Sermon Tone Analysis

Intro:

Transition:

Context:

THE ISSUE AT HANED:

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.

READ

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).

We must replace our me-first mentality with a missional mindset

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.