Get Guarnateed DA50+ for %domain%

hi there

Get an amaazing Domain Authority score above 50 for your website and
increase sales and visibility in just 30 days
https://www.str8creative.co/product/moz-da-seo-plan/

Service is guaranteed

Regards
Mike
Str8 Creative
support@str8creative.co

re: I need to make a website`s ranks go down

hi

Yes, it is possible, with our service here
https://negativerseo.co/

for further information please email us here
support@negativerseo.co

thanks
Peter

Our most powerful SEO Ultimate Plan

hi there

Getting Top 10 !osition^in Search Engines is a Must for every Website if
you are really serious to do Online Business. If you are not in top 10 it
means you are getting only 5%@of visitors for that particular keyword.


Please find more information on our plan here:
https://str8creative.co/product/seo-ultimate/


thanks
Liem
support@str8creative.co

The Cross of Christ

THE CROSS: PARADIGM OF FAITHFULNESS. Paul's letters offer very little information about the man Jesus. But when Paul refers to what Jesus did, the references point, over and over again, to the cross. This concentration on the death of Jesus is the outworking of Paul's determination "to know nothing … except Jesus Christ, and him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2).

The cross is a complex symbol in Paul's thought-world, with a rich variety of meanings. The cross signifies the pivot-point of the ages, the place where Christ took "the curse of the law" upon himself (Gal 3:13) so that blessing might accrue to the Gentiles, the ultimate demonstration of God's righteousness (Rom 3:24–26) and God's love (Rom 5:8), the event in which God acted for the redemption of the world. It is the mystery that confutes human wisdom and shames human power (1 Cor 1:21–31).

For NT ethics, one aspect of Paul's interpretation of the cross is determinative for his understanding of the church's ethical responsibility. For Paul, Jesus' death on the cross is an act of loving, self-sacrificial obedience that becomes paradigmatic for the obedience of all who are in Christ.

Jesus' death on the cross is not an accident or an injustice that befell him; it is, rather, an act of sacrifice freely offered for the sake of God's people. In Galatians, Paul wishes them peace from "the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Gal 1:3–4). The aorist participle dontos ("gave") refers specifically to Jesus' giving up his life, as is clear with the affirmation that "the Son of God…loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:20) is explicated by surrounding references to crucifixion (Gal 2:19) and Christ's death (Gal 2:21).

The death of the Son of God on a cross is a unique event, unrepeatable, reconciling humanity to God. It is an event fraught with singular metaphysical significance, not merely a good example of how people ought to live and die. Nonetheless, it does become for Paul also an example, a paradigm for the life of faith. When Paul writes, "Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), he's taken the pattern of Christ's self-giving (Gal 1:4, 2:20) and projected it into an imperative for the church to serve one another in love. Paul reads the cross as a metaphor for other actions (burden-bearing) that correspond analogically to the self-giving exemplified by Jesus' death. This metaphorical interpretation of the cross in Galatians 6:2 is exactly consonant with Paul's use of the same image elsewhere in his letters.

Christ's death as an example that should constrain the behavior of "the powerful," who might be inclined to despise those who are "weak in faith" (Rom 14:1). "We who are powerful ought to bear [same verb used in Gal 6:2] the weaknesses of the powerless, and not to please ourselves. Each of us must please our neighbor for the good, to the end of building up [the community]. For the Christ did not please himself, but, as it is written, "The insults of those who insult you have fallen upon me." …Welcome one another, therefore, as the Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God" (Rom 15:1–3, 7, RH).

Paul cites Ps 69:9b ("The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me") as an allusion to the passion of Jesus. Just as the crucified Messiah took upon himself suffering for the sake of others, so the "powerful" in the Roman church should welcome the others even if it means putting up with their "weaknesses," which is a matter of dietary scruples: "Some believe in eating anything, while the weak eat only vegetables" (Rom 14:2). It may seem almost ludicrous to draw an analogy between Jesus' giving up his life in crucifixion and the duty of the strong to give up eating certain foods for the sake of the weak, but the point of comparison is the voluntary surrender of prerogatives, privileges and rights for the sake of the other. Indeed, the rhetorical force of Paul's appeal is rooted precisely in the incongruity of the metaphor. "Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died" (Rom 14:15b). Jesus was willing to die for these people, and you aren't even willing to modify your diet?

The "Christ hymn" (Phil 2:6–11) is the centerpiece of the letter. It's where the paradigmatic significance of Jesus' death is most fully developed in Philippians. Writing from prison (Phil 1:12–14), Paul exhorts them to conduct themselves "in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ" in the face of opposition and suffering (Phil 1:27–30). Their suffering is "for Christ," and it is therefore a "privilege" (Phil 1:29). It's also "the same struggle" that Paul himself has experienced as an apostle. Thus, the opening of the letter establishes a solidarity in suffering between Paul and his readers.

Paul exhorts them to a life of koinonia (fellowship, sharing) and mutual support (ch. 2). This exhortation is grounded in the story of Christ, as sketched in a poetic passage that may have been an early Christian hymn already familiar to them.

If, therefore, there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any koinonia of the Spirit, if there are any compassion and mercy, fulfill my joy: be of the same mind, having the same love, being common-souled and of one mind. Do nothing in accordance with envy or conceit, but in humility let each member of the community count all the others as having higher rank. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus,

Who, though in the form of God

Did not count equality with God

As something to be exploited,

But he emptied himself,

Taking the form of a slave

And being found in human form.

He humbled himself

And became obedient all the way to death,

Death on a cross.

Therefore God also highly exalted him

And granted to him the name

That is above every name

So that in the name of Jesus

Every knee should bend

Of beings in heavenly places and on earth and under the earth

And every tongue should confess that

Jesus Christ is Lord

To the glory of God the Father.

Therefore, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for God is the one who is working in you both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Phil 2:1–13, RH)

Christ's obedience to the point of death (Phil 2:8) is offered to them as a pattern for their own obedience (Phil 2:12). Just as he obediently suffered, so they should stand firm in the gospel, even when it requires them to suffer (Phil 1:27–30). Just as he humbled himself (Phil 2:8) and took the form of a slave, so they should in humility (Phil 2:3) become servants of the interests of others. Thus, Paul takes a hymn whose original purpose is doxological and employs it in service of moral exhortation. Christ becomes an "exemplar" who illuminates the way of obedience.

The Christ hymn as ethical paradigm has been out of favor with many NT exegetes in the latter half of the 20th century, as a result of influential studies by Ernst Käsemann and Ralph Martin. Käsemann emphasized the impossibility of imitating the cosmic action of a divine being's descent from heaven and ultimate exaltation above all creation; in his view, only a naive and sentimental "ethical idealism" could see a moral example here. A key to Käsemann's interpretation is his reading of Phil 2:6. The Greek says literally, "Let this mind be among you which also in Christ Jesus." Käsemann proposed that this should be understood to mean "Let this mind be among you which [you have] also in Christ Jesus." In other words, the sentence would point not to Jesus' action as an example but to the sphere of being "in Christ" that defines the context for the church's action. This interpretation of the passage, which was adopted in the RSV, finds felicitous phrasing in the NEB: "Let your bearing towards one another arise out of your life in Christ Jesus."

More recent interpretations of the passage, however, have observed that Käsemann's exegesis fails to account for the function of the hymn in its context and for the extensive correspondences developed in the letter between Christ, Paul, and the Philippians. Furthermore, Käsemann's rejection of a literal imitation of Christ's cosmic act depends on a rigid notion of one-to-one correspondence between example and imitator. If we adopt a more supple notion of metaphorical correspondence, the dissimilarities between Christ and his people are to be expected, because metaphor always posits a startling likeness between unlike entities. In Philippians, Paul offers a metaphorical reading of Christ's self-emptying and death; the power of the metaphor is precisely a function of its daring improbability, inviting the readers to see their own lives and vocations as corresponding to the gracious action of the Lord whom they acclaim in their worship. Consequently, the decision of the NRSV translation committee to return to the "exemplar" interpretation is to be welcomed: "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus."

This correspondence to the pattern of Jesus is exemplified for the Philippians by Paul's account of his own story in Philippians 3. Once upon a time, he made it as a successful and respected religious person who knew all the answers. Unlike Martin Luther, Paul the Pharisee did not struggle with a terrified conscience; with respect to righteousness under the Law, he was "blameless" (Phil 3:4–7). But his encounter with Christ led him to empty himself of these claims and privileges. He left his former status behind: "I have suffered the loss of all things, and I consider them crap [garbage, rubbish, refuse, dung, filth, dung heap], in order that I might gain Christ and be found in him" (Phil 3:8). He surrendered his credibility within the social world of Jewish culture. He became a disreputable traveling preacher, writing this letter from a prison cell. It takes no great leap of imagination to discern the correspondence that Paul sees between his own career and the trajectory of Christ's obedience in the hymn of Philippians 2.

Furthermore, just as Christ was highly exalted by God, Paul hopes also to share ultimately in Christ's vindication: "…to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the koinonia of his sufferings, by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead" (Phil 3:10–11).

The koinonia of his sufferings: that is Paul's picture of the life in Christ. In community with others, believers find themselves conformed to the death of Christ. Thus, the cross becomes the ruling metaphor for Christian obedience, while the resurrection stands as the sign of hope that those who now suffer will finally be vindicated by God. As the wider context makes apparent, the suffering of which Paul speaks is not merely suffering for the sake of suffering; rather, it is suffering incurred for "the faith of the gospel" (Phil 1:27) and through service to others (Phil 2:1–4).

