Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(6) Food Offered to Idols, Revisited

Outline: 020-E3.6-Food Offered to Idols Revisited
Passage: 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1
Discussion Audio (1h22m)

Paul was a Liberal^[1]

In this final section of the third essay, Paul returns to the original question posed to him by the believers in Corinth: “what about food offered to idols?” He has already made clear that Christians cannot participate in feasts that accompany pagan worship services. But what about “sacrificial meat” offered for purchase at marketplaces following pagan festivals? And what about banquets held in an unbeliever’s home to which a believer is invited? These are the loose ends that Paul ties up in today’s passage.

On the first question – meat offered for sale at the public marketplace – Paul writes that believers shouldn’t worry about its origins. All food and drink ultimately comes from God, not idols. Therefore, thank God and don’t concern yourself with whether or not the meat was offered to idols. Gordon Fee notes an interesting irony that Paul may or may not have intended in his use of Psalm 24:1 LXX:

But what Paul here does is full of irony toward his Jewish heritage, whether intended or not. The rabbis saw the text as the reason for thanking God for their food; but the food they thus blessed had been thoroughly "investigated" before the prayer. Paul now uses the text to justify eating all foods, even those forbidden by Jews, since God is the ultimate source of the food—even that sold in the macellum [marketplace]. For that reason it can be taken with thanksgiving. The clear implication is that nothing contaminates food as such along the way. Apart from his radical statements on circumcision, it is hard to imagine anything more un- Jewish in the apostle than this.^[2]

Paul next responds to the second issue – what about food at an unbeliever’s’ home? He writes that the default position for the believer is to not question the food’s origins, to not concern one’s self about it, but to partake of it. He notes that he himself partakes of such foods.

But there is one caveat. It is found in the center of this ring composition. What is “someone” informs the believer that the meat is “sacrificial meat?” In that case, Paul writes that the believer should respect the warning and abstain from eating the meat.

But who precisely does Paul intend by “someone?” It has been interpreted as another believer also at this banquet, the pagan host, and an pagan guest. Gordon Fee argues, referring to original language and syntax, that the best fit is a pagan guest.^[3] So the one situation in which a believer ought to refrain from consuming meat offered to idols outside of the pagan temple is when he or she is at a banquet hosted by an unbeliever and another unbelieving guest points it out “to be helpful.”

In our discussion, an interesting point was brought out that a “weak” Christian brother or sister should not be accompanying a stronger believer to such a banquet in the first place. This observation may not be present directly in the text, but it makes sense in the overall theme of mission that underlies this entire discussion. Paul had discussed earlier that it takes great discipline and effort to make one’s self effective for mission to outsiders (1 Cor. 9:19-27). In today’s passage, Paul wrote that everything should be done with “the other”^[4] in mind (1 Cor. 10:24). For Paul, a place where Christians must voluntarily retrain exercise of freedom is in loving consideration of an unbeliever’s beliefs. Gordon Fee writes,

The clue lies in the meaning of "conscience," which is not to be understood as "a moral arbiter" but as "moral consciousness." The one who has pointed out the sacrificial origins of this meat to a Christian has done so out of a sense of moral obligation to the Christian, believing that Christians, like Jews, would not eat such food. So as not to offend that person, nor his/her moral expectations of Christians, and precisely because it is not a matter of Christian moral consciousness, one should forbear under these circumstances.^[5]

But what about offending another Christian by one’s actions? Fee continues,

If this is the correct understanding of the text, then what Paul is not referring to is a fellow believer's conscience as restricting the actions of another, as is so often assumed [my emphasis]. The significance of this observation is that Paul does not allow any Christian to make food a matter of Christian concern; he does not even do that in Rom. 14, where he does allow people their differences in such matters.^[6]

My broad summary of Essay Three (1 Cor. 8:1-11:1) is as follows:

1. Consumption of sacrificial meat should not concern Christians, wherever it occurs, except…
   1. Eating as a part of idol worship is prohibited
   2. And when an unbeliever points out the sacrificial meat to you
2. Don’t make eating and drinking a “test of Christian fellowship”
3. In all things, keep mission to “the other” your foremost concern – as far as it is in your power, do nothing to offend them and do everything allowable to integrate with them, so that your actions and words will be seen as God’s glory and gospel

I return to the words of Gordon Fee as in his wrap up of this passage:

Despite this passage, the issue of personal freedom in matters that are adiaphora [nonessentials], and the limitation of freedom for the sake of others, continue to haunt the church. Usually the battle rages over what constitutes adiaphora. Conservatives on these issues simply fail to reckon with how "liberal" Paul's own view really is. Hence Paul is seldom heard for the sake of traditional regulations. On the other hand, the assertion of freedom to the hurt of others is not the biblical view either. However, in most contemporary settings the "offended" are not unbelievers or new Christians, but those who tend to confuse their own regulations with the eternal will of God.^[7]

---

^[1] “Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values… favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.” Via Google search “define liberal.”

