pagan colleagues. The matter was more troubling for Christians converted from pagan backgrounds: could they meet over lunch with business associates or fellow members of their trade guild, or attend a reception in a temple for a relative’s wedding?
In chapters 8–10, Paul works on an elaborate compromise between two factions in the Corinthian church. The more educated and socially elite group, who unlike the poor ate meat regularly and not just when it was doled out at pagan festivals, had well-to-do friends who would serve meat. They probably represent the liberal faction, who consider themselves “strong” and the socially lower group “weak.”
8:7. Meat was unavailable to most Corinthians who were not well-to-do except at the pagan festivals, when it was doled out to the masses. Many of the socially powerless (the “weak”) thus inevitably associated meat with idolatry.
Like the Corinthians, we often ask, “What am I free to do?” But as believers in Christ, we are able to ask a different question: “What am I free to give up for the good of others?” Similarly, when we know spiritual truth as we ought, we will use it not to justify doing what we please, but to “build up” other people (vv. 1–2).
Only by the transforming power of the gospel can the good of our neighbor come to mean more to us than our own rights and privileges. For in the gospel, Jesus himself gave up his own rights and privileges for our sake.
Two words which seemed to epitomize the Corinthians’ point of view were “freedom” (eleutheros, 9:1, 19; eleutheria, 10:29) and “rights” (exousia, 8:9; 9:4–6, 12, 18).
These include drinking alcohol; wearing potentially suggestive forms of dress; listening to certain kinds of music; smoking or chewing tobacco; playing games that sometimes but not necessarily involve gambling; buying lottery tickets that support government, education, state parks, and the like;
Live your testimony with loving concern for your brother, but, do not make an issue of meat sold in the market. Eat it as a gift from God. Do this, except when the point is explicitly made that the meat was offered in sacrifice to an idol. For you would in such a case seem to be participating in this religious heathen practice. Refrain, then, for your weaker brother’s sake and for your own peace of mind. Above all, do everything for the glory of God (10:23–11:1).
PAUL NOW ADDRESSES the second issue raised by the Corinthians in their letter to him (see 7:1). Most meat sold in the town marketplace came from sacrificial animals that had been slaughtered at pagan temple ceremonies. Did these rituals somehow automatically taint the food? Could Christians buy it? Could they eat it if it was offered to them at friends’ homes? What about the various social events—weddings, parties, clubs, and so on—which often used the temple dining halls for their festivities? Could Christians participate and eat meat at these events? What about more overtly religious rites in those temples? The issue clearly was not as simple or innocuous at it might at first glance seem to Westerners today.
Love must therefore limit freedom. Some of the Corinthian Christians could not eat idol meat, even in private homes, and almost certainly not in temple dining halls, without recalling the past religious associations that the meat had for them.
Rather he saw the strong believers’ behavior as “an obstacle to Christian sanctification” (cf. Rom. 14:15). Such damage stands diametrically opposed to the purpose of the atonement. Verse 12a elaborates and confirms the type of ruin described here as wounding others’ weak consciences.
Most meat sold in the town marketplace came from sacrificial animals that had been slaughtered at pagan temple ceremonies. Did these rituals somehow automatically taint the food? Could Christians buy it? Could they eat it if it was offered to them at friends’ homes? What about the various social events—weddings, parties, clubs, and so on—which often used the temple dining halls for their festivities? Could Christians participate and eat meat at these events? What about more overtly religious rites in those temples? The issue clearly was not as simple or innocuous at it might at first glance seem to Westerners today.
The topic is food sacrificed to idols, but the real underlying issue is Christian freedom and the priority of love.