For all these reasons, Paul presumes to invites us to "become fellow-imitators of/with me and observe those who walk according to the pattern [typos] you have in us" (Phil. 3:17, RH). Paul poses himself as an eg. because his own life is conformed [however imperfectly (Phil 3:12)] to Christ: through imitating him, his churches will be joining him in imitating Christ. The point, implicit in the whole structure of the argument in Philippians, is made concisely explicit in 1 Thes 1:6: "You became imitators of us and of the Lord."

The twin themes of conformity to Christ's death and the imitation of Christ are foundational elements of Paul's vision of the moral life (Rom 6:1–14; 8:17, 29–30; 15:1–7; 1 Cor 10:23–11:1; 2 Cor 4:7–15; 12:9–10; Gal 2:19–20; 5:24; 6:14). Obedience to God is defined paradigmatically—in the metaphorical way we have discussed above—by Jesus' death on the cross.

The paradigmatic role of the cross is suggested also by the contrast in Rom 5:12–21 between Christ's obedience and the disobedience of Adam. Adam is the initiator and prime symbol of humanity's rebellion against the will of God; Jesus, through his radical obedience, reverses the consequences of Adam's sin and becomes the initiator of a new, obedient humanity: "Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous" (Rom 5:18–19).

The obedience of Jesus, enacted in his death on the cross, is the prototype for "the obedience of faith" that Paul's preaching aims to inculcate (Rom 1:5). Indeed, "the one man's obedience" (Rom 5:19) should be understood as a virtual synonym for "the faith of Jesus Christ" (Rom 3:22), through which the righteousness of God is revealed.

This last point has been somewhat obscured by translations that render the expression pistis lsou Christou as "faith in Jesus Christ" rather than "faith of Jesus Christ." I have presented at length elsewhere the exegetical arguments for the latter interpretation. The meaning of "the faith of Jesus Christ" comes into focus when we perceive that Paul understands the cross as a pattern for the life of Christians.

When Paul declares in Romans 3:21–22 that the righteousness of God has been shown forth apart from the Law "through the faith of Jesus Christ," he's providing the answer to seemingly insuperable difficulties raised in 3:1–20. Does the unfaithfulness (apistia) of Israel nullify the faithfulness (pistis) of God toward his covenant people (Rom 3:3)? Is God unjust (adikos) to inflict wrath (Rom 3:5)? If all human beings are deeply implicated in sin, Jews and Gentiles alike, all in a state of apistia, despite Israel's advantage of having been given the Law, does that mean that God's redemptive intentions have been thwarted? In Rom 3:21–26 Paul offers a resounding no! to all of these troubling questions: God has vindicated his own righteousness (dikaiosyn) by putting forward Jesus, whose faithfulness in death atones for human sin/unfaithfulness and demonstrates God's continuing faithfulness to his covenant promises. When these verses are read together with Rom 5:15–19, a consistent picture emerges. Jesus' death is an act of faithfulness that simultaneously reconciles humanity to God and establishes a new reality in which we are set free from the power of sin, able to be conformed to the pattern of his life. That is what Paul means when he says "I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me" (Gal 2:19–20, the translation given here follows the translation given in the NRSV footnote).

The faith(fulness) of Jesus Christ becomes the animating force in our lives. However mysterious such claims appear, they show that there is a deep connection in Paul's thought between Christology and ethics: to be in Christ is to have one's life conformed to the self-giving love enacted in the cross, "always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be made visible in our bodies" (2 Cor 4:10).

(C) REDEEMED COMMUNITY: THE BODY OF CHRIST Paul did not write general theological tractates; instead, he wrote letters to churches. Paul's strong thematic emphasis on community is partly to be explained by the original occasion and purpose of these letters: they were written to strengthen and support group identity in fledgling mission churches. The weight placed on community formation is not, however, merely a matter of practical necessity; Paul develops his account of the new community in Christ as a fundamental theological theme in his proclamation of the gospel.46

What is God doing in the world in the interval between resurrection and parousia? According to Paul, God is at work through the Spirit to create communities that prefigure and embody the reconciliation and healing of the world. The fruit of God's love is the formation of communities that confess, worship, and pray together in a way that glorifies God (see, e.g., Rom. 15:7–13).

Those who are baptized, Paul insists, have become "one in Christ Jesus," no longer divided by former distinctions of ethnicity, social status, or gender (Gal. 3:28). Because in Christ they are all "sons of God,"47 they all belong together in a single family, in which all are joint heirs.48 His passionate opposition to Cephas at Antioch (Gal. 2:11–21) sprang from his urgent conviction that Jews and Gentiles must be one in Christ, not separated by social barriers. The basic problem with the desire of Jewish Christians to maintain Torah observance was, according to Paul, not that it engendered "works righteousness" but rather that it fractured the unity of the community in Christ.49 John Barclay has well summarized the ethical issue at stake: "The problem here is not legalism (in the sense of earning merit before God) but cultural imperialism—regarding Jewish identity and Jewish customs as the essential tokens of membership in the people of God."50

It is important to realize, however, that Paul could equally be accused of promulgating a reverse "cultural imperialism." He has relativized and disqualified the distinctively Jewish signs of membership in God's covenant community ("works of Law" = circumcision, food laws, Sabbath observance), but he has at the same time inevitably set up new marks of participation in that community (confession of faith, baptism, experience of the Holy Spirit). Daniel Boyarin, in an important and provocative study of Paul, describes Paul's vision of community as "particularist universalism."51 It should not be forgotten that the community whose unity Paul passionately seeks is not the human community as a whole, nor is it a pluralistic community within the polis. It is, rather, always the particular community of the church. To be sure, Paul hopes for the ultimate triumph of God's grace over all human unbelief and disobedience (Rom. 11:32, Phil. 2:9–11). Until that eschatological consummation, however, Paul speaks only to the community of faith. He articulates no basis for a general ethic applicable to those outside the church.

Paul's concern for communal unity surfaces clearly in the concluding hortatory portion of the letter to the Galatians.52 Not only is his list of "works of the flesh" (5:19–21) heavily weighted toward offenses against the unity of the community ("enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy"), but the vice and virtue lists of 5:16–24 are also bracketed by clear directives against conflict in the church (5:13–15; 5:25–6:5). The conformity of the Galatians to Christ is to be expressed in their communal practice of loving, mutual service: "Through love become slaves to one another…. Bear one another's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (5:13c; 6:2).

Concern for unity of the community is also a fundamental theme of 1 Corinthians.53 The letter's introductory thanksgiving concludes with this affirmation: "God is faithful; by him you were called into the koinnia of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor. 1:9). This call to the fellowship of Jesus in turn becomes the immediate ground of a plea for unity:

Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions [schismata] among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. (1:10)

This exhortation is necessary because Paul has received word that there are indeed quarrels within the Corinthian community. (Some of the particular causes of these divisions are discussed during the course of the letter.) Paul regards such disunity in the church as contrary to the word of the cross (1:18–2:5) and as a sign of the Corinthians' immaturity in the faith.

And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? (3:1–4, emphasis mine)

Dissension in the church is deeply worrisome to Paul, for the aim of his apostolic labors has been to build community, not just to save souls. He has "laid a foundation" (3:10), and he is concerned that other contractors are botching the subsequent construction job. The quality of construction matters urgently, because the community is "God's building" (3:9). Indeed, Paul dares to assert more: the community is the place where God dwells. "Do you not know," he asks, "that you [plural] are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you [plural]?" (3:16). To read this last sentence as though it spoke of the Spirit dwelling in the body of the individual Christian would be to miss the force of Paul's audacious metaphor: the apostolically founded community takes the place of the Jerusalem Temple as the place where the glory of God resides.54 When the community suffers division, the temple of God is dishonored. But the presence of the Spirit in the community should produce unity rather than conflict.

These broad themes are brought into close focus by Paul's long discussion of speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts in the community's worship in 1 Corinthians 12–14. This passage forcefully holds up the norm of communal edification as the standard by which spirituality is to be measured and guided.

Apparently some of the Corinthians were priding themselves on their rich endowments of spiritually inspired "speech and knowledge" (cf. 1:5). In the opening of the letter, Paul gives thanks, perhaps with a trace of irony, that the Corinthians "are not lacking in any spiritual gift" (1:7). He does not give a direct description of the problems surrounding spiritual manifestations in the Corinthian assembly, but his counsel suggests that some members of the community must have been claiming spiritual superiority and dominating the community's worship with virtuoso displays of glossolalia.

In responding to this situation, Paul develops an account of the church's interdependent common life:

Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. (12:4–7)

The diversity of God's gifts is necessary "for the common good" of the community. Paul underscores his point by employing the analogy of the human body in which all the parts are necessary to healthy functioning of the organism: "If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (12:26). Then Paul introduces his foundational metaphor for the church's corporate life: "Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it" (12:27).

Common participation in the body of Christ becomes the basis for Paul's particular directions concerning the regulation of the community's worship. Speaking in tongues is a spiritual experience, a fine thing in itself, says Paul (14:2, 5a), but it does not edify the community. All actions, however ostensibly spiritual, must meet the criterion of constructive impact on the church community. Consequently, intelligible prophecy, which offers "upbuilding and encouragement and consolation" for the community (14:3), is to be more highly valued and sought: "Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church" (14:4). The noun oikodom ("building up, edification") and the cognate verb oikodomein occur repeatedly in this chapter. The task of community-building, which was originally Paul's apostolic work, is transferred to the community itself; thus, the purpose of corporate worship becomes community formation. It is crucial, however, that the work of community-building be a shared, participatory enterprise; the worship assembly is not to be monopolized by any one member. Instead,

When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up [oikodom]. (14:26. emphasis mine)

Thus, the gathered community's worship reflects and symbolizes the interdependence of the body of Christ.