^[2] New International Commentary on the New Testament: The First Epistle, entry for 1 Cor. 10:26.

^[3] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 10:28b-29a.

^[4] Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. Kenneth Bailey discusses why “the other” is a better translation than “neighbor” and how this term means those outside one’s own family, tribe, ethnicity, and religion. Kindle edition, locations 3328-3339.

^[5] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 10:28b-29a.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 11:1.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(3) Full Identification in Mission

Outline: 017-E3.3-Full Identification
Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:19-27
Discussion Audio (1h05m)

Flexibility requires enormous effort and discipline

In my experience, the passage for today – 1 Corinthians 9:19-27 – is frequently treated as two separate topics: 1) vv.19-22 dealing with how Christians need to adapt their behaviors and message to their audience; and 2) vv.23-27 dealing with how Christians need to discipline themselves so that they will receive the “prize” and not be “disqualified.”

The problem with looking at this passage as two separate topics is that v.23 begins, “I [Paul] do it all for the gospel…” Paul refers to his words regarding adaptation as the goal of his discipline. When seen this way, the commonly given interpretation of “prize” as heaven/eternal life/salvation no longer makes much sense.

Christians often have trouble with the first part as well. Paul seems a bit wishy-wash, an accommodationist. “Why can’t he be consistent in his behaviors?” we might ask. Or, “Why can’t he stick to his principles?” – if he really believes the Torah has no bearing on salvation and righteousness, why does he admit to kowtowing to the Jews?

The range of interpretations that has been suggested by commentators is remarkable, moving from an understanding of Paul as being totally selfless—perhaps in a psychologically unhealthy manner indicative of a loss of identity—to the contention that Paul was an opportunist in his dealings with potential converts. Careful reading of the text, however, indicates that such extreme interpretations are stereotyped, falling short of full comprehension of the subtlety of Paul's methods of mission and ministry.^[1]

To put it in more contemporary terms, when he was among Jews he was kosher; when he was among Gentiles he was non-kosher—precisely because, as with circumcision, neither mattered to God (cf. 7:19; 8:8). But such conduct tends to matter a great deal to the religious—on either side!—so that inconsistency in such matters ranks among the greatest of evils… The difference, therefore, between his own behavior and that of his social companions is not in the behavior itself, which will be identical to the observer, but in the reasons for it. The latter abstain because they are “under the law”; it is a matter of religious obligation. Paul abstains because he loves those under the law and wants to win them to Christ. Despite appearances, the differences are as night and day.^[2]

The first part of today’s passage is Paul’s defense of his approach to mission. He will go as far as he must to become “weak,” to participate in the incarnational mission pattern of Jesus, to be among the people, to identify with them. Paul will not serve from a position power.

D. T. Niles of Sri Lanka wrote, “To serve from a position of power is not true service but beneficence… We run schools, hospitals, orphanages, agricultural farms, etc. But what we do not adequately realize is that these institutions are not only avenues of Christian service but are also sources of secular strength. Because of them, we can offer patronage, control employment, and sometimes make money. The result is that the rest of the community learn to look on the Church with jealousy, sometimes with fear, and sometimes even with suspicion.^[3]

The second part of today’s passage is actually Paul’s description of how he is able to work cross-culturally. It has nothing to do with personal salvation or his own eternal life. The “prize” is the progress of the gospel. Paul writes here of acquiring and maintaining skills and abilities that will allow him to become a part of each people group that he goes to. Paul writes of the tremendous effort, energy, and discipline that is required to work cross-culturally.

“Disqualification” is not a loss of salvation, eternal life, or heaven. It is about not being fit enough to participate in mission work that Paul was commissioned to do.

