Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 10:14-11:1

You can read the text here.

Paul concludes his lengthy discussion of the rights and freedom of the Christian in community while clarifying his basic position on eating meat sacrificed to idols. Freedom from the law does not entail freedom to worship idols. It must be avoided at all costs and so must eating cultic meals in a pagan temple. The basic argument is that participating in the Lord's Supper is an act which collective binds us together as the body of Christ, bringing us into union with him. While idols themselves are not real, there are demons/demonic forces behind them to enslave people.[1] Eating at cultic meals similarly binds one in union with the demon/demonic force. That kind of union is incommensurate with union with Christ. God cannot be brought into union with a demon. Why would an individual Christian think they could do so? Underlying all of this is the covenantal background. The Last Supper which the Lord's Supper reenacts was a Passover meal and provoking the Lord to jealousy similarly implies a covenantal relationship that is violated by idolatry. [2]  The Christian has no right to eat at cultic meals in pagan temples. To do so runs the risk of covenental judgment.[3]

The next paragraph continues to hammer the point home now addressing grayer areas. Yes, we have freedom, but our freedom is not freedom for sin but freedom from sin and desire, freedom for the benefit of the other.[4] We must lay down our rights to build up the church even when we technically have the right to something. If someone points out to a Corinthian that the meat they were about to buy or consume was sacrificed to an idol they should refrain from buying or eating it. It is not because anything is inherently wrong with the meat, but because clearly someone pointed it out to them because they thought there was some objection to it. So as not to run the risk of leading someone down a path back to idolatry, abstention is the proper course. Why should one give up their rights for the sake of the other? To bring God glory by not preventing others from coming to experience salvation in him.

[1] There is disagreement on whether or not these forces are personal between Thiselton (no) and Ciampa and Rosner (yes). It seems the parallel to our union with Christ is clearer if we understand them to be personal in some sense. On the other hand, Paul's discussion of sin and the powers elsewhere appear more impersonal. I cannot decide between the two and attempted to preserve the ambiguity.

[2] For these reasons, it seems intuitively clear to me that Christians should practice a closed table, not admitting those who don't follow Jesus. It's not a mere sign of remembering what Jesus did, but a covenantal practice that expresses and solidifies our union with Christ.

Both Ciampa and Rosner and Thiselton cover the covenantal background excellently.

[3] So Thiselton.

[4] Thiselton puts it powerfully as "what is the point of freedom if I can't choose not to cause problems."


Popular posts from this blog

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…

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…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…