Sandwiched between chapters 12 and 14 is Paul's great panegyric on love. Whether this is an independent piece of tradition inserted here by Paul or whether it was composed for the occasion at hand, the placement of this discourse shows that Paul interprets love in terms of the ecclesial context elaborated in the surrounding chapters. Love, rightly understood, should constrain those superspiritual Corinthians whose behavior threatens the good of the community. Love binds the body of Christ together in mutual suffering and rejoicing; love seeks the upbuilding of the whole community rather than private advantage. It is striking that Paul places this discourse on love in the midst of his response to the tongue-speaking controversy rather than, say, in his discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7. Why so? For Paul, love has its primary locus in the common life of the church.

One final passage will serve to illustrate the fundamental emphasis on community in Paul's thought. Having completed the long theological exposition of Romans 1:16–11:36, in which he defends the integrity of God's promises to Israel and articulates the mystery of God's grace, Paul turns to explicit exhortation in Romans 12.

I appeal to you, therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies [smata (plural)] as a living sacrifice [thysian (singular)], holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect. (ROM. 12:1–2, AA)

The metaphor of "living sacrifice" describes the vocation of the community: the addressees of the letter are called to present their bodies together as a single collective sacrifice of obedience to God. This act of rightful worship must be performed by the community as a whole. Modern readers accustomed to interpreting biblical texts as discourse addressing the private individual will find this image of a corporate sacrifice a strange picture, but it is fundamental to Paul's understanding of his mission. For instance, in Romans 15:14–19, he invokes the metaphor of himself as a priest presenting "the offering of the Gentiles" to God; this "offering" (prosphora) is then explicated as "the obedience of the Gentiles" (v. 18). In this passage, Paul is the metaphorical "priest" presenting the offering, whereas in Romans 12:1–2 the community performs the act of self-presentation. In both cases, however, the content of the sacrifice is the community's corporate obedience. That Paul has the community explicitly in mind in Romans 12 is confirmed by the fact that he immediately reintroduces the "one body in Christ" metaphor in verses 4–8, again emphasizing, as in 1 Corinthians 12, the complementarity of different gifts for the common good.

Paul's thought moves in Romans 12:2 from the community's sacrificial self-surrender to the community's transformation. Having offered themselves to God, community members are to find themselves transformed, set free from the confining power of this age. Their mind (nous, again singular) is to be made new by God so that they can rightly discern God's will. The meaning of this vision is substantially the same as the picture of the church in 2 Corinthians 5:14–21, already discussed above, in which the church, as new creation in Christ, is said to "become the righteousness of God." In 2 Corinthians 5, the new creation is expressed as a present reality, whereas in Romans 12, the readers are exhorted to present themselves and be transformed. This is one more instance of the coincidence of indicative and imperative in Paul's thought; present reality and future hope overlap at the turn of the ages. The constant factor is that he imagines God's eschatological salvation in corporate terms: God transforms and saves a people, not atomized individuals. Consequently, the faithful find their identity and vocation in the world as the body of Christ.

These three closely linked themes, then, frame Paul's ethical thought:

1. new creation in collision with the present age, 
2. the cross as paradigm for action, and 
3. the community as the locus of God's saving power.

Within this framework, let us turn to examine the processes of Paul's moral reasoning.

Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. 1996.

 

Gentle, Meek and Humble (Matthew 11:29)

Taking up Jesus' yoke and burden doesn't give you freedom from suffering, but a freedom from self, which to say the least is suffocating.

Taking up Jesus' yoke is also to give up control over your life and over others. You think you have safety and security when you're in control. Yet the precise opposite is true. Wanting control is to play God over your life and the lives of others, which God never intended. Acting in control is the root of sin and will only bring disappointment, despair, despondency, desperation and destruction.

If you're gentle, meek, humble and accommodating in heart toward others, you'll be a lot more peaceful and the world--including the church--will be a much better place.

re: Rank top 5 in the Google maps

hi there

Did you know that when someone is looking for a search term on their
phones, the Gmaps listings its what pop up first in the results?

Stop losing all that visibility and let us boost your G listing into the
tops for local terms
https://www.str8creative.co/product/1500-gmaps-citations/

thanks and regards
Mike
support@str8creative.co

Buy quality business traffic for blogger.com

hi

Do you want more quality visits engaging on your website?
Increase ranks and sales swith our business website traffic

Please find more information about our service here
https://basedbusinesstraffic.co/


thanks
Peter

No Choice but to Preach the Gospel (1 Cor 9:15-18)

Outline:

1. I'm not using my rights (9:1-14). I have rights, but I'm not using it.
   • In defense of his apostleship (9:1-2)
   • Paul's apostolic rights (9:3-14)
2. I'm freely renouncing my rights (9:15-23)
   • Paul's apostolic restraint (9:15-18)
   • Paul's apostolic freedom (9:19-23). I'm a truly free man. [Those who want to be in control won't like such a man.]
3. Self Discipline required to renounce rights (9:24-27). Exhortation and example.

Paul renounces his rights (9:15–18): The apostolic model. From 9:4-14 Paul listed all of his rights in detail. He provided elaborate extensive explanation, and with support from Scripture, and from Jesus as to why he should absolutely be receiving financial support from them. It's his unquestionable undeniable right for them to support him, for he had ministered to them for 18 months. After all this buildup, one expects Paul to demand and insist that they pay up and pay him what they rightfully ought to give him. But, as he's stated (1 Cor 9:12b), this is the exact opposite of his intent!

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Paul never wanted anyone to be able to accuse him of preaching for money (2 Cor 2:17). Yet--by not accepting any money from them--they accused him for not being a real apostle (1 Cor 9:1), for if he was, he'd have accepted payment for his apostolic services like the other apostles (1 Cor 9:4-5, 12). Paul was indeed in a no win situation! There'd always be someone on one side or the other to judge and criticize him. Yet, he was a truly free man (1 Cor 9:19a), whose singular motivation was to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17, 23; 2:2; 9:17), believing that the gospel is the only power of God for salvation (1 Cor 1:18; Rom 1:16).

The dramatic climax and pivot-point of ch. 9 (1 Cor 9:15). "I'd rather die than make use of any of my rights..." (1 Cor 9:15b). The sentence in Gk halts abruptly. Then he blurts out that no one will deprive him of his "boast." He explains in 1 Cor 9:16–18. Despite all the biblical reasons to receive financial support, including Jesus' command (1 Cor 9:14), Paul won't take money because he's NOT working voluntarily as an apostle. Unlike the sophists, he won't receive fees for his services. His service is rendered to God, NOT willingly (!) but because he has been "entrusted with a commission / trust" (1 Cor 9:17). It's the image of the slave as steward (4:1–4).

Paul's divine call (1 Cor 9:16-17). Preaching the gospel was not just a job with Paul. It wasn't another way for him to make a living, just a profession. Rather, it was a divine call, an imperative call, an inescapable responsibility. He was not a preacher by choice. He was a preacher by conviction / obligation / necessity. He wasn't in it to make an easy living. Paul preaches because "necessity is laid upon me" (1 Cor 9:16; 7:26). "Necessity" ["obligation"] has been laid upon him by God. To Jeremiah, it's "something like a burning fire shut up in my bones" (Jer. 20:9). He has no choice but to proclaim the gospel. Therefore, his "reward" is, paradoxically, to make the gospel available to others "free of charge" [(1 Cor 9:18); cf. his caustic description of other preachers as "peddlers of God's Word" (2 Cor 2:17)], and NOT make use of his rights.

How is this a "reward" (1 Cor 9:18)? "In offering the 'free' gospel 'free of charge' his own ministry becomes a living paradigm of the gospel itself" (Gordon Fee). His renunciation of rights allows him to share in the pattern of Christ's own sacrificial action and thereby paradoxically to share in the life giving blessings of God.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.
4. M.R. De Haan. Studies in First Corinthians. 1995.

Guaranteed Domain Authority 50/100

hi there

Here is how we can do it
https://www.str8creative.co/product/moz-da-seo-plan/

Regards
Mike
Str8 Creative
support@str8creative.co

Gender Distinction and Equality (1 Cor 11:2-16)

Hairstyles and Gender Distinctions (11:2–16) Distinction and Equality

Does our culture today erase distinctions between men and women in the name of freedom? Would Paul think that's cool? What's the big deal anyway if we do? Should there be a hierarchy in society or in the church between men and women? Isn't egalitarianism "better"? How do you use your freedom to be your authentic self and not abuse it? Are there any guiding principles in using your freedom?

From something they wrote Paul, they affirm their loyalty to the traditions he'd handed to them (1 Cor 11:2). From what follows, they're arguing for certain practices that would erase the distinctions between men and women in worship—which Paul disapproves. Hearing only Paul's side of the conversation, perhaps they wrote to him as follows:

Dear Paul, We remember you fondly and wish that we could see you again. Some of us are trying hard to maintain the traditions you taught us, such as the tradition we learned at our baptism that in Christ there's no longer any distinction between male and female [Gal 3:27–28]. You'd be glad to know that, when we come together for worship, the women in church continue to play a role equal to the men, praying and prophesying freely in the assembly under the inspiration of the Spirit, just as they did when you were here with us. But a dispute has now arisen: some women, acting in the freedom and power of the Spirit, have begun to remove their head coverings and loose their hair when they prophesy, as a sign of their freedom in Christ. Some of the more timid and conservative members of the community have objected, thinking it unseemly and disgraceful for women to let their hair down in public. Most of us believe that you'd surely approve of this, for it's an outward and visible sign of the tradition we received from you. Could comment on this in order to dispel any doubt about this point? We remain

Your devoted followers,
The church in Corinth

Rather than endorse the women's freedom to prophesy with unbound hair, Paul instead instructs them to maintain the discipline symbolized by head coverings. His reasoning is obscure, without knowing how to interpret some of the key terms in the argument and because his argument is labored and convoluted. In view of the uncertainty surrounding these matters, it's impossible to give a fully confident interpretation. But it's possible to affirm some things clearly about Paul's argument, which must be kept in mind:

• Paul endorses the freedom of women to pray and prophesy in the assembly; the only question is what sort of headdress is appropriate for them while exercising this freedom.
• The patriarchal order (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is set in counterpoint with mutual interdependence of men and women "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11–12).
• The passage is  a symbolic distinction between the sexes and doesn't require subordination of women—even though some of Paul's arguments presuppose a hierarchical ordering.
• The immediate concern of the passage is for them to avoid bringing shame on the church.