With the Isthmian Games sponsored by the city of Corinth, the citizens of that city could not help being fully aware of the time commitments and energy required to complete in those games. Paul builds on that awareness and tells his readers that the same level of discipline is required to cross cultural lines in the name of Christ…

Paul is not talking about ascetic disciplines, he is discussing the high commitment required if one is to successfully cross cultural barriers in the name of Christ. He is discussing mission…

He warns his readers that the task of “all things to all people” takes enormous energy He is discussing the cost of crosscultural, incarnational mission…

Language, culture, history, art, literature, politics, worldview, music, civil unrest and war—all must be experienced, comprehended and embraced if one is to effectively enter into another culture.^[4]

According to this passage, the purpose of spiritual disciplines is not for yourself.

1. Discipleship and spiritual disciplines aren’t about me. It’s not spiritual self-improvement to express gratitude, to keep in Jesus’ good graces, to prove that I really belong, or even to be a better evangelist and witness (at least not in the usual way of thinking about it).
2. Spiritual disciplines are about learning and finding ways to partner with God’s Spirit in the work of the gospel that is already happening.
3. Spiritual disciplines are less about an individual’s personal spiritual condition and more about how to benefit others.
4. You don’t have to participate – you can be a spectator. Your salvation isn’t the issue. But you might lose out on the greater joy and satisfaction of going beyond the minimum call.
5. Spiritual disciplines include more than just the usual prayer, Bible study, and church attendance. It can and should include learning about anthropology, psychology, sociology, history, literature, music, arts, language, mythology, sciences, pop culture, etc. Anything that will help you integrate better with the people you have been sent to.

Paul does not argue that he “must become all things to all people” so that the gospel can receive a hearing and be accepted. For him, God, through the gospel, was already at work across cultural lines and he wanted to become its partner. The gospel train was moving and he could jump on or get left behind.^[5]

---

^[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry in section 25 (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

^[2] NICNT, 1 Cor. 9:20.

^[3] Bailey, location 2995.

^[4] Bailey, locations 3043, 3048, 3065, 3069.

^[5] Bailey, location 3031.

Essay 3—Freedom and Responsibility—(2) Paul’s Freedom and Responsibility

Outline: 016-E3.2-Paul and Freedom
Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:1-18
Discussion Audio (1h19m)

The Gospel is offensive because it is free, not transactional.

The Corinthian Christians looked upon Paul with askance, harboring doubts regarding his status as an apostle, because he refused to accept their support (patronage) and instead labored to support himself. In their cultural beliefs and traditions, teachers needed to free themselves from labor so they could have time to cultivate their minds. Teachers were expected to be clients of wealthy patrons. “You give us teaching; we support you.” That was the expected transactional relationship.

… There was no doubt friction between Paul and the Corinthians because he worked with his hands. For most Jewish believers this would not have been a problem… The rabbis supported themselves financially, often through some trade or skill. Indeed they were required to do so… On the other hand, for Christians with a Greek background things were different. Intellectuals were expected to be financially independent. Only with the leisure that comes from such independence was it possible to cultivate the mind. How could Greeks accept the intellectual and spiritual leadership of a tentmaker? ^[1]

But Paul refused patronage. Why?

First Corinthians 9:1-18 can be seen in two parts. In the first part Paul vigorously defends his status as an apostle and defends rights to which he is entitles as an apostle. Paul must first establish that he knows full well that he is entitled to the support of the Corinthian Christians. In the second part Paul vigorously defends his reasons for refusing patronage.

Paul's response to this is not first of all to defend his renunciation of his rights, but to establish that he has such rights. This must be done because they have questioned his authority altogether. From their point of view his activity would not have been the renunciation of assumed rights; rather, he must have worked with his hands because he lacked such rights. Since, therefore, he did not do as the others—accept patronage—he must not be a genuine apostle. ^[2]

One of the foundational problems Paul saw in the Corinthian church was that of freedom and rights. The Corinthians had a distorted view of Christian freedom. Not only did they appear to believe that this freedom meant they could do anything, they were flaunting it and imposing it on those who did not believe this way or were uncomfortable with this particular expression. In other words, some in the Corinthian church were (ironically) becoming enslaved to freedom. This is the point at which 1 Cor. 9:1-18 ties into the issue of food offered to idols that Paul had touched on in chapter 8.

Some of the Corinthian Christians had come to believe that accepting the gospel and its freedoms meant they were obligated to perform and behave in ways that would highlight their freedom and rights. They were still thinking in transactional terms.

By refusing patronage, Paul holds himself up as an example of genuine Christian freedom. He illustrates the transaction-free nature of the gospel through his actions.