Already in 5:9–11, in the case of the toleration of the incestuous man, Paul clarified his previous letter’s intent regarding his instruction not to associate with immoral people, including idolaters. His directive to refrain from eating with such people applied to professing Christians but not to unbelievers. Otherwise, believers would have to “leave the world” (5:10). At the same time, Paul scolded the church for taking up legal matters before the unbelievers (6:1–7), defrauding other believers (6:8), and he sternly cautioned that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9–10). Similarly, in 8:1–11:1, Paul relates the issue of food sacrificed to idols to the believer’s relationship to God, to other believers, and to the unbelieving world. Believers are free to eat whatever is sold in the marketplace and to accept invitations to dine with unbelievers (10:25–27), but Paul vigorously warns of the effect of idolatrous associations on others (8:7–13; 10:28–30) and the spiritual dangers of idolatry in relation to God (10:1–22).
Our text asks a key question: How should the members of a gospel-shaped community exercise their Christian liberties and privileges? What is the right way to exercise our rights? The language of “rights” refers to liberties or privileges, and not to modern-day “human rights.” We will again pursue our discussion around several key points.
For the poor, the only time they would have eaten meat would have been at an idol festival. Essentially the restrictive Christians in our text, whom Paul describes as having a “weak” conscience, were likely poor individuals who had recently converted to the faith. They would have been unable to dissociate the consumption of meat associated with the worship of false gods from Christian liberties. The permissive Christians were likely more seasoned in the faith (relative to the restrictive group) and were more financially secure (i.e., they ate meat more regularly). They “knew” that because there is only one God, there was no reality behind the idols of the temple. They viewed the consumption of meat from idol worship as an expression of Christian liberty.
This is not talking about moralistic people who have a strong preference for not eating or drinking. This is talking about individuals who will actually be tempted to worship other gods and revert to their old pre-Christian lifestyles. The issue is that the progressives have completely missed the aim of their Christian freedom, namely to build one another up in love. Christian rights and liberties are meant to be bent toward love!
The issue is: How far does Christian freedom go in regard to behavior not specifically forbidden in Scripture?
In preparation for giving the principle, Paul responds to three reasons some of the Corinthians gave for feeling completely free to act as they pleased in regard to practices not specifically forbidden by God. The reasons were: (1) We know we all have knowledge; (2) We know that an idol is nothing; and (3) We know that food is not an issue with God. The apostle agrees that each reason is basically valid, but then goes on to show how none of those reasons should be applied to practices that might cause someone else to stumble spiritually.
It was believed that the evil spirits were constantly trying to invade human beings and that the easiest way to do that was to attach themselves to food before it was eaten. The only way the spirits could be removed from food was through its being sacrificed to a god. The sacrifice therefore served two purposes; it gained the favor of the god and cleansed the meat from demonic contamination.
Common sense and concern for the bodies God has given us should make us careful about what and how much we eat. Gluttony is harmful and eating foods to which we are allergic is harmful. No sensible, mature person will do those things. But, in itself, eating or not eating certain foods has absolutely no spiritual significance. Jesus made it plain that “there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man” (Mark 7:15). The Lord’s command to Peter to “kill and eat” was both figurative, referring to accepting Gentiles, and literal, referring to eating food previously considered ceremonially unclean (Acts 10:10–16; cf. v. 28). And Paul told Timothy to receive all food with thankfulness (1 Tim. 4:4).
Although Paul never quotes Deut 6 or Lev 19, the influence of these texts is apparent throughout the discussion. Verse 3 speaks of one’s love for God, and 8:4 clearly echoes the Shema (Deut 6:4), which follows with the command to love God with one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength (Deut 6:5–6). The believer’s exclusive allegiance to the one true God is especially apparent in Paul’s strong denunciation of idolatry in 10:1–22. The principle of love for others also runs throughout the argument (8:1b, 7–13; 9:19–23; 10:23–33).
Paul struck right to the heart of the matter in these preliminary verses by stating a basic principle: love is superior to knowledge (cf. chap. 13).
8:10. As an illustration Paul posed a situation in which a weak Christian saw a knowledgeable brother enjoying a meal in an idol’s temple and was by this example encouraged to join in, even though he could not do so with the clear conscience before God that the knowledgeable Christian enjoyed.