Free to not wear head coverings. Some women enthusiastically embraced the early Christian tradition that in Christ there is no male and female (Gal 3:28), and they're seeking to transcend their sexuality. Some women removed their head coverings or let their hair down in worship to discard a traditional marker of gender distinction. The head covering—whatever it was—symbolized their femininity and simultaneously their inferior status as women. To throw it off was to throw off a symbol of confinement and to enter the realm of freedom and autonomy traditionally accorded only to men. This symbolic function of the head covering is expressed in the Hellenistic Jewish narrative Joseph and Aseneth (1st century B.C.E. or 1st or 2nd century C.E.): after her conversion to Judaism, the young woman Aseneth is ordered by an angel to remove her head covering, "because you are a holy virgin today and your head is as that of a young man" (Joseph and Aseneth 15:1–2). The Corinthian women who rejected head coverings were giving expression to a similar claim of transformed spiritual status. Paul shares the view that women enjoy a new spiritual status in Christ; however, just as in ch. 7, he rejects some of the behavioral inferences that they're drawing from this theological truth.

A hierarchical chain of being (1 Cor 11:3) with "head" (kephal) as a metaphorical sense is how Paul 1st comes at their question about head coverings indirectly. [Some explain away the hierarchical implications by arguing that kephal means "source" rather than "ruler." This is a possible meaning when Paul alludes to Genesis describing the creation of woman out of man (1 Cor 11:8). But in the whole shape of the argument, the patriarchal implications of 1 Cor 11:3 are undeniable. Cf. 1 Cor 11:7–9.] The argument about bare heads in worship is thereby placed within a symbolic framework different from the one they had been presupposing. The covering or uncovering of the head is not a sign of individual freedom, but it signifies either respect or disrespect for one's superior in the hierarchy. So, to display the head inappropriately attired in worship is to bring shame upon one's figurative "head" (1 Cor 11:4–5). Analogous customs persist in our social world. If a man shows up at a formal dinner—or in church—wearing a baseball cap it'd be perceived as rude and irreverent. In ancient Mediterranean culture such a breach of etiquette brings disgrace not only on the perpetrator but also on the "head" to whom that person was responsible. Paul's concern is that women who pray and prophesy with "uncovered" heads (1 Cor 11:5) are in effect shaming the men of the congregation. [For men to cover their heads would bring shame to Christ. Since Paul focuses primarily on the women, his comments about men's head coverings are purely hypothetical.]

Paul's directives apply to everyone in the church, married or unmarried: women should cover heads in worship; men should not. In Greek there are no words equivalent to the English "husband" and "wife": the generic words for "man" (anr) and "woman" (gyn) do double duty, and the context determines whether reference to a married couple is intended. Here the context doesn't help. [NRSV translates as "husband" and "wife" (1 Cor 11:3), but as "man" and "woman" elsewhere the passage; this seems arbitrary.]

"Covered" and "uncovered" heads. What does Paul want the women to do? Traditionally it was understood that women should wear veils, and this continues to exert influence over English translations (NRSV, NEB, JB). But "veil" occurs nowhere in the passage. A more literal translation is by the NIV: "every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head" (1 Cor 11:5-6). Paul is clearly discussing hair (1 Cor 11:13-15); he affirms that a woman's long hair is "given to her for a covering." Some suggest that the whole passage deals not with wearing a veil but with having the hair bound or unbound. To have the head "covered" would mean to have the hair tied up on top of the head rather than hanging loose. This makes excellent sense.

Women having loose hair in public in Greek/Roman cultures was conventionally shameful, a sign associated with prostitutes or—perhaps worse from Paul's point of view—with women caught up in the cult worship practices associated with Dionysius, Cybele, and Isis. [It wasn't the normal custom for women to be veiled; thus, it's hard to see how their being unveiled in worship would be controversial or shameful.] Paul is concerned that the practice of Christian prophecy be sharply distinguished from the frenzied behavior of prophetesses in pagan worship (14:26–33, 37–40). The symbolic confusion introduced by women with loose, disheveled hair in the Christian assembly would therefore be shameful. If women won't keep their hair bound up, they should cut it off—an action which is self-evidently disgraceful.

Strictly an argument about honor and shame (1 Cor 11:4-6). Some women were acting in ways that brought shame on the community by blurring the traditional lines of gender distinction and/or by appearing to act in a disgraceful or disorderly manner. Such conduct brings shame on the men in the church, whose "headship" is discredited by the disorderly behavior of the women. The logic of Paul's advice depends upon unspoken and undefended (because "self-evident") assumptions about what is honorable and shameful behavior for men and women in 1st-century Greco-Roman culture. For our culture, it'd be as though Paul had written, "Men shouldn't come to church wearing dresses, and women shouldn't come to church topless." Whatever one may think about the ultimate theological validity of such judgments, they're understandable pastoral advice.

Theological stakes raised with the Genesis creation story (1 Cor 11:7-9). A man shouldn't cover his head because man is created as "the image and glory of God" (Gen 1:27), but woman is "the glory of man." Regrettably, Paul gets into a theological quagmire. Gen 1:27 explicitly says that humankind is created "in the image of God … male and female he created them." Paul's interpretation seems to depend on a tradition—perhaps based on Gen 2:7—that thinks of the male only as originally created in God's image. Also, it's difficult to see how Genesis provides any support for the notion that woman is the "glory" of man (1 Esdras 4:17: "Women … bring men glory"). Additionally, Paul fails to explain how any of this is relevant to the issue of head coverings. Perhaps he means that the man with uncovered head will reflect the glory of God by letting the divine image shine forth (2 Cor 3:18). If so, this would then help explain why women should be covered: given Paul's assumption that woman is the glory of the man, her uncovered head would then inappropriately reflect the man's glory in the worship setting, deflecting attention from God's glory. None of this is stated in Paul's argument. He leaves us to infer the relevance of 1 Cor 11:7.

The ontological priority of the male (1 Cor 11:8-9). Man was created 1st and the woman "out of" him (Gen 2:21–23), and the woman was created for the man (Gen 2:18), not the other way around. These exegetical observations provide further support for Paul's insistence that the symbolic distinctions between the genders must acknowledge the right hierarchical ordering between male and female (1 Cor 11:3).

Unpersuasive and objectionable today, but the central imperative of the unit is "let her be covered" (1 Cor 11:6), with 1 Cor 11:7–9 in support. The covering of the woman with bound-up hair appropriately symbolizes her relation to the man within the order of creation; the unbinding of the hair effaces the created distinction between the sexes and somehow impugns the man's role as bearer of the image of God. Though cringe worthy today to some/many, this is what Paul actually wrote.

"For this reason a woman ought to have authority upon her head, because of the angels" (1 Cor 11:10). [If not confused and confounded already, Paul abruptly interjects a sentence that has remained almost completely bewildering.]  2 very difficult problems:

1. what does the idiom "to have authority upon her head" mean, and 
2. what do "angels" have to do with the argument? 

With Q1, some answers traditionally given can be rejected. The word "authority" (exousia) does not mean "veil" (as in the RSV), nor is there any reason to think that Paul means a woman ought to have a symbol of being under authority on her head. "To have authority" in Greek always means, just as it does in English, to exercise authority, not to submit to it. Thus, 2 interpretations are plausible. On the one hand, the sentence might mean that a woman should wear her hair bound up as a symbol of her new authority in Christ to prophesy and pray in the assembly. This interpretation seems incongruous with the context, and it's unclear how bound-up hair, which was the normal cultural custom, would serve to symbolize a new authoritative status for women. More likely, the expression should be translated "to have authority over [epi] her head" ["have authority over" (Rev 11:6b; 14:18; 20:6) means that she should take charge of her hair and keep it under control, i.e., bound up rather than loose. This is consonant with the specific directive that Paul has already given to women (1 Cor 11:5–6). By telling the women to "take charge" of their own heads, Paul seeks to transform the symbolic connotations of the head covering: the bound hair becomes a fitting symbol of the self-control and orderliness that Paul desires for the community as a whole.

With Q2, Paul's fleeting reference to angels here is completely cryptic, for nothing is said about them before or after this. Among the many guesses proposed, 2 are worthy of mention. From antiquity, some interpreters have suggested that Paul regards the uncovered heads of woman as a sexual provocation to the angels, who might be tempted to mate with the women (Gen 6:1–4). But if Paul intended to express this rather bizarre idea, he'd have offered a somewhat fuller explanation. More likely is that Paul thinks of the angels as present with the worshiping community as guardians of order and as participants in the church's praise to God; parallels to this idea can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Presumably, Paul means that the community ought to behave in a decorous manner because of the presence of these heavenly "dignitaries" in their midst. Whether he thinks the angels would be offended by the women's loose hair or whether he thinks the angels might in some way punish disorderly behavior is impossible to say; the text simply offers us too little to go on.

