Issues of Conscience
Image
The Bible describes with clarity many responsibilities of believers in the contexts of government and society. Still in some areas believers are not given specific instructions, and instead must rely on applying general biblical principles to contemporary challenges. For example, Paul mandates without compromise that the Roman believers should pay the taxes required of them (Rom. 13:7), but when it comes to eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul gives the Corinthians options (1 Cor. 8-10).
Pagan temples in first-century Corinth often included animal sacrifice. Even beyond the temples themselves, the marketplace was well represented with meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Consequently, the issue of whether a believer should eat such meat became an iconic cultural problem for the Corinthian church. Each era and context presents its own unique challenges. Every culture encounters, From time to time, moral issues so complex as to defy simple solutions. Still, in each and every instance, despite any level of complexity, these challenges can be answered appropriately by biblical principles. But before one can correctly apply a general principle to a specific situation, the person must understand the principle. Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians is helpful, as he explains the principles and their grounding so that the believers at Corinth could apply them well, and in so doing could maintain clear consciences.
Paul recognizes that even though the meat issue was a cultural hot potato, essentially it really wasn’t a significant issue at all. Because there is no God but one (1 Cor. 8:4), and because through Christ all things have their existence (1 Cor. 8:6), Paul and the Corinthians could have certain knowledge that at its core, the sacrificed meat issue was no issue at all. Food would not commend them to God (1 Cor. 8:8). Nonetheless, Paul warns against pride, contrasting it with edification (1 Cor. 8:1). The moral issue in play was not about an essential wrongness of eating sacrificed meat. There simply was no essential wrongness. Rather, the issue to which the Corinthian believers needed to be attentive was that of edifying or building up brothers in Christ (1 Cor. 8:1, 9-13). Paul provides and illustrates in 1 Corinthians 10:23-32 several principles to that end.
First, “All things are lawful (or possible), but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 10:23). All things that are not restricted are permitted. Where there is no regulation given in Scripture, there is freedom for the believer. This is one reason Paul wants the Corinthians to “learn not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). To place a heavier yoke on people than the Bible places on people results in pride—which is a tremendously destructive form of idolatry. Not only does pride tear down rather than build up, but ultimately, it is in conflict with God’s doxological purpose (His purpose of glorifying Himself—or expressing His own character).
Second, “All things are lawful (or possible), but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23). The Greek term (sumphero) translated here as profitable means to bring together, and the term translated edify (oikodomeo) means to house-build, or build up. The second term explains the scope of the first. In other words, what is profitable or bringing together is that which house-builds or builds up. In this context, what is profitable for believers is that which builds up.
Third, “Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor” (1 Cor. 10:24). The word good is not in the Greek text, rather it has been added by the translators to help clarify the meaning of the passage. I think the passage is better translated without the word (“Let no one seek his own, but that of his neighbor”), because it causes the reader to ask, ‘Let no one seek his own what?’ Rather than assuming the good without realizing its specific definition in this context, the reader should be drawn to the word edify. This is not referencing general good, as in saying we may not pursue good for ourselves, rather it is referencing specific good in terms of building up. Paul speaks in universal terms of all believers (“Let no one…”), and mandates that we should seek the building up of our neighbor. As Paul references the concept of building up elsewhere (e.g., 2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10; Eph. 4:12, 16), it is evident he is speaking in terms of spiritual growth.
We should be attentive to the spiritual needs of others, basing our decisions, where we have freedom, not on our own growth but on the growth of others. Paul restates this in 1 Corinthains 10:33, noting that he seeks not his own profit (sumphoron), but the profit of many. There are obviously many specific biblical directions regarding how we are to attend to our own spiritual growth, so we are certainly not to ignore our own spiritual growth and building up. But in cases where we have options, we should look for the benefit of others.
Next, Paul illustrates in 1 Corinthians 10:25-30 the above three principles in action, applying them to the specific situation at hand. Eat and don’t ask questions—it doesn’t matter if the meat is sacrificed or not. The earth is the Lord’s and all it contains (10:26)—all things belong to Him, even if an item has been misappropriated by one to whom it had been given. Further, even when interacting with unbelievers, there is still no issue. Only when it is made an issue by someone perceiving that there is an issue (10:28), the believer should act in consideration of that person. In other words, the believer—seeking the good of the other, rather than the good of his own—should be sensitive and attentive to the (spiritual, in this context) needs of others.
