Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(1) Food Offered to Idols

Outline: 015-E3.1-Food Offered to Idols
Passage: 1 Corinthians 8:1-13
Discussion Audio (1h22m)

Love over knowledge – not love of knowledge

Paul continues to work through issues that were posed to him by the Corinthians. They want to know how to handle food that was offered to idols. This could be either 1) private sacrifices where part of the offered meat is eaten in the god’s temple, or 2) public sacrifices whose excess meat is sold in the public marketplace. Paul’s response covers 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1. As with issues Paul addressed earlier in this letter, his primary concern is not about food but deeper issues where one of the symptoms happens to be conflict about appropriateness of eating food offered to idols.

True gnosis consists not in the accumulation of so much data,
nor even in the correctness of one's theology,
but in the fact that one has learned to live in love toward all.¹

The reader of this passage may find curious Paul’s initial digression away from the topic of food. It is this digression that gets at the heart of what Paul identifies as the root issue: the arrogance of possessing “knowledge” and the insistence on its free use at the expense of all other brothers and sisters. Not only were some in the Corinthian church insisting on their own personal freedoms, but, as in earlier issues in the letter, they were likely insisting that to be a “true Christian” everyone had to behave in a singular manner – in the present case, to eat food offered to idols, because the idols are not real.

Real freedom is being freed from the necessity to assert only,
or primarily, one's own rights.²

Paul’s response is instructive for those of us in the modern West who place high value on knowledge and objective realities. Paul acknowledges the existence of objective realities, but he also writes that subjective realities are also very real, perhaps even more real, to people. Thus he writes in 8:5b, “as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords.’” When a Christian interacts with another brother or sister, s/he must take into account the subjective realities of the other party and adjust words and actions accordingly so as to not be the cause of someone turning away from God.

According to Paul, Christian ethics cannot be codified beyond “love one another.” And for Paul, “love” is the giving up of one’s own rights for the sake of others. Personal freedoms are subservient to “building up” the community of believers. For Christians, the priority is not “my rights” but “your well-being.” Paul brings his readers back to the cross of Christ as the prime example of Christian freedom in action.

The problem in the Corinthian church was not really about food offered to idols. It was placing knowledge above love, i.e., a love of knowledge rather than loving in order to know one another.

The real concern of the passage needs a regular hearing in the church. Personal behavior is dictated not by knowledge, freedom, or law, but by love for those within the community of faith. Everything one does that affects relationships within the body of Christ should have care for brothers and sisters as its primary motivation.³

---

¹ Reading the New Testament Series, entry for 1 Cor. 8:1-13.

² Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, introductory paragraph for section 1 Cor. 8:7-13.

³ New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, concluding paragraph for section 1 Cor. 8:1-13.

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(4c) In Harmony With the Gospel

Outline: 014-E2.4c-In Harmony with the Gospel
Passage: 1 Corinthians 7:25ff
Discussion Audio (1h16m)

Don’t base doctrine on unclear text.

This final part of 1 Corinthians 7 is considered notoriously difficult to interpret and understand just what Paul had in mind.^[1] Particularly in regards to verses 36-38, here are a few choice descriptions from a couple of commentaries:

These verses are remarkably obscure…^[2]

“The literature is voluminous and unrewarding.”^[3]

Generally this section is interpreted in two, broad ways: 1) It has general application to the broader Christian community; and 2) what is written is specific to the Corinthian situation and whatever principles we try to glean should be held tentatively. The weight of scholarship prefers the latter and that is the path I have chosen to take for our discussions.

This passage has been used to support the dichotomous positions of both the priority of marriage and the priority of celibacy in Christian life. On the one hand Paul appears to command singleness and celibacy as the “true spiritual way” while on the other hand Paul strongly affirms marriage.

This passage in particular, instead of being viewed as to our advantage, has often been burdensome for the young. But that is probably less Paul’s fault than or own… The irony of our present situation is that Paul insisted that his own preference, including his reasons for it, were not to be taken as a noose around anyone’s neck. Yet we have often allowed that very thing to happen. Roman Catholicism has insisted on celibacy for its clergy even though not all are gifted to be so; on the other hand, many Protestant groups will not ordain the single because marriage is the norm, and the single are not quite trusted.^[4]

The specifics of why Paul wrote what he did is lost to us. Therefore we ought not be making definitive statements about what Paul intended. Throughout chapter seven, Paul himself is very tentative, making very few definitive statements. For most of what he writes, he wants his audience to understand that he is giving his opinion, not commands. He is not writing Scripture:

Does not Scripture say in fact that singleness is better than marriage? To which the answer is No. First of all, this reflects Paul’s own opinion (vv. 25 and 40), and he is concerned throughout that it not be taken as “Scripture,” that is, as some form of commandment or principle. It is an ad hoc answer in light of some “present distress.” But more importantly, vv. 36-38 are not a judgment on marriage or singleness per se at all, but on whether or not engaged couples in that setting should get married. Paul thinks it better for them if they do not; but he also makes it clear that marriage is a perfectly valid option. It has nothing to do with good and evil, or even with better or worse, but with good and better in the light of that situation. It is perhaps noteworthy that the entire discussion is carried on quite apart from one of the major considerations in our culture—love for one another. One can only guess what Paul might have said in a different setting.^[5]