Functionally equal. Paul actually reaffirms the theological convictions that had led the women to discard their head coverings in the first place (1 Cor 11:11-12). Social decorum does require women and men to maintain symbolic distinctions, and such distinctions have a basis in creation itself (11:3–9). Nevertheless "in the Lord" (1 Cor 11:11) things are different. Men and women live in mutual interdependence. This doesn't mean that the differences between the sexes are abolished, but that they are both radically dependent on God (1 Cor 11:12b; 8:6) and that they're called to live as complementary partners in Christ. These statements do not, as is sometimes claimed, contradict or revoke the position that Paul articulated (11:3–10). Rather, they render it more complex. The hierarchical order that Paul sketched (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is counterbalanced by other considerations. So, the earlier statement that woman is "from man"—an exegetical remark based on Genesis 2—is now balanced by the argument that "man comes through woman" in childbirth. The result is that Paul supports a functional equality of men and women in the church. Women are free to pray and prophesy and exercise leadership through the guidance of the Spirit, so long as they maintain the external markers of gender difference, particularly with regard to head coverings.

An argument from "nature" (1 Cor 11:13–15) and an argument from "custom" are 2 more considerations. Judge for themselves (1 Cor 11:13) is not really an open invitation to independent judgment, but a rhetorical gesture with a set of questions whose answers are self-evident. "Nature" teaches that long hair is shameful for men and glorious for women. Such appeal as a source of behavioral norms is characteristic of the Stoic and Cynic philosophers—and highly unusual in Paul. This is another case (1 Cor 3:21–22; 6:7) where Paul points out, with much irony, that the philosophical wisdom on which they pride themselves ought to lead them to behave differently. Paul's comments parallel that of Epictetus: "Can anything be more useless than the hairs on a chin? Well, what then? Has not nature used even these in the most suitable way possible? Has she not by these means distinguished between the male and the female? … Wherefore, we ought to preserve the signs [symbola] which God has given; we ought not to throw them away; we ought not, so far as in us lies, to confuse the sexes which have been distinguished in this fashion."

They regard themselves as transcending the patterns of "nature" as understood in their culture. By virtue of possessing the Spirit, they were able to know and do things beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals. Paul's appeal and invocation of a particular cultural code was intended to bring them back down to earth and remind them that they're still living within the constraints of finitude while awaiting the return of the Lord. If that is the major burden of the argument in 11:2–16, the parallel to Paul's arguments about sex and marriage is strong indeed.

Paul reckons with continuing contentiousness from them on this issue (1 Cor 11:16). Perhaps Paul recognizes the weakness of his own rather fragmented argument. His trump card, then, is to appeal to the custom of "the churches of God." Presumably he's referring not only to his own mission churches but to other early Christian communities, including Jewish-Christian communities that look to Jerusalem as their spiritual leader. This final argument assumes that they'll recognize themselves as bound to respect the uniformity of practice in the other churches of the fledgling Christian movement. Whether this argument in fact carried any weight with them or not, Paul seems to regard it as decisive: Even if they do not accept his arguments, they should conform their head-covering practices to those of the other churches, because they are called to be one with "all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 1:2).

REFLECTIONS. More than any other passage in this letter, 11:2–16 presents severe problems for the interpreter. 1st principle to apply is the principle of hermeneutical honesty: don't pretend to understand more than you do. With this passage, acknowledge that we can neither understand it entirely nor accept it entirely. Tell the truth about such matters helps us recognize more clearly the great cultural distance between 1st-century Corinth and our world. But don't say that the text doesn't apply to us because it is "culturally conditioned," for all texts are culturally conditioned. 

The aim of Paul's letters is to reshape his churches into cultural patterns that he takes to be consistent with the gospel. The question to ask is whether Paul's directives are persuasive on their own terms, whether he successfully mounts an argument consonant with his own fundamental theological vision. If not, the argument has no weight at all; if so, then we have to ask how his advice to them might speak analogically to Christians in dramatically different cultural settings.

Are Paul's arguments persuasive on their own terms? The picture is complex. Paul focuses on the created distinction between man and woman and places that distinction within a larger view of the complementarity of the sexes (1 Cor 11:11–12). His arguments make sense and are consistent with the theological vision that he articulates throughout the letter. His advice for men and women to maintain their traditional symbolic gender distinctions even in Christian worship is one more expression of the "eschatological reservation" that he has articulated repeatedly: the community in Christ should remain in the condition in which they were called (7:17–24) while they await the coming of the Lord. To transcend or eradicate gender differences are premature and presumptuous, for "Christians are not angels." [Talbert] They live in the world with a specific gender identity, male or female.

In addition to a hierarchy based on gender, Paul's argument becomes strained and begins to break down, by his problematical exegesis of Genesis. If Gen 1:27 provides the overarching framework within which Genesis 2 must be read, then in fact women as well as men are created in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Then, the hierarchical chain (1 Cor 11:3) and the argument for women's head coverings (1 Cor 11:7) lose their validity.

The Revised Common Lectionary doesn't deal with this text, but questions about it will arise from time to time. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is in the context of a study group, where the various proposals for interpreting the text can be fully considered. In the context of such a study, several issues should be highlighted--distinction and equality.

1. The created distinction between man and woman should be honored in the church. Symbolic "gender-bending" actions in which women and men seek to reject their specific sexual identities are a sign not of authentic spirituality but of an adolescent impatience with the world in which God has placed us. We're not disembodied spirits. Thus, spiritual maturity in Christ will lead us to become mature women and men in Christ. Our dress and outward appearance should appropriately reflect our gender identity; to blur these distinctions is to bring shame on the church. With rampant confusion about gender identity in our culture, Paul's teaching is timely for us. A healthy church needs men and women together (1 Cor 11:11), not one with sexless neutrality.
2. The functional equality of men and women in worship and church leadership should be emphasized. Head coverings for women are not to restrict their participation in prayer and prophecy but to enable them to perform these activities with dignity, avoiding distractions for people whose cultural sensibilities were formed by the social conventions of the ancient Mediterranean world. Anyone who appeals to this passage to silence women or to deny them leadership roles in the church is flagrantly misusing the text. The gift of prophecy is "from God" (1 Cor 11:12b), and women and men alike can exercise it freely. Churches today have begun to recover the long-suppression of women's ministry and leadership in the church. This work of the Spirit would be celebrated by Paul.
3. Confronting the patriarchal implications (1 Cor 11:3, 7–9) is required by any honest appraisal. They cannot be explained away [translating kephal as "source," cf. "head"], for the patriarchal assumptions are in Paul's argument. An approaches to this problem is to show how patriarchal presuppositions shape Paul's reading of Gen 1:27 thro' the lens of Gen 2:7, and to consider other readings that challenge it. Reconsider how the doctrine of creation might lead us to conclusions about the relation between male and female that are not precisely the same as Paul's. Another strategy begins with...
• "God is the head of Christ" (1 Cor 11:3) and what such headship means in a trinitarian understanding of God. Paul often operated with a subordinationist christology (1 Cor 15:28). However, through a theological tradition affirming Christ's full participation in the Godhead, how does this affect our understanding of the analogy between "God is the head of Christ" and "man is the head of woman" (1 Cor 11:3)? The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity works against the subordinationist: implications of Paul about men and women. Rethink how "in the Lord" men and women participate together in a new identity that transcends notions of superiority and inferiority. This moves us beyond simplistic arguments about whether Paul was right or wrong and enables us to rethink more deeply the substantive theological issues raised by his treatment of hairstyles in the worship of the Corinthian church.

re: I need to make a website`s ranks go down

hi

Yes, it is possible, with our service here
https://negativerseo.co/

for further information please email us here
support@negativerseo.co

thanks
Peter

Cheap Monthly SEO plans %domain%

hi there

After checking your website SEO metrics and ranks, we determined that you
can get a real boost in ranks and visibility by using any of our plan below
https://www.cheapseosolutions.co/cheap-seo-packages/index.html

cheap and effective SEO plan
onpage SEO included

For the higher value plans, DA50 DR50 TF20 SEO metrics boost is inlcuded

thank you
Mike
support@cheapseosolutions.co

re: need unique domains backlinks

hi there

Do you mean that you want 1 backlinks from 1 domain? unique domains links
like this?

yes, we offer that here
https://str8creative.co/product/unique-domains-links/

thanks and regards
Mike
support@str8creative.co

You love when you are known by God (8:1-13)

Who or what deceives [destroys] "weak" members of the church? It is the "strong." It is those with power and influence over others in the church. Sexual misbehavior and misappropriation of money by leaders is obviously destructive. But what about using church money for personal benefit and/or lavish living in the name of serving the gospel? What about using one's position of leadership to boost our own ego and/or to impose our will and agenda on others in the name of Christ? In the church at Corinth it was eating food sacrificed to idols by the "knowledgeable." But the root problem was that they were puffed up/inflated with pride (1 Cor 8:1). Today, it might be using [abusing] one's power, privilege, pedigree and position of authority in the church to fulfil one's own ego and agenda, and then justifying it by using the Bible and quoting Scripture. This is also being puffed up and inflated with pride, which is always deceptive and destructive to the weak (1 Cor 8:9), because it is idolatry. It has caused many to leave the sanctuary of the church and return to the clutches of the world. Outline:

1. The way of love and the way of knowledge (8:1-3)
2. The content of the way of knowledge (8:4-6)
3. The criterion--care for a brother or sister (8:7-13)