Finally, Paul announces the highest order principle: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). His words here accomplish two important purposes. First, by adding the phrase “or whatever you do,” he shows that the principles he is discussing are relevant for every area of life and not just for the occasion at hand. Believers are not at liberty to compartmentalize areas of our lives—employing one set of principles for our spiritual endeavors and a whole different set for our societal and political ones. Paul shows us here that all of our actions are to be governed by the same principles. Secondly—and most importantly—he reminds the reader of the ultimate purpose for every action in the believer’s life: God’s glory. The glory of God is God’s purpose, and it is to be ours as well. If our thoughts, words and deeds do not pass the doxological test, then they need to be changed.
We should seek not what is permissible, but what is profitable. What is profitable is that which builds up. That which builds up others rather than ourselves, on issues of conscience, is the focus of these principles. These principles are applicable not just to what we eat, but to every area of life. In every area of life our divinely mandated goal is to glorify God.
Where the Bible offers no specific direction, it still answers every situation we can possibly encounter, bidding us to apply these principles comprehensively and faithfully. If we are diligent to that end, we will not lack for confidence or be burdened with uncertainty in discerning whether or not our actions are appropriate for the occasion.
Christopher Cone Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, pastor of Tyndale Bible Church and author and editor of several books.
- 31 views
As I reflect on the argument I make from the Text, I should have said, “The issue in Rome was basically the issue in Corinth. Idol-tainted meat.”
I can’t argue that the Roman strong ate their idol-meat in the pagan temple. Perhaps that will give us more to agree on.
[alex o.]…Perhaps there was a monopoly on all meat in Rome that it had to come through sacrifice to Jupiter…My understanding is that fear of illness and superstition caused people to refuse meat that wasn’t blessed by their gods. So finding non-idol-meat in the city would be tough.
[Don Johnson]…It could be idol-tainted meat or it could be just meat of any kind.
Here is where you and I differ, and here’s why.
You have correctly concluded that I Cor. 6-10 is absolutely prohibiting the eating of idol meat or sitting in the idol temple once knowledge has been attained of its idolatrous connection. It is careful to emphasize that the problem is not the meat but the idolatry, thus certifying that the idolatry of any given culture can (and does) profane/pollute very neutral things/actions. The problem is idolatry, not meat or place, but the idolatry makes the meat or place profane. “But 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. Ye 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.”
However, the conclusion in Rom. 14 is completely different. There is a world of difference between “…ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils…” and “…He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.” IOW, Romans 14 cannot be referencing the same meat issue as the conclusions are contradictory. To be referencing the same meat issue Paul, under inspiration, would be taking a position contrary to James, the elder of Jerusalem (Acts 15:19-20; Acts 21:25), to the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28), to the entire body of the Jerusalem counsel (Acts 15:25-28), to himself (I Cor. 8-10), and to the risen Lord Jesus Christ (Rev. 2:14 & 20). Didn’t happen.
Lee
[Lee]…You [Don] have correctly concluded that I Cor. 6-10 is absolutely prohibiting the eating of idol meat or sitting in the idol temple once knowledge has been attained of its idolatrous connection.[/quote] Interested in what Don says about Lee’s post, but I do not agree with the absolute part of the above.
[Lee]Don Johnson wrote:
…It could be idol-tainted meat or it could be just meat of any kind.
Here is where you and I differ, and here’s why.
…
However, the conclusion in Rom. 14 is completely different. There is a world of difference between “…ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils…” and “…He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”
I think you make a good point. In my defense, when I say “could/couldn’t” I am strictly arguing from the meaning of the words in the text of Rm 14. I agree with you that there is an absolute prohibition in 1 Cor, as I stated above… somewhere… That would preclude idol meat in Romans, which I have always maintained simply based on the word “vegetables” - the two situations are completely different. I am not sure that it is the Jewish laws of cleanness and uncleanness that is in view, however.
This discussion certainly makes me eager to get to Rm 14, but I have 35 verses in 12 and 13 to get through first!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]…
This discussion certainly makes me eager to get to Rm 14, but I have 35 verses in 12 and 13 to get through first!
