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:
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:
- The way of love and the way of knowledge (8:1-3)
- The content of the way of knowledge (8:4-6)
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- They question whether Paul has the proper apostolic authority to forbid them on this matter, because
- his failure to accept support while with them, and
- 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).
- 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.
- 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).
- 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)].
- 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.
- 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:
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:
- 1st movement: Knowledge puffs up; love builds up (8:1–13)
- 2nd movement: The apostolic example of renouncing rights (9:1–27)
- 3rd movement: Warning against idolatry (10:1–22)
- Conclusion: Use your freedom for the glory of God (10:23–11:1)
- the problem of boundaries between the church and pagan culture,
- the strained relationship between different social classes in the community, and
- 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.
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.
- Corinthians: "All of us possess knowledge."
- Paul: Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
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:
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
Reference:
- Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
- Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
- Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.
Sermon Divisions:
- 7/12/20: Always Thank God (1:1-9) [1 Cor 1:4]. Cosmic Epic Calling [1 Cor 1:2].
- 7/19/20: The Devil Divides, God Unites (1:10-17) [1 Cor 1:10]. All Agree. No Divisions. Perfect Unity.
- 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.
- 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].
- 8/9/20: Nothing but Jesus (2:1-5) [1 Cor 2:2].
- 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].
- 8/23/20: You're NOT Spiritual (3:1-4) [1 Cor 3:1]. Spiritual, Yet Not Spiritual.
- 8/30/20: Merely Servants (3:5-9) [1 Cor 3:5]. Field Laborers.
- 9/6/20: Build with Care or Be Destroyed (3:10-15, 16-17) [1 Cor 3:10-11]. God's Temple.
- 9/13/20: Deceived by Wisdom (3:18-23). All Belongs to Christ and God. Wisdom doesn't boast.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 10/11/20: Expel the Wicked Man (5:1-13) [1 Cor 5:13]. Drive out the wicked person from among you. [David, Daniel]
- 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]
- 10/25/20: Your Body is NOT Yours (6:12-20) [1 Cor 6:13]. Glorify God with Your Body. [Adrien]
- 11/1/20: Sex in Marriage is a Good Thing (7:1-7). [Yohan] [Women, Wives, Wise West Loop Elders and Singles]
- 11/8/20: No Divorce (7:8-16). [Angie]
- 11/15/20: Remain as You Are (7:17-24). [Taniesha]
- 11/22/20: An Eschatological Reason to Stay Single (7:25-31). [David, Daniel]
- 11/29/20: An Urgent Imperative for Singles (7:32-35). [Sarah, Josh]
- 12/6/20: To Marry or Not to Marry (7:36-40). Stay Single or Marry. [Noah, Jim]
- 12/13/20: (8:1-13). You Love when you are Known by God [Rhoel, Chris].
- 12/20/20: Defi
- 12/27/20: Henry
- 1/3/21: Tim
No comments:
Post a Comment