Marketplace food is the problem where Paul first responds by addressing the "strong" by invoking the stumbling block principle (8:1-13; 10:30-11:1) in a vigorous combative manner. Ch. 9 functions as an illustration, by way of digression, of his own giving up his freedom for the rights of others. The main issue is not primarily marketplace food, but the eating of sacrificial food at the pagan temples (10:1-22), which was a regular part of worship in antiquity, where such meals were the regular practice both at state festivals and private celebrations, and was also the basic "restaurant" in antiquity, where every kind of occasion was celebrated in this fashion. As with going to prostitutes (6:12-20), it is forbidden both on theological (10:14-22) and ethical (8:1-13) grounds. Then 10:23-11:1 Paul concludes with the matter of idol food sold in the market and eaten in private homes. Paul's answer here is considerably different: they may do as they wish unless someone else present at the meal calls attention to its idolatrous origins. Since Paul forbids idolatry, they took exception to that prohibition, making these points:

1. They argue that they "all have knowledge" (1 Cor 8:1) about idols--that it's nothing at all (1 Cor 8:4)--which Paul will agree. Thus, attending temples is OK since it's only eating with friends and not worshipping what does not exist.
2. They have knowledge about food--that it is a matter of indifference to God (1 Cor 8:8)--which Paul also agrees. So why should Paul forbid them from going to temples.
3. They seem to have a somewhat "magical" view of the sacraments, that those who have had Christian baptism and who partake of the Lord's Table are not in any danger of falling (10:1-4).
4. They question whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter, because
1. his failure to accept support while with them, and
2. his own apparently compromising stance on idol food sold in the marketplace (he abstained when eating with Jews, but ate when eating with Gentiles (9:19-23).
5. They may also be arguing that others will be "built up" (1 Cor 8:9-10). But by pressing for this right in the name of gnosis [knowledge], they're abusing some others among them who cold not make these fine distinctions. Being invited to join them at the same banquets, these believers with "weak consciences" are being destroyed because for them it is a return to idolatry and an abandoning of Christ. 

Thus, for Paul these issues need to be squared away.

1. His first concern is with the attitude that lay behind their behavior and argument. They misunderstand the nature of Christian ethics, which springs not from knowledge but from love (8:1-13).
2. Calling into question his authority and freedom as an apostle (1 Cor 1:12; 4:18-21; 5:1-5; 9:1-3). So in 9:1-27 he launches into a vigorous defense of his apostleship [in terms of his "right" to their support, even if he has given it up (9:3-18) and of his freedom to act as he does about idol food (9:19-23)].
3. Misunderstanding the true nature of idolatry and their false security in the Christian sacraments. Hence he warns them in 10:1-13 on the basis of analogies from Israel, that the Christian sacraments are no sure protection against disobedience, and in 10:14-22 he prohibits attendance at cultic meals in temples, expanding on 8:4-6 that idolatry involves the worship of demons.
4. A final word about the eating of marketplace food (10:23-11:1). They may buy and eat at will (1 Cor 10:25), with the one proviso that they should abstain if in a pagan home someone points out its temple origins (1 Cor 10:27-28).

Love Builds Up, Knowledge Puffs up (8:1-13)

Incorrect ethical basis with the problem of "food sacrificed to idols" (eidlothyta). Another issue from their letter is controversy about whether it's permissible to eat meat from animals used in pagan sacrifices. This is one of the few fundamental restrictions imposed on Gentile converts by the apostolic council at Jerusalem (Ac 15:28–29; Didache 6.3). In the letters to the 7 churches, eating idol meat is linked with fornication; Pergamum and Thyatira are castigated for tolerating such practices (Rev 2:14, 20). Such a polemic was necessary, for this was a live issue in the churches of Asia Minor near the end of the first century. In contrast...

Paul doesn't render a simple judgment. He launches into a long, complex, complicated argument (8:1–11:1). In 8:1–13 and 10:23–30, idol meat is actually harmless, nonetheless the enlightened are to abstain for the sake of others. In 10:14–22, Paul seems to prohibit any contact with idol meat: "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons" (1 Cor 10:21b). How do these different arguments fit together, if at all? And how is Paul defending his refusal of financial support (9:1–27) related to any of this? Some critics have suggested that these chapters do not hang together and must be fragments of different letters. But the argument makes sense when read as a whole. One key to following Paul's argument is to recognize that he's primarily addressing the problem of sacrificial food consumed in the temple of the pagan god (1 Cor 8:10; 10:14, 21). That must have been the primary issue raised by their letter. Only in 10:25–30 does he discuss meat sold in the market and served in private homes. 4 movements in Paul's treatment of the idol meat problem:

1. 1st movement: Knowledge puffs up; love builds up (8:1–13)
2. 2nd movement: The apostolic example of renouncing rights (9:1–27)
3. 3rd movement: Warning against idolatry (10:1–22)
4. Conclusion: Use your freedom for the glory of God (10:23–11:1)

The force of Paul's argument is appreciated only in its entirety. No one piece should be taken in isolation. That Paul crafts such an elaborate argument concerning idol meat shows that it was a major issue in the church. Though this may seem an obscure problem today, take this section seriously to understand what was at stake. Idol meat was a hot-button issue because it dramatized 3 much larger concerns:

1. the problem of boundaries between the church and pagan culture, 
2. the strained relationship between different social classes in the community, and 
3. the relation between knowledge and love as the foundation of the church's life. 

Knowledge Puffs Up, but Love Builds Up (8:1–13). Paul begins with a brief quotation [as in ch. 7] recapping the content of what they had written, followed by his own pithy corrective response.

• Corinthians: "All of us possess knowledge."
• Paul: Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

The conversational diatribe style continues throughout. Paul reflects their views back to them (1 Cor 8:1, 4, 8) and replies in counterpoint, seeking to provoke them to reexamine their understanding of the gospel. The conflict: Are Christians free to eat meat from animals slaughtered in pagan cultic rituals? The issue had arisen particularly because some Corinthian Christians were attending feasts held in the pagan temples, where meat was served to all present (1 Cor 8:10).

Their justification for this practice may be reconstructed from Paul's remarks. As enlightened Christians, they possess "knowledge" (gnosis) that there's only one god and that pagan idols are nothing other than lifeless statues, having no power to help or harm anyone (1 Cor 8:4). Furthermore, they also have the "knowledge"—in accord with Paul's own teaching—that food is spiritually insignificant (1 Cor 8:8). Just as Gentiles need not seek God's approval by keeping Jewish dietary laws, so also they need not worry about the source of the meat they eat. Those Christians who fear defilement from idol meat are simply ignorant and superstitious. The strong Christian, armed with the appropriate gnosis, can go without compunction to the pagan temple and eat whatever is offered there; indeed, doing so may be a way to demonstrate one's spiritual maturity and freedom. Those who advocate this position may actually have argued that their more scrupulous brothers and sisters—the "weak," as their letter called them—should try to build up the strength of their own consciences by attending such ceremonies and eating the idol meat. If they'd only do that, they'd see that no harm comes of it, and their consciousness would be raised. Their letter probably appealed to Paul to set the record straight by encouraging the weak to overcome their qualms and enter the world of spiritual freedom enjoyed by those who possess gnosis.

A socioeconomic aspect to the argument about idol food. Feasts held in temples were common events in the daily life of a Greco-Roman city. Wealthier Corinthians would've been invited to meals in such places as a regular part of their social life, to celebrate birthdays, weddings, healings attributed to the god, etc. For those few Corinthian Christians who were among the wealthier class (1 Cor 1:26–29), their public and professional duties virtually required the networking that occurred through attending and sponsoring such events. To eat the sacrificial meat served on such occasions was simple social courtesy; to refuse would be an affront to the host. The specifically religious connotations of the act might not have seemed particularly important. Within the social circle of the poorer Corinthians, such meat-eating wouldn't be commonplace. Meat wasn't an ordinary part of their diet, being accessible only at certain public religious festivals where there was a general distribution of meat. Consequently, the wealthy and powerful, who also had the most advanced education, would take the eating of meat in stride and readily accept the view that it was a matter of spiritual indifference; at the same time, however, the poor might regard meat as laden with "numinous" religious connotations. The distinction between "the weak" and those with "knowledge" may have fallen, to some extent, along socioeconomic lines.

Paul's response must have shocked the gnosis group. Rather than taking their side, Paul seizes the occasion to challenge those with "knowledge" to reconsider their actions on the basis of very different standards. He provisionally accepts the slogan that all have knowledge (1 Cor 8:1; but see 1 Cor 8:7), but suggests that knowledge is defective if it fails to build up the community in love. Knowledge "puffs up." This vivid metaphorical verb used several times already: urging them not to be "puffed up in favor of one against another" (1 Cor 4:6), warning them not to be puffed up against his own apostolic authority (1 Cor 4:18–19), and castigating them for being puffed up about (or in spite of) the case of incest in their midst (1 Cor 5:2). Here in 8:1 the cause of this prideful puffing up is stated explicitly for the first time: gnosis can lead to arrogance.

Paul doesn't mean that there were Gnostics at Corinth. Gnosticism as a formal religious movement, with its dualistic cosmology and elaborately developed speculative teachings, did not emerge until the 2nd century; Paul isn't confronting the Gnostic heresies that later Christian writers such as Irenaeus battled. Among the Corinthians, there're only incipient tendencies, the seeds that later sprouted into Gnosticism--such as a spiritual elitism that separated the church into different classes based on the possession of "knowledge." Those in the know could feel superior to others who lacked their privileged perspective. They could imagine themselves being saved through their own intellectual and spiritual capacities, rather than by God's grace alone.

Love, which builds up the community (1 Cor 8:1b), is what really matters, in sharp contrast to this "soteriology of knowledge." Paradoxically, those who boast in their own exalted knowledge demonstrate precisely by that boasting that they do not yet "know as [they] ought to know" (1 Cor 8:2), for the one who knows rightly will love the brothers and sisters in the community. 