Cheat! :)
Lee
We live in an completely different era largely unconnected with the Greek and Roman gods, the temples and their specific practices, the attitudes of the people during this time, etc. This is why we need to look at other histories, even basic ones such as Plutarch and Tacitus and not only focus on the text of the Bible about issues removed 2000 years from us. Its a time consuming task but indispensable for any accurate understanding.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]We live in an completely different era largely unconnected with the Greek and Roman gods, the temples and their specific practices, the attitudes of the people during this time, etc. This is why we need to look at other histories, even basic ones such as Plutarch and Tacitus and not only focus on the text of the Bible about issues removed 2000 years from us. Its a time consuming task but indispensable for any accurate understanding.
So what are you saying—that no accurate understanding and application can be made unless someone has the equivalent of a terminal degree in 1st century Greco-Roman cultural studies?
I suggest we simplify, since I really don’t think times changing caught God by surprise when He inspired these passages. Practically every culture/society has idolatries that define them. The Romans/Greeks did not invent that concept nor did they hold a lock on it. Identify the idolatry of any given culture and the accompanying idols and that which is profaned by that idolatry (“pollutions of idols”) will become evident. Then it is just a matter of being obedient—“abstain from pollutions of idols”.
Three levels of obedience: Idolatry—”flee from” it (I Cor. 10); idols—”keep [guard] yourselves from” them (I Jn. 5:21); pollutions (meat offered to) of idols—”abstain from…”
The problem is idolatry. That was the major external problem facing the church in the 1st century; it is the major external problem facing the church today.
Lee
[Lee]alex o. wrote:
We live in an completely different era largely unconnected with the Greek and Roman gods, the temples and their specific practices, the attitudes of the people during this time, etc. This is why we need to look at other histories, even basic ones such as Plutarch and Tacitus and not only focus on the text of the Bible about issues removed 2000 years from us. Its a time consuming task but indispensable for any accurate understanding.
So what are you saying—that no accurate understanding and application can be made unless someone has the equivalent of a terminal degree in 1st century Greco-Roman cultural studies?
I suggest we simplify, since I really don’t think times changing caught God by surprise when He inspired these passages. Practically every culture/society has idolatries that define them. The Romans/Greeks did not invent that concept nor did they hold a lock on it. Identify the idolatry of any given culture and the accompanying idols and that which is profaned by that idolatry (“pollutions of idols”) will become evident. Then it is just a matter of being obedient—“abstain from pollutions of idols”.
Three levels of obedience: Idolatry—”flee from” it (I Cor. 10); idols—”keep [guard] yourselves from” them (I Jn. 5:21); pollutions (meat offered to) of idols—”abstain from…”
The problem is idolatry. That was the major external problem facing the church in the 1st century; it is the major external problem facing the church today.
Quite the leap Lee.
I don’t want to be too sarcastic, but what you suggest is pure folly. This is anachronistic reading of the Bible defined. Do you really believe a simplistic reading and devising a sort of formula like you propose is how God intended us to handle Scripture? Frankly, Lee, your advice is the scariest thing I have heard in quite some time.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]
Quite the leap Lee.
I don’t want to be too sarcastic, but what you suggest is pure folly. This is anachronistic reading of the Bible defined. Do you really believe a simplistic reading and devising a sort of formula like you propose is how God intended us to handle Scripture? Frankly, Lee, your advice is the scariest thing I have heard in quite some time.
Help me then. Because the way I’m reading you is that the passages have no meaning or application unless the worship of Jupiter, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Artemis rolls back into fashion, in which case we’re prepared.
So let’s work on where we agree.
Do we agree that the major external problem facing the church today is idolatry?
Do we agree that idolatry defines most societies,cultures and sub-cultures including western societies?
Lee
[Lee]alex o. wrote:
Quite the leap Lee.
I don’t want to be too sarcastic, but what you suggest is pure folly. This is anachronistic reading of the Bible defined. Do you really believe a simplistic reading and devising a sort of formula like you propose is how God intended us to handle Scripture? Frankly, Lee, your advice is the scariest thing I have heard in quite some time.
Help me then. Because the way I’m reading you is that the passages have no meaning or application unless the worship of Jupiter, Zeus, Aphrodite, and Artemis rolls back into fashion, in which case we’re prepared.
So let’s work on where we agree.
Do we agree that the major external problem facing the church today is idolatry?
Do we agree that idolatry defines most societies,cultures and sub-cultures including western societies?