We have to read this last part of chapter seven in light of the entirety of Essay Two. The main issue Paul is writing against is the issue of spiritual arrogance – not sex, marriage, or immorality. Paul is writing against those who would contend that their way to spirituality is the only valid way. In particular he is writing against Platonic body-spirit (or soul) dualism. He is writing against the view that the body is evil, the spirit is good, and what one does in the body doesn’t matter because it will be destroyed. He is writing against the abuses that occur as a result of spiritual arrogance. He is writing against the culturally informed hierarchicalism and power structures that are infiltrating the Christian community. He writes against imposing one’s own preferences about spirituality upon another.

What Paul affirms is the spiritual gifting of every believer. He affirms that God does not consider gender, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status in calling his people to assignments and gifting them with all that is necessary to follow their calling and to fulfill their assignments. He affirms the equal spiritual value of both marrieds and singles. He affirms that each person ought to mind their own spiritual business and live the life they were gifted to live.

---

[1] See comments in New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, under “3. About the ‘Virgins’ (7:25-40)”

[2] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, 1 Cor. 7:36-38

[3] Bailey, applying to 1 Cor. 7:36-38 a quote by T. W. Manson; at location 2621

[4] NICNT, 1 Cor. 7:35

[5] NICNT, 1 Cor. 7:40

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(1b) Three Roadblocks

Outline: 009-E2.1b-Three Roadblocks
Passage: 1 Corinthians 5:6b-6:8
Discussion Audio (1h25m)

The effectiveness of a Christian community’s mission is
directly affected by the quality of its relationships with those outside her.

Paul addresses three objections or excuses that the Corinthian Christians might raise toward his instructions to them.

The first excuse Paul anticipates is that the problems are a “small matter.” As far as Paul is concerned, there no problem is “small.” Just as leaven will eventually permeate an entire dough, a “small” problem will infect the entire community. The community must come together and do what it needs to do in order to remove itself of any “leaven.” The major issue is not any specific examples of problems, but rather, the result of allowing problems to spread: divisions and strife. A divided church community is powerless to perform its mission. A bickering church hold no appeal to those outside her. Paul must direct the church to come together and take action as a united community.

The second excuse Paul anticipates is that some among the community have wrong ideas about community and what freedom in Christ means. These seem to have an over-realized eschatology where they are already experiencing the full effects of salvation; i.e., the community of the saved is fully realized so they have no need to associate with those outside, and even more, there is danger with such associations; and, because salvation is fully realized, they can do whatever pleases them. The specific issue of immorality triggers Paul’s argument, but his main issue is with their misunderstandings around their responsibility to those within and without the community of faith. Their over-realized eschatology is compromising the church’s mission, and he must correct it.

The third excuse Paul anticipates is their lack of responsibility. There appears to have been a small, but powerful, faction within the Corinthian church. The other, larger group were unable or unwilling to directly confront the arrogant, powerful, and wealthy faction. Instead this larger group’s recourse (or at least some of them) was to take the problem to outside judges. The issue here isn’t about airing the community’s dirty laundry in public (most likely the public already knew quite well what was going on). The issue rather is that by doing so, the church community is admitting she is incapable of functioning as a responsible member of society. (Groups were expected to resolve problems amongst themselves.) The church would be shamed; she would lose honor. Not only that, but if the powerful group asserted that because freedom in Christ meant no responsibility to conform to societal norms and expectations, it would present the church as a direct threat to Roman rule. A church community that fails to perform as a good member of society has no power to perform her mission. Paul must remind her of her societal responsibilities.

The issue of a man’s sexual immorality in 5:1 triggers Paul’s three concerns in 5:6b-6:8. But immorality is not Paul’s primary concern. Paul’s primary interest is the church and her mission. Paul’s primary concern is that arrogance has given birth to a number of symptoms that are weakening and defeating the church and compromising her mission. Paul writes to bring attention to these issues and provide corrective guidance.

When this passage is read improperly (e.g., out of context, ignoring cultural norms, ignoring surrounding context), it gives rise to a number of misguided and harmful applications. First, churches can overly focus on sexual behaviors that are deemed “sin” when that was not Paul’s primary concern. Secondly, churches often miss the portion where Paul writes they are not arbiters of morality of those outside the church. Thirdly, the instruction to not bring matters to courts is misconstrued by churches and religious organizations and used as justification to cover-up misdeeds and criminal activity by members, volunteers, and employees, in the name of “protecting the organization’s reputation.” Doing any of these things goes directly against what Paul was trying to instruct in this very passage.

A community’s integrity in relationships within and without matter. They are the currency with which she gains a hearing among those not a part of her. Paul’s interest was to maintain the believing community’s honor so that her effectiveness for mission would not be compromised.

