Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism
“The source of the problem, ultimately, is a general sense, born out of sentiments endemic in broader culture, and perpetuated at times in Christian homes and churches, that cultivating discipline and developing a work ethic are somehow dangerous, legalistic, or antithetical to the Christian Gospel. This is patently false.” - Snoeberger
- 43 views
Dan, you are right and I am wrong. Thanks for the excellent exegesis. Your careful study beats my “as best I can recall” any day.
G. N. Barkman
I did go back and read the other thread.
[AndyE]…BTW, the gar (sorry not sure how to import greek) works just as well for my understanding of the passage as yours. How could this right “somehow” (ESV, NASB) or “by any means” (KJV) become a stumbling block to others? You who have this knowledge need to take care, FOR (here is the somehow) if you exercise your right by eating meat in the pagan temple, it could encourage the weak to violate his conscience. So, not only does the gar work in my view, it also has the advantage of not creating a contradiction in Paul’s argument.…
I am not trying to be obtuse. But I do not understand how you are reading vv.9-10. What you wrote that I underlined and bolded, that’s my point right there. The strong thought it was their right to eat in the temple. And Paul knew it.
The right and knowledge refer to the validity of eating of meat. You are allowed to eat meat.
However, if you eat meat in the pagan temple, that is a way in which your right to eat meat could cause your brother to violate his conscience.
It’s the location of where you are doing the eating that is the “somehow” — how exercising your right could somehow be a problem.
[AndyE]The right and knowledge refer to the validity of eating of meat. You are allowed to eat meat.
However, if you eat meat in the pagan temple, that is a way in which your right to eat meat could cause your brother to violate his conscience.
It’s the location of where you are doing the eating that is the “somehow” — how exercising your right could somehow be a problem.
It still just seems like a different way of saying that while you have a right to eat in the temple, you need to love your brother and [at least sometimes] protect him by not using that right.
So I think you’re saying that IF it didn’t offend your brother, then eating in the temple would be ok.
However, if you read verses 1-9 – there is no mention of the pagan temple at all. The knowledge Paul refers to is the fact that an idol is nothing and that meat is not tainted by being sacrificed to an idol. So it is perfectly fine to eat meat, even if it might have been part of an idol sacrifice. So you have the freedom to eat meat, the right to eat meat. But…now comes verse 10 and something new. Not just eating meat, which is your right according to true knowledge, but eating meat in the pagan temple and you and your brother now KNOW for sure that food was offered to an idol.
If you do that, not just eat meat, but eat meat you know was sacrifice to an idol you will harm your weak brother. It turns out it will also harm you because (10:14-22) you will be participating in fellowship with demons. So, regarding meat potentially offered to idols – it’s ok to eat meat that may or may not have come from the pagan temple (e.g., the meat market, 10:25, or an unbeliever’s dinner, 10:27), but if you know it was sacrificed to an idol, you have to abstain (10:28). Three reasons for abstaining – (1) so you don’t fellowship with demons (10:14-22), so you don’t legitimize the demon worship in front of your host (10:28), and so you don’t hurt your host’s conscience for whom idol worship is a thing (10:29, cf., 8:7).
Now, probably to your point, I’m not exactly sure how to take “freedom/liberty” in 10:29. I need to think through that part some more.
The starting place for any application of I Cor. 6-10 is found in Acts 15.
Acts 15:19-29 “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day…23And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. 24Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: 25It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you …who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. 28For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; 29That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”
What we know:
- The command is absolute—”..abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
- It is a command with equal authority as the statement of not requiring circumcision for salvation—“…to whom we gave no such command…”
- It is founded in inspired scripture—“…Moses…preach[ed]…being read…”
- It is sent forth as an absolute by all the players—elders, apostles, evangelists
- It was disseminated to all the churches by elders and other trusted emissaries by letter and by preaching confirmation (“…tell you the same things by mouth…”)
- It is Holy Spirit inspired—“…good to the Holy Ghost…”
- It is absolutely necessary for the brethren in every church to practice—“…these necessary things…”
- It is the right thing to do—“…ye shall do well…”
- It was never revoked under inspiration—Acts 21:24-25; Rev. 2:14 & 20
This is what you have to take going into I Cor. 8-10. Corinth is the definitive application of Acts 15. It’s presented purpose is to prevent the influence of cultural idolatry in the individual and the church of Jesus Christ (“…flee from idolatry…” I Cor. 10:14). It’s overarching statement is “…18Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.” These reference both the action (eating in the temple) and the object.
Even that which is sold or presented at a feast has the same prohibition when knowledge is attained—”..if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not...”—is consistent with every scenario: in the temple, as part of culture and commerce, with understanding that it physically is simply meat. “Eat not” because you cannot entertain idolatry at any level and “flee from idolatry.” Idolatry is simply too loathsome and dangerous to the church of Jesus Christ to do other. God hates idolatry.
And that is why you cannot take idol meat to Romans 14 and make correct application. They are clearly referencing 2 different scenarios with 2 different applications. Idolatry at any level has never been a liberty issue.