Are you "known by God"? Paul goes on to make a different point: "anyone who loves God is known by God" (1 Cor 8:3). We'd expect Paul to say, "anyone who loves God knows God truly," but the reversal of subject and object in the last clause of the verse expresses a truth close to the heart of Paul's theology: The initiative in salvation comes from God, not from us. It is God who loves first (1 Jn 4:19), God who elects us and delivers us from the power of sin and death. It is God's prior action on our behalf. That is, our love of God is predicated on God's prior knowledge of us. Thus, what counts is not our knowledge of God but God's knowledge of us. This is the syntax [order of arrangement] of salvation, also in Gal 4:9: "Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God…." Anyone who understands that the logic of the gospel depends on God's initiative will not become puffed up by the possession of knowledge. True gnosis [knowledge] consists not in the accumulation of much data, nor even in the correctness of one's doctrine and theology, but in the fact that one has learned to live in love toward all. To be "known by God" suggests that the person who loves has reached the fullness of gnosis [knowledge]. It also suggests that the person who loves is the one who is truly "known," i.e., "recognized" by God as having true knowledge.

The sad tyranny of "knowledge" [or wisdom, or insight, or superior system, or better method]. 8:1-3 establish Paul's basic critique of the Corinthian gnosis-boasters who think their knowledge permits them to eat idol meat: they have misconstrued the faith by interpreting it as a special sort of knowledge that elevates them above others. Once one's Bible study/theology is properly in hand, it is especially tempting to use it as a club on others. This happens from both the theological right [sexual ethics] and the theological left [social justice]. This doesn't mean that knowledge is either irrelevant or unimportant, but it does mean that it cannot serve as the primary basis of Christian behavior. In Christian ethics "knowledge" must always lead to love, which is not possible without genuine humility. Beware of pastors or systems that capture us by some special superior unique method or revelation or deeper insight. Such appeals are invariably to one's pride, and not to becoming a more truly loving Christian. While it is true that insight often leads to freedom, it is also true that it often results finally in the demand for "freedom" in the form of "rights." In the Christian faith "knowledge" or "insight" or "better system or method" is never an end in itself. It is only a means to a greater end, the building up of others--not the building up of ourselves or our church by imposing our preference and authority over others--which is being puffed up and inflated with pride. Paul insists on the priority of love over knowledge. Christian behavior is never predicated on the way of knowledge, which leads to pride and destroys others, but on the way of love, which is in fact the true way of knowledge. This is spelled out in greater detail in 7:7-13 and 13:1-13.

With this point made, Paul addresses the idol meat problem about which they wrote. Again he quotes slogans from their letter: "no idol in the world really exists," and "there is no God but one" (1 Cor 8:4), which are consistent with the standard preaching of Hellenistic Judaism and early Christianity, which proclaimed the one God and decried the worship of idols. Thus, these slogans express a theological perspective with which Paul does not disagree; his quarrel is with their application of the slogans. Because the idol has no real existence, they contend, idol worship is a meaningless gesture. Therefore, if Christians find it socially advantageous to eat idol meat, what difference does it make?

Before challenging this argument, Paul affirms its theological premises and expands upon them in a way that will serve the purposes of his counterargument. There are many "so-called gods" (1 Cor 8:5); anyone who walked through their city and observed the ubiquitous shrines and statues of the gods could hardly avoid recognizing that "in fact there are many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5). Paul's uses the dismissive adjective "so-called" for he doesn't believe these figures to be real gods. He acknowledges the empirical fact that the world is teeming with representations of such entities and with their worshipers. Is there a distinction between "gods" and "lords?" Perhaps the gods are the traditional deities of the Greco-Roman pantheon, whereas the lords (kyrioi) are the figures venerated in mystery cults and religions more recently imported from the eastern empire. (The latter category also implicitly includes the figure of Caesar, who was venerated as kyrios in the imperial cult.) By mentioning both categories, Paul deftly prepares the way for the two-part confessional formula of verse 6, which contrasts the many gods and lords to the one God and one Lord whom Christians worship.

This confessional acclamation (1 Cor 8:6) is in all likelihood another quotation, not from them, but of a hymn or creed that they'd have recognized as an authoritative statement of the content of Christian faith. Printed editions of the Greek NT highlight the structural balance of this confessional fragment in a way that most English translations do not. The following literal translation displays the parallelism:

One God, the Father,

From whom are all things and we for him,

And one Lord, Jesus Christ,

through whom are all things and we through him.

The final phrase may not mean "through whom we exist" (NRSV, JB), but rather something like "we through him [go to God]." This preserves the parallelism with the second line of the formula, which encompasses both origin and destination; thus, the last line of the confession acclaims Jesus Christ as the agent of both creation and eschatological redemption.

We should hear in this confession a significant echo of the Shema (Deut. 6:4), the great proclamation of Israel's faith:

Hear, O Israel;

The Lord our God,

The Lord is one.

Paul's present interest is not to reflect about christological problems or to explain the relation of Jesus Christ to God the Father. Still, we may observe in passing that the early Christian confession cited (1 Cor 8:6) takes the extraordinarily bold step of identifying "the Lord Jesus" with "the Lord" acclaimed in the Shema, while still insisting that "for us there is one God." Paul and other early Christians have reshaped Israel's faith in such a way that Jesus is now acclaimed as Lord within the framework of monotheism.

Why does Paul quote this confessional statement? 1st, he's establishing firm common ground with his readers, who will enthusiastically share in the monotheistic affirmation of 1 Cor 8:5–6. At the same time, however, by bringing this formula into play, he has subtly broadened the theological basis on which the discussion of idol meat must occur. Christian thought about this problem must start neither from an abstract doctrine of monotheism nor from a theoretical statement that "gods" do not really exist; rather, Christian thought begins from a confession that binds us specifically to the one God of Israel and declares our personal union with and allegiance to this one God. We exist "for him," not for our own purposes. To the extent that this confession of the one God echoes the Shema, we should also hear the echo of that text's call to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might" (Dt 6:5). (Indeed, the reference in 1 Cor. 8:3 to loving God—which seems to fit awkwardly into the context—suggests that Paul already had the Shema in mind a few sentences earlier.) All of this has a direct bearing on the question of idol meat: this one God of Israel is "a jealous God" who is well known to have no tolerance for idolatry. At this point in the argument, however, Paul is content to let that suggestion reverberate in the background; he will bring it directly into the foreground in chapter 10.

Paul turns instead to press the question of how the actions of the gnosis-advocates will affect other members of the community. That's the remaining burden (1 Cor 8:7–13). 1st he poses a challenge to their premise that "we all possess knowledge" (1 Cor 8:1), by insisting that not everyone in the community shares this exalted knowledge (1 Cor 8:7a). Some members of the fledgling church are so accustomed to thinking of the idols as real that they cannot eat the idol meat without conjuring up the whole symbolic world of idol worship; they are dragged back into that world and so "defiled" (1 Cor 8:7). ["the weak" about whom Paul writes are not Jewish Christians but Gentile converts from paganism; they are the ones who would be "accustomed to idols."] Those who say "we all possess knowledge" are ignoring or excluding those in the community who do not share their opinion.

In Paul's imagined dialogue, this elicits a protest from their interlocutors, who say, "Food will not bring us close to God" (1 Cor 8:8a). Neither eating nor abstaining has any effect, either positive or negative (1 Cor 8:8b). This simply restates their "knowledge." Paul doesn't disagree, but their response misses the point he's trying to make in some detail (8:9–12). His rejoinder to the slogan (1 Cor 8:8) is articulated concisely: "But take care that this liberty [exousia] of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (1 Cor 8:9). The loaded word exousia will become a major theme of ch. 9. The ordinary meaning is "authority"; it is etymologically related to the verb exestin that appeared in their slogan, "I am free to do anything" (1 Cor 6:12). The precise nuance of exousia is: it does not refer to an externally granted permission to eat idol meat; rather, it refers to the internal strength and authority to do whatever one pleases, to transcend mundane limitations. It is closely correlated with "knowledge" and "wisdom." Those who eat the idol meat claim to do so by virtue of their own sovereign exousia, their philosophically formed strength of character. Paul wryly warns that those who seek to flex their spiritual muscles ("this exousia of yours") in this way should watch out to see what effect it will have on others around them. (Mt 18:6–7, in which Jesus warns sternly against placing "a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me.")

8:10–12 offers a specific description of how Paul imagines the possible damage inflicted on the community by those who want to eat the idol meat. The weak will see the gnosis-boasters eating in the temple of an idol and be influenced, contrary to their own consciences, to participate in the same practice (1 Cor 8:10). This is a very important statement, because it shows that Paul's primary concern here is not the consumption of meat sold in the marketplace (1 Cor 10:25–26); rather, he's worried about weak Christians drawn back into the temple, into the powerful world of the pagan cult, which was, we must always remember, the dominant symbolic world in which the Corinthian Christians lived. Paul states the dire consequence of such cultural compromise: The weak will be "destroyed" (1 Cor 8:11). This language should not be watered down. The concern is not that the weak will be offended by the actions of the gnosis-boasters; Paul's concern is, rather, that they will become alienated from Christ and fall away from the sphere of God's saving power, being sucked back into their former way of life.

Paul presents this horrifying possibility with biting irony: "So, the weak one is destroyed by your gnosis, the brother for whom Christ died" (1 Cor 8:11). If they'll only pause to ponder this picture seriously, the contrast is stunning: Christ gave up his life for this "brother" (or sister: again, Paul's point is to emphasize the family tie between the strong and the weak in Christ)—Christ died for this person, and you can't even change your diet? On one side the Son of God died for us "while we were still weak" (Rom 5:6); on the other side the gnosis-flexers are so fixated on exercising their own freedom that they are willing to trample on the weak and jeopardize their very salvation. This not only injures the community but also it's a "sin against Christ" (1 Cor 8:12) by scorning and undoing his saving work. The picture is reminiscent of Matthew's great parable of the last judgment, in which it is revealed that whatever was done to "the least of these my brothers [and sisters]" was in effect done for—or against—Christ himself (Mt 25:31–46).