Essay 2—Men and Women in the Human Family—(1) Immorality and the Church

Outline: 008-E2.1-Immorality and the Church
Passage: 1 Corinthians 4:17-5:6a
Discussion Audio (1h26m)

Arrogance is the disease.
Immorality just happens to be one symptom of arrogance
that Paul encounters in the Corinthian church

Although most English scholarship places the thought break between the first and second sections of 1 Corinthians at the ending verse of chapter 4, we follow Dr. Bailey’s rhetorical, historical, and literary analysis and begin the second essay with 4:17.

In many commonly held views of this epistle, Paul seems to be preoccupied with sex and immorality among the Corinthian church. Careful reading and interpretation show that this common view may actually be a misinterpretation and an overemphasis of something Paul indeed saw as a problem, but not the problem. Paul uses what he hears among the Corinthian Church as an example of something larger. A number of commentaries astutely note this observation. For example,

“As one sees through a careful, close reading of the text, Paul is upset because of the immorality in Corinth, but he treats that flamboyant phenomenon as a symptom of the true, deeper problem that he faces among the Corinthians, namely, their spiritual arrogance, which produces elitism or indifference that renders the congregation inactive and ineffective in living out God's will for their lives in this world.”^[1]

For the modern Christian to use these texts then, as being primarily about sexual ethics places us in a dangerous position. The specific immorality that Paul condemns was certainly against Roman and Jewish laws and tradition, but in the modern West, legality of the practice differs from one jurisdiction to another. Thus some vital questions are raised in how modern Christians are to approach application of biblical text.

• How much of what is considered ethical, moral, and legal are derived from cultural norms?
• Does scripture prescribe/proscribe, or does it simply describe the way things were?
• How can we determine when to apply specifics today, or to dismiss specifics and instead reach for deeper ethical considerations?

The purpose of laws regulating sexual practice and marriage in the ancient world were primarily for keeping clear legal heirs and lines of inheritance. The West, over the centuries, has assigned moral concepts to things in scripture whose existence was primarily legal, rather than moral or ethical in a universal sense.

Paul seeks to address the underlying disease: arrogance. It would appear that there was a small, vocal, powerful group within the Corinthian Church that flaunted and boasted about their supposed “spiritual freedom.” On the other side were those (larger in number) who saw the other group’s behavior as inappropriate but were afraid to do anything. Perhaps they were hoping that Paul or some other apostle would come and deal with the problem. Paul criticizes both groups. Both behaviors are equally bad, since both contribute to diminishing the true power that is found Jesus Christ.

Paul’s instruction is that churches must take responsibility for themselves to deal with issues that arise. By inference he states that he and the apostles do not hold any authority greater than that present in each gathering: the only Christian authority is found in “our Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul and the apostles will suggest and give counsel, but only the church can take action. Each member of the church has equal responsibility and authority to address and work out solutions to problems when they arise.

The counsel Paul provides is to throw the ____ (fool, idiot, or a stronger term) out of the spiritual body. The purpose is redemption. Based on our own culture we read “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” as some kind of punitive action where it is nothing of the sort. It is a metaphorical description of what Paul hopes to see happen when this man is shamed into repentance. Collectivism and shame/honor are so foreign to the Western mind that we too often fail to properly understand what Paul writes in this and other passages.

In a collectivist culture, the most important entity is the community—the family, the tribe or the country—and not the individual. Preserving the harmony of the community is everyone’s primary goal, and is perceived as much more important than the self-expression or self-fulfillment of the individual. A person’s identity comes not from distinguishing himself from the community, but in knowing and faithfully fulfilling his place… The highest goal and virtule in this sort of culture is supporting the community. This makes people happy (makarios).

Scripture is clear that when we become Christians, we become—permanently and spiritually—a part of the church. We become part of the family of God, with all the responsibilities and expectations that word connotes in the non-Western world. We don’t choose who else is a Christian with us. But we are committed to them, bound to them by the Spirit. And we are not free to dissociate our identities from them—mainly because once we are all in Christ, our own individual identities are no longer of primary importance.

Jesus viewed us—his church—as a collectivist community. He came to establish a people of God, over which he would reign as king. It is not really “me and Jesus.”[2]

For Paul there is no individual Christian or even individual congregations. All Christians and all churches exist as the universal church. In a mysterious way every Christian is spiritually connected to all others. What happens in one corner of the physical world does affect Christians on the other side of the globe.

Paul is unhappy with the whole of the Corinthian Church. He is displeased with the man who is violating legal codes and social taboos. He is displeased with the group that flaunts this as evidence that they are spiritually free and thus no longer bound by human traditions. And he is displeased with the silent majority that has failed to take action.

Paul appears to be of the mind that when the reputation of Christ is being tarnished, Christians must not remain silent, even if that means for a period of time it might result in strife and discord. The long term goals of Christ’s mission outweighs short term setbacks.

Christian unity is a foundational principle, but it cannot be achieved when one group arrogantly proclaims itself as true and silences everyone else. This is Paul’s primary concern in this section of 1 Corinthians.

---

^[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary on 1 Corinthians, entry 13 for 1 Cor. 5:1-13.

[2] Misreading Scripture With Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understanding the Bible; E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien; Kindle edition, locations 1010, 1141, 1173.