As a final note to this chapter it should be understood that Paul did not say that a knowledgeable Christian must abandon his freedom to the ignorant prejudice of a “spiritual” bigot. The “weak brother” (v. 11) was one who followed the example of another Christian, not one who carped and coerced that knowledgeable Christian into a particular behavioral pattern. Also it was unlikely that Paul saw this weak brother as permanently shackling the freedom of the knowledgeable Christian. The “weak brother” was no omnipresent phantom but an individual who was to be taught so that he too could enjoy his freedom (Gal. 5:1).
9:4–6. The word right in these verses is the same word (exousia) translated “freedom” in 8:9. It links the chapters, though Paul’s subject here was not sacrificial meat but ordinary food. To bring out the meaning of these rhetorical questions the phrase “at the expense of the church” could be added to verses 4–5 (cf. Matt. 10:10–11). Paul was not alone in refusing this right but had an ally in Barnabas. Commitment to this practice may have marked their first missionary journey together (Acts 13:1–14:28) and apparently continued to characterize their separate ministries.
True love is not “puffed up” because it is not self-seeking (13:4–5).
If Christians who know that idols are “nothing” (v. 4) eat in pagan temples, they send the message that they accept the reality or existence of these pagan gods.
9:1–18 Paul’s Rights as an Apostle. Paul describes his authority as an apostle (vv. 1–2), his behavior as a missionary (vv. 3–6), and his rights as an apostle (vv. 7–14) to demonstrate that he has relinquished his rights (vv. 15–18).
9:12 Even though Paul has the right to material support, he has relinquished it. He accepts financial support from churches he has established (2 Cor 11:8–9; Phil 4:10–19), and he solicits material support for other Christians, in particular, support for the poor believers in Jerusalem (16:1–4; 2 Cor 8–9). But he refuses to make a living from people to whom he preaches the gospel. Paul willingly puts up with anything that this decision entails, including dishonor, hunger, thirst, ragged clothes, and work with his own hands (4:10–12). Accepting material support from people in a city in which he has just arrived as a missionary could easily lead them to falsely assess his motives (1 Thess 2:3–6) and thus “hinder the gospel of Christ.”
8:2, 3 Love is the proof of knowing God. Cf. 1 John 4:19–5:1.
There are three scenarios related to eating food sacrificed to idols in 8:1–11:1: (1) eating food sacrificed to an idol in the temple precincts (8:7–13; 10:1–22); (2) eating food purchased in the marketplace, which may or may not have been sacrificed to idols (10:23–27); and (3) eating food at the invitation of an unbeliever where some of the food served may have been previously sacrificed to an idol (10:28–31).
Obviously Paul’s problem is not with food per se (10:25–26), but in addition to the dangers of idolatry associated with food sacrificed to idols, Paul’s concern lies with those with “knowledge” who act without concern for and with dire consequence to fellow believers for whom Christ died (8:1–2, 11–13). Paul advances a gospel-centered response that both answers their question and addresses the core problem of pride.
Three timeless principles dominate this chapter: what is safe for one Christian may not be for another; true discernment always requires love as well as knowledge; and believers have no right to demand certain freedoms if they in turn prove detrimental to those around them.
Two dangers remain ever-present: a separatism that prevents Christians from being the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt. 5:13–16) and a syncretism (a mixture of religions) that adopts pagan practices with damaging consequences.
Jack Kuhatschek points out that an adequate analogy to 1 Corinthians 8 must have three elements: (a) a threat to Christian freedom; (b) a potential stumbling block; and (c) a Christian brother or sister who might actually be led into sin.
2 Paul now warns against dependence on simply knowing something, since a person never knows all he ought to know about a subject. Such an attitude exhibits a complete dependence on one’s own self-sufficient knowledge and illustrates what Paul means by saying, “Knowledge puffs up.”
By “stumbling block” is meant causing the weak brother not only to have a sense of guilt (v. 7), but to go beyond this into sin (v. 13) by compromising with pagan idolatry.