You still seem to be long jumping. You are not reading me close enough. Why take these giant leaps?
Firstly, on my previous post, you thought I was saying someone needed a terminal degree, which I meant nothing of the sorts. Any formal training is supposed to equip the person for further study. Generally, the more formal training the better but it is also dependent on the institution, advisors and other mentors. After training it is up to the person to continue their development along the line of their gifts. I recommend formal study for yourself as the best advice I could give.
Second, how could you get that the text has no meaning unless Greek and Roman idolatry is reestablished from what I said? I was speaking of determining certain distinctions which is simply impossible from the text of Scripture alone without a background study of documents, which also, by God’s general grace, have been preserved.
Also, of course, yes, idolatry is rampant whether it takes the shape of self, society, things, etc. However, understanding it and overcoming it personally and how to proclaim Christ as King, Lawgiver, Judge, and Savior, I suspect we would do differently.
I recommend to you reading all the Bible systematically, extensively, and prayerfully before anything else without the lens of fundamentalist preachings. Most self-professed Fundamentalists are fairly ignorant of what the Bible actually says in a meaningful sense from my experience. The NIV, ESV, and other versions instead of the KJV, will better illumine the text in my opinion.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
[alex o.]You still seem to be long jumping. You are not reading me close enough. Why take these giant leaps?
Let’s call it exaggeration for emphasis sake :) I think most people reading would have picked up on this relatively common rhetorical device
[]Firstly, on my previous post, you thought I was saying someone needed a terminal degree, which I meant nothing of the sorts. Any formal training is supposed to equip the person for further study. Generally, the more formal training the better but it is also dependent on the institution, advisors and other mentors. After training it is up to the person to continue their development along the line of their gifts. I recommend formal study for yourself as the best advice I could give.
You said “We live in an…era largely unconnected with the Greek and Roman gods…we need to look at other histories…such as Plutarch and Tacitus and not only focus on the text of the Bible about issues removed 2000 years from us. Its…indispensable for any accurate understanding.” While “terminal degree in Greco-Roman cultural studies” may be hyperbole, it does come across that you are stating that there is some expertise in extra-biblical writings that is absolutely necessary to “rightly divide” this portion of the “word of truth.” I’ll admit, I do find that concept a little troubling in the whole completeness and authoritativeness of scripture idea.
[] Second, how could you get that the text has no meaning unless Greek and Roman idolatry is reestablished from what I said? I was speaking of determining certain distinctions which is simply impossible from the text of Scripture alone without a background study of documents, which also, by God’s general grace, have been preserved.
Short step, really. If it has no determinable meaning without an expertise in understanding Greco-Roman idolatry/culture then it likely has no meaning without the Greco-Roman idolatry/culture.
But that is beside the point. The matter of meat offered to idols is not a Greco-Roman thing. It was a problem long before, first introduced in the account of Balaam in Num. 25:1-3 —“And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel” —and it continued to be a problem even as the Scripture revelation was being concluded in Rev. 2. Interesting that Christ, in His scathing reprimands of the idolatrous influence allowed into the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira, chose to ignore the common idolatry but illustrated with the meat issue preceding the establishment of His chosen in the promised land and under the rain of the kings. Makes me think that the point of the passages in I Cor. 8-10 and Acts 15 might be able to be understood without as much inundation in Roman worship studies as you propose.
[Quote=] Also, of course, yes, idolatry is rampant whether it takes the shape of self, society, things, etc. However, understanding it and overcoming it personally and how to proclaim Christ as King, Lawgiver, Judge, and Savior, I suspect we would do differently.
Not talking of idolatry in the “anything can be an idol sense.” That is simply a ploy. The NT passages on meat offered to idols are referencing identifiable idolatry that is definitive of an identifiable society, community, etc. Corinth was a worshipper of Aphrodite; Ephesus Diana, etc. It was the practices involved in this very identifiable worship that were being addressed.
[Quote=] I recommend to you reading all the Bible systematically, extensively, and prayerfully before anything else without the lens of fundamentalist preachings. Most self-professed Fundamentalists are fairly ignorant of what the Bible actually says in a meaningful sense from my experience. The NIV, ESV, and other versions instead of the KJV, will better illumine the text in my opinion.