Like the Corinthian Christians, we usually don’t have too much problem understanding and accepting that there is nothing we can do to merit God’s grace to us. But we often have a real problem in accepting that there is nothing God demands from us in return. (This is different from God desiring much from us.) There is nothing we can “do for God” for us to keep his grace.

This is why the gospel is so offensive. It is not so much the content of the gospel as it is its very nature. In the honor-shame culture in which this was written, to accept a gift without strings attached, without demand or expectation of reciprocation, was to suffer shame. The gospel is a stumbling block, it is shameful, because its recipients must acknowledge their shamefulness. There is no personal honor in accepting the gospel.

The parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14) brings home this point. In this parable Jesus says that the tax collector is the one who was justified. The tax collector receives God’s grace. He, unlike the Pharisee, offers no good deeds as an offering. The tax collector offers no promises of sacrifice, offerings, or to even change his ways. He only acknowledges the reality of his condition. That is all grace requires.

The Corinthians wanted to bring transaction back into the gospel so that it could be used as a means of gaining personal honor.

Paul would have none of that. He would not place himself back into the slavery of the honor-shame system. And he warned the Corinthians of the path they were on. Genuine Christian freedom is found in rejecting the relational systems of this world and allowing only Christ to have a claim on one’s life.

In one sense his "pay" is in fact to receive "no pay"! But in the present argument this nonpayment "payment" also gives him his apostolic "freedom" from all, so that he might the more freely make himself a slave to everyone (v. 19). Thus in terms of his own ministry, his "pay" turns out to be his total freedom from all merely human impositions on his ministry. ^[3]

Freedom found in giving up one’s personal rights.

---

^[1] Bailey, location 2874.

^[2] NICNT, introductory text for 1 Cor. 9:3-14.

^[3] NICNT, entry for 1 Cor. 9:18.

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—(2) Kingdom Ethics

Outline: 010-E2.2-Kingdom Ethics
Passage: 1 Corinthians 6:9-12
Discussion Audio (45m)

Don’t allow freedom to cancel itself out by becoming a slave to freedom.

The list of vices – two sets of five – appear like neon signs to many modern Christians who read these verses. Was the highlighting of vices Paul’s intent? Or was it something else altogether?

Two key points must be kept in mind. First, the vice lists (standard rhetorical form in moralizing literature of the time) are sandwiched between the phrase “[not] inherit the kingdom of God.” Second, it can be argued that the Corinthian believers had a wrong idea of the kingdom. Some of them held an over-realized eschatology (and/or possibly proto-Gnosticism) where what they did in the body no longer had any effect on their spiritual condition.

Paul is arguing that any behavior that indulges selfish desires and uses/abuses others does not belong in the kingdom of God. If the kingdom of God were indeed fully realized, these types of behavior would not be present.

… Watson (First Epistle, p. 56) makes the insightful observation that if there is a prevalent point between the items Paul has chosen to include in this listing, it is the common characteristic of "ruthless self- gratification, reckless of other people's rights." Such an attitude, which produces deplorable behaviors, is the ungodliness Paul is concerned to criticize; he is not aiming at ranking or rating sins.^[1]

Rather than dwell on specifics of the vice lists, the point is that any kind of self-seeking is at odds with citizenship in the kingdom of God.

The middle portion of this set of verses (verse 11b) appears to be Paul’s emphasis. With these words Paul corrects the misguided theologies of some of the Corinthians by returning the emphasis of the Christian back to Jesus Christ, the Spirit, and God (the Father). Paul describes the present reality and identity of every Christian, the gifting for service through the Spirit, and the responsibility to live lives that bring honor to God.

These set of verses end with Paul returning to another way in which some of the Corinthians were expressing their misguided theology: “I am free from the law; therefore, I can do anything I want.” Rather than imposing new laws and regulations (hence the argument against using the vice lists as lists of “don’ts”) Paul redirects attention back to what genuine freedom looks like. First, genuine freedom is expressed in behavior that is helpful to others. Second, freedom is not an end to itself; i.e., freedom must not become an idol to which freedom itself is sacrificed.

When one loves God, all things are permissible; but when one loves God, one loves what He loves. This means love for all others, for they are loved by God; and conduct will be regulated by this love.^[2]

---

^[1] Understanding the Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians, entry “Additional Notes” 1 Cor. 6:10.

^[2] Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries: 1 Corinthians, Orr/Walther, p. 202; quoted by Bailey, location 2096