Verse 12b gives the third reason for abstinence: to avoid sinning against Christ. As in Matthew 10:42 and 25:40, treatment of fellow Christians equals treatment of their Lord. Paul concludes the chapter, therefore, with a conditional absolute. When there is good reason to believe that exercising one’s freedom in amoral areas will actually lead a fellow Christian into sin, restraint is always right.
A FULL UNDERSTANDING of the principles and applications of chapter 8 must await the completion of Paul’s argument in chapters 9–10. By then it will be clear that an evangelistic principle of behaving in ways most likely to lead to others’ salvation (see esp. 9:19–23) is foundational to all that Paul says in these three chapters
This kind of love is sacrificial self-giving, centered around and imitating Christ’s cross-work, not primarily a nice feeling, familial friendship, or mere altruism. The more believers mature, the more they understand how little they measure up to God’s standards and how much depends on him and not themselves (v. 3).
Yet for most readers of this commentary, idol meat and its analogues in other world religions will not rank among their top one hundred moral dilemmas in life! Still, when one realizes the overarching principles involved, applications clamor for attention at every turn.
The most common contemporary applications of 1 Corinthians 8, however, usually do not involve activities that could lead to overtly anti-Christian beliefs or rituals. Rather they have to do with involvement in activities that can lead to excess and sin but do not have to. These include drinking alcohol; wearing potentially suggestive forms of dress; listening to certain kinds of music; smoking or chewing tobacco; playing games that sometimes but not necessarily involve gambling; buying lottery tickets that support government, education, state parks, and the like;
Verses 7–13 also cut against the grain of prevailing trends. Society bombards us with a myriad of signals urging us to demand rather than to relinquish our rights. Yet “insisting on one’s rights, even insisting on one’s rights as a Christian, is a sign that something else other than the true God is being worshipped.”
(1) What is safe for one person may be quite unsafe for another
No one has any right to indulge in a pleasure or to demand a liberty which may be destructive to someone else.
In 1 Corinthians 8–10, Paul enunciated four basic principles that would guide believers in making personal decisions about those “questionable” areas of the Christian life. The four principles are:
KNOWLEDGE MUST BE BALANCED BY LOVE (1 COR. 8)
Cause to fall renders skandalizō, a verb difficult to translate. It means something like ‘to set off a trap’ (from skandalon, used in 1:23, the bait stick, i.e. the stick that sets the trap in motion when a bird or animal touches it). It is used metaphorically for trouble of various kinds. Paul’s negative is the emphatic ou mē, and he follows it with ‘into the age’, i.e. the coming age. It is a strong expression for never.
Paul counters that the founder of the church at Corinth has far more right to this sort of thing than anyone else (we is emphatic). Paul’s word for hinder is unusual (here only in the New Testament). It means ‘a cutting into’, and was used of breaking up a road to prevent the enemy’s advance. Paul had avoided doing anything that might prevent a clear road for the gospel advance.
He told the mature believers not to focus on their liberty but on the spiritual welfare of those who were less mature. He was saying, “Don’t look at your freedom; look at their need. Your own freedom should be limited by your love for fellow believers. If you love them as God calls you to love, you will not use your liberty in any way that will offend, confuse, or weaken their faith.”
The pagan gods were not real, but the wicked practices associated with them were real and fresh on their minds. They recoiled from having contact with anything associated with their past paganism. Their consciences were not yet strong enough to allow them to eat idol food without having it pull them back to their former idolatrous activity.
The first reason that had been given for exercising freedom is summarized by Paul: we know that we all have knowledge. The statement was true but egotistical. It reflected a feeling of superiority. The believers who made the claim were not suggesting they were omniscient, but that they had more than enough knowledge and understanding of God’s Word to know that pagan gods and idols were not real and that food sacrificed to them was still just food. They knew that eating the food could not contaminate them spiritually, that it had no affect on their Christian lives. They felt totally free to eat whatever they wanted, no matter what others thought.
