Sermon Tone Analysis
Overall tone of the sermon
This automated analysis scores the text on the likely presence of emotional, language, and social tones. There are no right or wrong scores; this is just an indication of tones readers or listeners may pick up from the text.
A score of 0.5 or higher indicates the tone is likely present.
Emotion Tone
Anger
0.11UNLIKELY
Disgust
0.13UNLIKELY
Fear
0.07UNLIKELY
Joy
0.62LIKELY
Sadness
0.55LIKELY
Language Tone
Analytical
0.77LIKELY
Confident
0UNLIKELY
Tentative
0.69LIKELY
Social Tone
Openness
0.82LIKELY
Conscientiousness
0.59LIKELY
Extraversion
0.26UNLIKELY
Agreeableness
0.61LIKELY
Emotional Range
0.52LIKELY
Tone of specific sentences
Tones
Emotion
Language
Social Tendencies
Anger
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul switches topics.
So we find ourselves done thinking and talking about singleness, and marriage, and touching, and sexual immorality.
The Corinthians have another question that they want Paul to answer.
That question is something like this: "Is it okay to go to pagan temples and eat meat that has been first sacrificed/offered to idols?
For real?
The question shocks us.
We would never think of doing something like this.
But in first century Corinth, temples were not simply places where you'd go to worship various gods.
In fact, that's not even the main reason you'd necessarily go.
If you wanted to have a feast to celebrate some special event, or if you wanted to celebrate your birthday with a lot of people, you'd invite your friends to a pagan temple, and pay for their meal.
Or if you're a business man, trying to build networks, and grow your business, you'd maybe meet at a pagan temple.
So when you think about pagan temples, you should think of them as something more like a country club, or wedding reception hall, or your neighborhood bar and grill.
Except, that these particular places also had priests who served various gods.
And any meat you ate at a place like this would've been first offered to gods, before being set before you to eat.
The other thing I should try to explain a little is sacrifices.
We tend to think of sacrifices as whole burnt offerings.
Like, you kill a cow, and throw the whole thing on an altar, and torch it completely.
But most sacrifices didn't work like that.
Whole burnt offerings were the exception, and not the rule.
And the norm was that the gods, or God, receive a portion of it (Lev.
7:14), the priest receives a portion of it (Lev.
2:10; 7:14), and the people sacrificing receive a portion (Lev.
7:15).
And when you ate this sacrificial meal, it was viewed as a meal eaten, in some sense, with the God or gods.
The God or gods enjoy the smell of your sacrifice (Gen.
8:21; Lev.
1:9; 2:2), and the commitment and thanksgiving that your sacrifice represents, and you eat it in fellowship with God.
So in first century Corinth, going to pagan temples was a basic part of life.
This wasn't just about religion-- it was about social life, about community, about friendship, about business connections.
And the Corinthian church is apparently arguing about whether or not going to these feasts is still okay for them, as Christians.
It would sting, badly, to have to stop going to these things.
It will cost you in all kinds of ways.
And, truthfully, going to these events would've been fun.
One last thing I'll say, before getting into chapter 8.
If you're following along in an NRSV, you'll notice that three times in chapter 8, some sentences are put in quotations.
Paul most likely is quoting the Corinthian letter three times, only to interact with and challenge their beliefs.
If you try to read these sentences at face value (NASB; KJV), as something Paul believes, it's going to mess you up.
Let me just read these three first, so that you see them.
Verse 1: "All of us, knowledge we have."
Verse 4: "an idol, nothing it is in the world, and
"there is no God except only one."
Verse 8: "food doesn't bring us close to God.
And then, when you follow the NRSV footnote down in verse 8, it says that what follows may be part of the slogan.
My guess is that it is:
For, neither if we eat do we abound,
nor if we don't eat, do we lack."
Now, it's not like every single NT scholar agrees with the NRSV here.
So consider this your warning to be discerning.
But I think the best scholars do agree with the NRSV (Richard Hays, in particular).
And the reason they agree is because Paul doesn't actually believe any of these things, when stated absolutely.
Each of these statements, in some way, is wrong.
Each of these statements has something about them that Paul corrects.
So that's how I'm reading the passage.
And if you want to highlight these three verses and wrestle with that later, by all means, do so.
But when you see the quotes in these verses, and the slightly larger font, that's why it looks different.
Verses 1-3
(1) Now, concerning food sacrificed to idols, we know that "all of us, knowledge we have."
Knowledge puffs up.
Now, love builds up.
(2) If anyone thinks he knows anything, not yet has he known just as it is necessary to know.
(3) Now, if anyone loves God, this one is known by him.
Some of the Christians in this church are saying it's okay to eat food sacrificed to idols, and eat at pagan temples.
And the reason they think it's okay is because of some "knowledge" that they have.
What exactly this knowledge is, Paul doesn't yet say.
Instead of diving right into that, Paul begins his response to this by reframing the issue.
The Corinthians are viewing this issue through the perspective of "knowledge."
But Paul wants them to think about this question from a different starting point-- from the perspective of love, and not knowledge.
Now, almost everywhere else Paul talks about knowledge, he talks about knowledge as being a good thing.
It's Paul's hope, and constant prayer, that his churches would grow in their knowledge of God, and his son, and God's will (Eph.
1:15-23).
Knowledge is not a bad thing.
We are supposed to be child-like in our faith, but not childish.
But as we learn more and more about God, and the Bible, there is a danger to be aware of.
And that danger is this: it's easy to confuse increased knowledge with spiritual growth.
What does Paul say knowledge does?
"Knowledge puffs up.
Now, love builds up."
Knowledge and love both look like they lead to genuine growth.
If you look at a puffer fish that feels threatened, and it balloons to twice its size, you're impressed by how big it got.
When a Canadian goose is threatened by you, and spreads out its wings, and comes running at you, hissing, it's hard to remember that you're bigger than it.
Knowledge can puff you up.
It can make you think you've become bigger spiritually than you actually are.
Now, what does love do?
Love creates genuine spiritual growth.
Paul says, "Love builds up."
Now, what does love "build up"?
Knowledge makes me think I've grown, right?
But love, by definition, isn't about me.
If I focus on love, I'll remember that I'm not the big deal.
Everyone else is the big deal.
So, knowledge is focused on me-- or at least, it's vulnerable to that.
But love is focused on God and on his church.
So we read Paul's first words here as a caution.
The Corinthians, in framing everything through the lens of "knowledge," are making Christianity, and their faith, about themselves.
But knowledge is not a good starting point.
And knowledge is not our end goal.
Love is.
And when it comes to ethics, and right and wrong, I am not the end goal.
The genuine growth of the church is the end goal.
Verse 2:
(2) If anyone thinks he knows anything, not yet has he known just as it is necessary to know.
When you first start to dive into serious biblical study, you find yourself marveling at how little you actually know.
< .5
.5 - .6
.6 - .7
.7 - .8
.8 - .9
> .9