Glad you got a handle on that. For some reason my mind immediately referenced Job 12:2. If you want to take that as a mild rebuke, please consider it in the light it was given—“faithful are the wounds of a friend.”
Lee
[Lee] You said “We live in an…era largely unconnected with the Greek and Roman gods…we need to look at other histories…such as Plutarch and Tacitus and not only focus on the text of the Bible about issues removed 2000 years from us. Its…indispensable for any accurate understanding.” While “terminal degree in Greco-Roman cultural studies” may be hyperbole, it does come across that you are stating that there is some expertise in extra-biblical writings that is absolutely necessary to “rightly divide” this portion of the “word of truth.” I’ll admit, I do find that concept a little troubling in the whole completeness and authoritativeness of scripture idea.Lee,
I hear this kind of argument from time to time. I am sure it is usually well intentioned. It sounds good. But it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. No one is undermining the completeness or authority of scripture when they call for additional extra-biblical study in order to “rightly divide the Word of Truth.” The fact is, we all recognize the need for extra-biblical study. At it’s most basic level, there is an extra-biblical requirement that we learn how to read and understand the basic rules of grammar in order to study the Bible. These are absolutely necessary, extra-biblical studies. All Alex O. is suggesting is that they are not the only ones, particularly now that we are 2,000 years removed from the closing of the cannon. This is commonly understood to be the historical part of the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics - a generally accepted concept among conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]Lee wrote:
You said “We live in an…era largely unconnected with the Greek and Roman gods…we need to look at other histories…such as Plutarch and Tacitus and not only focus on the text of the Bible about issues removed 2000 years from us. Its…indispensable for any accurate understanding.” While “terminal degree in Greco-Roman cultural studies” may be hyperbole, it does come across that you are stating that there is some expertise in extra-biblical writings that is absolutely necessary to “rightly divide” this portion of the “word of truth.” I’ll admit, I do find that concept a little troubling in the whole completeness and authoritativeness of scripture idea.Lee,
I hear this kind of argument from time to time. I am sure it is usually well intentioned. It sounds good. But it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. No one is undermining the completeness or authority of scripture when they call for additional extra-biblical study in order to “rightly divide the Word of Truth.” The fact is, we all recognize the need for extra-biblical study. At it’s most basic level, there is an extra-biblical requirement that we learn how to read and understand the basic rules of grammar in order to study the Bible. These are absolutely necessary, extra-biblical studies. All Alex O. is suggesting is that they are not the only ones, particularly now that we are 2,000 years removed from the closing of the cannon. This is commonly understood to be the historical part of the historical-grammatical method of hermeneutics - a generally accepted concept among conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Not arguing the value of extra-biblical studies. Practically all education is such, and I am a huge fan of education. His point was that studying these pagan historian/philosophers was “indispensable”, a term that connotes impossibility, as if Scripture is incapable of communicating itself by itself. This I have an issue with.
For example, Gen. 1:16 says simply “he made the stars also.” While a study of astronomy illuminates the enormity of the statement, it is not “indispensable” to understand the truth of the inspired communication.
In Scripture you have an inspired historical record of how being in proximity to idolatry led to participation in idolatrous observances which eventually led to practicing idol worship and its almost always accompanying immorality (Num. 25:2), a record referenced both by Paul (I Cor. 10) and Jesus Christ (Rev. 2) in their addresses of the matter of meat offered to idols. What do Plutarch and Tacitus have to add to that inspired record that makes understanding them (and others) “indispensable” in understanding truth?
Lee
Lee,
That was my point though, some extra-biblical studies are indispensable to rightly dividing the Word. As I noted and you agreed, basic skills in reading and grammar are indispensable to any investigation of scripture. Other studies, such as historical context or original language studies, are more or less indispensable depending on the passage being considered - for instance the lukewarm statement to the church in Laodicea.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]Lee,
That was my point though, some extra-biblical studies are indispensable to rightly dividing the Word. As I noted and you agreed, basic skills in reading and grammar are indispensable to any investigation of scripture. Other studies, such as historical context or original language studies, are more or less indispensable depending on the passage being considered - for instance the lukewarm statement to the church in Laodicea.
Still a long step from “you need to be able to read” to “you need to read Plutarch.”
Not sure why a geographical study of Laodicea is “indispensable” to understand that water that is not cold and not hot is undesirably lukewarm when cold or hot is the desired end.
Lee
Discussion