But they are reminded that knowledge makes arrogant. Those believers were mature in knowledge, but were not mature in love. Love edifies, or builds up others; and that edification they did not have. They were solid in doctrine but weak in love. They were strong in self-love but weak in brotherly love.
Love (vv. 3–6). Love and knowledge must go together; “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). It has well been said, “Truth without love is brutality, but love without truth is hypocrisy.”
Knowledge puffs up (see note on ‘take pride’ in 4:6). Knowledge is so often accompanied by pride, which is the very antithesis of the genuine Christian spirit. While knowledge may make people proud, love builds up (cf. Phillips, ‘while knowledge may make a man look big, it is only love that can make him grow to his full stature’). Builds up (oikodomei) properly applies to the erection of buildings; Paul is fond of using it metaphorically for the development of Christian character (see TNTC on 1 Thess. 5:11).
2. Knowledge here on earth is, at best, incomplete. No matter what a man thinks he knows (the perfect tense implies full and complete knowledge), he does not yet know (if the aorist is inceptive, he has not even begun true knowledge) as he ought (‘must’, dei). There is no point in priding oneself on what is inevitably partial and incomplete (cf. 13:9). There is probably also the thought that he who thinks he knows really does not know (cf. 3:18). As Kay says, ‘Knowledge is proud that it has learnt so much. Wisdom is humble that it knows no more.’
3. Love, by contrast, has permanent effects.
Christians are able to enjoy freedom because someone sacrificed his freedom on their behalf. Their rights are the result of Christ laying aside his claim to any and all of his rights. Our liberties are ours because the ultimate stronger brother gave up his liberty to secure the liberties for his weaker brothers, namely us!
3. Love, by contrast, has permanent effects. Paul surprises us here. After ‘If anyone thinks he knows something he knows nothing. If anyone loves God’ we expect something like ‘he has real knowledge’. Instead we read, he is known by God. The really important thing is not that we know God, but that he knows us: ‘The Lord knows those who are his’ (2 Tim. 2:19; cf. Gal. 4:9). People who truly love God are brought within the sphere of those on whom God is graciously pleased to set his knowledge.
Our identity is not bound up in self-expression—it is bound up in the ultimate self-expression of a God who is characterized by self-giving love. The Son gave voluntarily; there was voluntary self-renunciation and self-abasement. The most entitled person gave up his rights for us. That is powerful.
Paul used himself as an illustration of the mature use of liberty:
We have reason to believe that Paul did accept financial support from other churches. The Philippian believers sent him two gifts when he went to Thessalonica (Phil. 4:15–16). “I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service,” Paul reminded the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:8). Apparently other ministers had accepted support at Corinth (1 Cor. 9:12), but Paul preferred to remain independent “lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.” He wanted to be the best example possible to other believers (2 Thes. 3:6–9).
An athlete must be disciplined if he is to win the prize. Discipline means giving up the good and the better for the best. The athlete must watch his diet as well as his hours. He must smile and say “No, thank you” when people offer him fattening desserts or invite him to late-night parties. There is nothing wrong with food or fun, but if they interfere with your highest goals, then they are hindrances and not helps.
This present era has been dubbed “the Age of Entitlement.” Of course, there are the horror story examples of sixteen-year-olds who complain about the color of the new car they’ve just been given by their parents. One author remarks, “Go to the mall or a concert or a restaurant and you can find them in the wild—the kids who have never been told no, whose sense of power and entitlement leaves onlookers breathless—the sand-kicking, foot-stomping, arm-twisting, wheedling, whining despots whose parents presumably deserve the company of the monsters they, after all, created.”2
He has rights, but he’s not interested in using them. In other words, he’s done with leveraging his position and title and pedigree for gain. He’s been there, done that, and it left him wanting. He is far too interested in the work he has to do (namely, preaching the gospel of Christ) than any perks or fringe benefits that may accompany it, including financial compensation.