Lee
I’m really enjoying the spirited and exegetical discussion of the I Corinthian “meat eating” passages. The more is said, the more apparent it becomes to me that an interpretation that faithfully incorporates all the Scriptural data is exceedingly difficult. Thanks for helping me think through this issue. Peter was spot on when he wrote that our beloved brother Paul has written some things that are difficult to understand.
G. N. Barkman
ok, I think we agree on these:
- Paul was vague on location through most of ch.8.
- Paul was against temple-eating in 10:1-22.
- Paul was open to eating possible market idol-meat (10:23-30), but knowing it’s idol-meat changed that in some way.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat. Here, I’m not sure what you’re thinking. Please clarify:
- The strong* believed it was ok to eat idol-meat including in the temple.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and Paul wasn’t sure if that included the temple.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat, but NOT in the temple.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat, but we can’t be sure today what location they approved of or what location Paul thought they approved of.
- Paul knew the strong could use their knowledge/right in a way that encouraged the weak to sin.
- When Paul gave an example (8:9-10) of a scenario where the strong use their knowledge/right that way, he chose a scenario where the strong eat in the temple.
* if you object to “strong” replace with “ch.8.eaters” - I used “strong” because Paul used “weak” for the other position.
Lee, I’m not trying to ignore you. I just want to clarify with Andy first.
[G. N. Barkman]Dan, you are right and I am wrong. Thanks for the excellent exegesis. Your careful study beats my “as best I can recall” any day.
The view that you first suggested (ch.8=market,ch.10a=temple,ch.10b=market) is very common in sermons and even is seen in commentaries. The reason is that if you accept that ch.8 is temple all the way through (which I do), then you have a pretty serious looking apparent contradiction with ch.10.
I think even Andy, who is defending the ch8=market view, sees that IF it didn’t end up contradictory with ch.10, the easiest reading of ch.8 is that they’re eating in the temple.
[Dan Miller]I think the way I would put it is, “The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and some thought they could eat in the temple, too”
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat. Here, I’m not sure what you’re thinking. Please clarify:
- The strong* believed it was ok to eat idol-meat including in the temple.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and Paul wasn’t sure if that included the temple.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat, but NOT in the temple.
- The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat, but we can’t be sure today what location they approved of or what location Paul thought they approved of.
Paul’s response is, (1) there may be times when you don’t eat meat at all (8:13), and (2) you certainly can’t eat meat in the temple (10:14-22), or (3) if you find out it actually IS idol meat (10:28).
[Dan Miller] I think even Andy, who is defending the ch8=market view, sees that IF it didn’t end up contradictory with ch.10, the easiest reading of ch.8 is that they’re eating in the temple.Well, in chapter 10, you have eating meat in the temple, eating meat sold at market, and eating meat at an unbeliever’s home. I think chapter 8 likely has all three in mind as well, but Paul only calls out the eating in the temple specifically (v 10). In other words, the people with the knowledge and a legit right/freedom to eat meat thought they could do so under any of those circumstances, and Paul is saying, no that is not the case, and verse 10 is an example case. He further clarifies in chapter 10.
[AndyE]
Emphasis mine.
You’re reading this with a skewed perspective. The knowledgeable/strong are being indicted here.
“…we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up…”
“…any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing…”
”..thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols…”
”..through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish…”
“…when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.”
”..let him that thinketh he standeth take heed…”
“…are we stronger than he?”
“… not seeking mine own profit…”
If the purpose is to “flee from idolatry” and “flee fornication” and it is the “weak” that are sensitive enough to get it done, then by all means “…To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak…And this I do for the gospel’s sake…” (9:22FF).
The commendation is not to the weak or strong. It is to those who actually take the biblically mandated steps to “flee from idolatry”. Recognizing and abstaining from the pollutions of idols is a significant step for accomplishing that purpose.
Lee
[Lee]You’re reading this with a skewed perspective. The knowledgeable/strong are being indicted here.
I agree, so I’m not sure what I said that you disagree with. In fact, I think I’m in agreement with your other posts in this thread as well, so not what you are getting at.
[AndyE]I agree, so I’m not sure what I said that you disagree with. In fact, I think I’m in agreement with your other posts in this thread as well, so not what you are getting at.
Musta misread you. My bad.
Lee
[AndyE] I think the way I would put it is, “The strong believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and some thought they could eat in the temple, too”
Ok. I’m reading this thinking, this is pretty much what I think - what are we arguing about???
But I think this is the difference: (italics is my add-on to distinguish our thoughts)
Andy: The strong in ch8 believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and some thought they could eat in the temple, too - however, the thinking that they can eat in the temple was not part of what Paul was condoning as “knowledge” and “right.”
Dan: The strong in ch8 believed it was ok to eat idol-meat and they thought they could eat in the temple - and the thinking that they can eat in the temple was part of what Paul was acknowledging as “knowledge” and “right.”
Discussion