Paul concludes by declaring his own resolution. "Therefore, if food causes my brother [or sister] to fall, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause my brother [or sister] to fall" (1 Cor 8:13). The word "meat" is the generic word for animal flesh, not the specific term "idol meat" that occurs previously in the passage. Paul is willing to forego not only the specific practice of eating idol food but also the eating of meat altogether if that is necessary to protect the weak from stumbling. The effect of this policy is that Paul places himself de facto among the ranks of the weak (1 Cor 9:22; Rom 15:1). Earlier in the letter, in another powerfully ironic passage, Paul contrasted himself to the Corinthian sophoi: "We are weak, but you are strong" (1 Cor 4:10). Thus, 1 Cor 8 must be read as a compelling invitation to the "strong" Corinthians to come over and join Paul at the table with the weak. This invitation is far more urgent than any invitation to savor meat with their rich friends in the respectable world of Corinthian society.

REFLECTIONS. The specific matter of idol meat is a trigger issue that poses larger problems of perennial concern to the church. Reading their mail as a letter to us helps us consider what contemporary issues our churches have with temptations and conflicts analogous to those presented to ancient first-generation Christians by the pagan temples in their midst.

1. Boundary between church and culture. Can Christians fit in the social world of their culture? Or withdraw from some "normal" social practices? Or draw lines between acceptable cultural accommodation and unacceptable compromise? Such questions arise for the church where the gospel encounters a new cultural context. Converts must work out how to obey Christ, discerning which old customs to continue or leave behind. Asians find that 1 Cor 8 causes disputes in churches about whether Christians must abandon traditional meals venerating ancestors. Some see these traditions as harmless honoring of the memory of family members; others see them as a form of idolatry.  
• Do churches grow comfortably familiar with their culture as the world becomes increasingly secular and pluralistic? Rethink your allegiances. In your social networks are you eating in the temples of the idols that surround us? Will you participate in clubs and fraternal orders outside the church: Masons, Shriners, Eastern Star, etc.? A student was asked by some members of her church to join a women's group called The Daughters of Isis! After some reflection, she decided that as a Christian she could not. That seems fairly clear-cut case, but what about other societies—college fraternities, sororities, ACLU, NRA, BLM? Are they consistent with our allegiance to Christ?
• The exclusive lordship of Jesus challenges arrangements we take for granted. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar is not. Any form of nationalism/idealism/political affiliation can turn into a form of idolatry. If we display national flags in our churches, are we leading the weak to confuse faith with patriotism? A most insidious form of idolatry for churches is the idolatry of materialism. In the name of freedom and individual rights, do we Christians enmesh ourselves in economic practices that divide the community of faith by disregarding the poor.
• The fundamental question: Does monotheistic faith by definition sanctions pluralism (as the gnosis group at Corinth contended) or does monotheistic faith require exclusivity, expressed in clear separation from the pagan culture (as the weak contended)? In ch. 8, Paul hasn't given an answer, but he calls those who possess "knowledge" to attend respectfully to the concerns of the weak.
2. Class divisions in the church. The idol meat problem had a socioeconomic dimension. In our churches is there a similar economic substratum to our quarrels? If so, Paul places the onus for flexibility on those with more education and economic resources. To the dismay of the "strong" at Corinth, he refuses to take their side against the weak; instead, he calls the strong to surrender what they understand as their legitimate prerogatives for the sake of the weak. What would it mean for us to do likewise? Do Christians with money or power rationalize and treat everyday affairs as religiously neutral, permitting them to continue enjoying their privileged lives? The position of the high-status Corinthians: "The world is rejected in a theoretical way in order to profit from it in a practical way—the usual verbal radicalism of the affluent."
3. Love trumps knowledge is the central message. Love is more important than knowledge. Shift from gnosis to agape as the ordering principle for Christian discernment and conduct. Rather than asserting rights and privileges, we are to shape our actions toward edification of our brothers and sisters in the community of faith. In so doing, we follow the example of Christ, who died for the weak (1 Cor 8:11), and also the example of Paul, who is willing to renounce all meat in order to keep his brothers and sisters from stumbling (1 Cor 8:13). The gnosis-boasters frame their decisions and actions in terms of their own exousia [authority, power], looking to the cultivation of their own spiritual freedom and power as their highest end; Paul calls them instead to look to cultivate a loving community as the goal of Christian action. Every congregation profits from looking at themselves in the mirror of 1 Cor 8. Are there ways in which you're using knowledge as a weapon rather than as an instrument of love? Whether Bible-thumping certainty about truth, or confidence in the latest scientific findings, or passionate about "right" social causes, any "knowledge" that divides the community and causes the knowledgeable ones to despise/dismiss those who are ignorant or uncertain is not being used in the service of God.
4. The danger of destruction through idolatry. The "stumbling block principle" is often erroneously invoked to place limits on the behavior of some Christians whose conduct offends other Christians with stricter behavioral standards. It's argued that if drinking alcohol, dancing or dressing in certain ways causes offense to older church members, we're to avoid such behaviors for the sake of the "weaker brother's conscience." Such reasoning holds the entire church hostage to the standards of her most narrow-minded, legalistic and power mongering members. This is not what Paul meant. He's concerned about weaker believers being "destroyed" by being drawn away from the church and/or back into idol worship. In applying this text analogically [similar, parallel] to our time, we should carefully frame analogies only to those situations in which the boundary-defying actions of the "strong" jeopardize the faith and salvation of others by leading the weak to emulate high-risk behaviors and/or to leave the church.

Idolatry can lead to destruction. This was denied by the gnosis group, but Paul solemnly warns of the danger in dabbling with idolatrous practices. The seductive lure of idolatry is real; the destructive power of the pagan world is real. Members of the church who are drawn away from God will suffer irreparable loss. Don't be tempted to be casual about dalliances with the idols that rule our culture's symbolic world (primarily the gods of wealth, military power, and self-gratification). Reread 1 Cor 8 and see the risks for those who are seeking to escape the pull of these forces. Your first concern is for the weaker members of the church to not be deceived by these destructive temptations.

Reference:

1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
   
3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.

Sermon Divisions: 

1. 7/12/20: Always Thank God (1:1-9) [1 Cor 1:4].  Cosmic Epic Calling [1 Cor 1:2].
2. 7/19/20: The Devil Divides, God Unites (1:10-17) [1 Cor 1:10]. All Agree. No Divisions. Perfect Unity.
3. 7/26/20: The Cross--God's Way--is Dumb (1:18-25) [1 Cor 1:18]. The Cross Stumbles. The Cross is like a Cop Out. Foolish Cross.
4. 8/2/20: What You Were, Who Christ Is (1:26-31) [1 Cor 1:26, 30]. The Necessity of Lack. No Boasting  [1 Cor 1:31].
5. 8/9/20: Nothing but Jesus (2:1-5) [1 Cor 2:2]. 
6. 8/16/20: Wise vs. Stupid (2:6-16) [1 Cor 2:6]. True Wisdom is Only for the Mature. The Mind of Christ [1 Cor 2:16].
7. 8/23/20: You're NOT Spiritual (3:1-4) [1 Cor 3:1].  Spiritual, Yet Not Spiritual.
8. 8/30/20: Merely Servants (3:5-9) [1 Cor 3:5]. Field Laborers.
9. 9/6/20: Build with Care or Be Destroyed (3:10-15, 16-17) [1 Cor 3:10-11]. God's Temple.   
10. 9/13/20: Deceived by Wisdom (3:18-23). All Belongs to Christ and God. Wisdom doesn't boast.
11. 9/20/20: When You Are Judged (4:1-5) [1 Cor 4:4]. Go Ahead...Judge Me!  Judged Only by God; Accountable Only to God.  Judging Others Blinds You.
12. 9/27/20: When You Are Scum (4:6-13) [1 Cor 4:13]. Become Scum. Puffed up Corinthians and Suffering Apostle amid Others' Boasting.
13. 10/4/20: Imitate Me (4:14-21) [1 Cor 4:19]. Fatherly Admonition. Final Warning to Boasters. Fatherly Admonition to Paul's Corinthian Children.
14. 10/11/20: Expel the Wicked Man (5:1-13) [1 Cor 5:13]. Drive out the wicked person from among you. [David, Daniel]
16. 10/18/20: You Were Washed in the Name (6:1-11) [1 Cor 6:11]. You will Judge the World [1 Cor 6:2]. I Say this to shame you [1 Cor 6:5]. [Christy Peace]
17. 10/25/20: Your Body is NOT Yours (6:12-20) [1 Cor 6:13]. Glorify God with Your Body. [Adrien]
18. 11/1/20: Sex in Marriage is a Good Thing (7:1-7). [Yohan] [Women, Wives, Wise West Loop Elders and Singles]
19. 11/8/20: No Divorce (7:8-16). [Angie]
20. 11/15/20: Remain as You Are (7:17-24). [Taniesha]
21. 11/22/20: An Eschatological Reason to Stay Single (7:25-31). [David, Daniel]
22. 11/29/20: An Urgent Imperative for Singles (7:32-35). [Sarah, Josh]
23. 12/6/20: To Marry or Not to Marry (7:36-40). Stay Single or Marry. [Noah, Jim]
24. 12/13/20: (8:1-13). You Love when you are Known by God [Rhoel, Chris].
25. 12/20/20: Defi
26. 12/27/20: Henry
27. 1/3/21: Tim