Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 8:1-13

You can read the text here.

Paul continues to address issues that impact the health and well-being of the body and this time responding directly to a question from Corinth, eating food (mainly meat) that had been dedicated to an idol. However, knowledge that gives one a sense of superiority or status is not real knowledge in Paul's eyes because it lacks love, which is the critical thing as the goal is building the community. The knowledge that really counts is not what you know, but by whom you are known, namely God.

Paul grants that idols don't have don't have an objective existence, for there is only one God and one Lord who created everything including the powers worshiped by the Gentiles. They are on a lower rung which if understood that way does seem to make eating food offered to them an non-issue.

Not everyone has this understanding. They may have participated in idolatrous practices for so long that they cannot disassociate idol food from cultic worship. Seeing the social significance of meals at the temple and the pressure some would have felt to participate to improve their status, it is easy to see how some could get sucked back into idolatry through meals at the temple or eating meat that had been offered to deities.[1] Yes food will not impact one's relationship with God,[2] but there is no advantage conferred by eating it either.[3] The right to choose is not inviolable, and it must be subjected to concern for the other. And the concern Paul has in mind here is a major concern, spiritual life or death.[4] The strong risk leading the weak back into idolatry and the loss of a brother or sister for whom Christ died. It's a serious matter to Paul as he sees it as a sin not only against the stumbled believer, but a sin against Christ himself. Paul ends with his personal commitment/example, to not eat meat if it risks leading someone away from Christ.


-----------------------------------
[1] Thiselton makes a strong case for understanding the strong as possessing higher status, while the weak are of lower status and these social meals would a) be one of their rare opportunities to eat meat, and b) be an opportunity to improve their status.

[2] Thiselton's translation is interesting, "Food will not bring us to God's judgment."

[3] As Ciampa and Rosner ask, but what about socially? Isn't abstention going to make you worse off there? To extend their line of thought, Paul would say that it's irrelevant. The only status that matters is being in Christ, so no it doesn't make one worse off.

[4] Ciampa and Rosner note that stumbling blocks in the NT aren't things that just make you trip, they are things that ultimately prevent salvation.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Doctor Who: Rose Tyler - Traitor?

The end of season four was very, very controversial. When I first saw it, I felt cheated. I was angry. The more I think about it, the more I think I see what Russell Davies was doing. He is too good of a writer and the show is too carefully crafted for him to screw up Rose's character and the end of a four season storyline. So while the ending isn't strictly part of our series, it is tangentially related, and I've agonized over that scene in Bad Wolf Bay so much that I have to write about it. :)

To briefly set things up, near the end of the final episode of season four, there is a meta-crisis, that results in a part human. part Time Lord Doctor being generated. He has all of the Doctor's memories, and thinks and acts like the Doctor. However, importantly, he only has one heart and cannot regenerate. He only has one life to live. The meta-crisis Doctor brought full resolution to the battle fought against the Daleks, and in the process, wiped them out. Thus, the real Doc…