Introduction
I just read a story about an
American football player who was arrested in Las Vegas for allegedly cheating
in a casino. The young man is worth millions yet he allegedly felt compelled to
cheat at the craps table for a few extra bucks. He later posted a statement on
his twitter account that said he was confident that when all the facts were revealed,
he would be vindicated. His twitter handle: “SinCityBuck!” I had to laugh at
the irony! It is very well known that Las Vegas is referred to as “Sin City”
yet millions of Christians flock to its entertainment attractions every year. It
seems so strange to me that Christians would be so enamored by a place called
“Sin City.” Irrespective of the location, I got to thinking about the many,
many Christians that gamble regularly. I’m not really much of a gambler, not so
much because of my moral and theological objections but mainly because I have a
very addictive personality so I know that I wouldn’t know when to stop unless I
ran out of money (and maybe not even then!). In any event, this lesson isn’t
specifically about gambling but about a Christian’s freedom from legalism and
how that freedom can become an obstacle in our own life of faith, someone
else’s life of faith or even someone’s salvation. Gambling, like many activities,
is not specifically addressed in the Bible. One can make a sound biblical
argument against it from the perspective of the proper stewardship of money and
from the perspective of greed and covetousness. Nevertheless, gambling is not
specifically forbidden in Scripture. Historically and theologically, there have
been two perspectives when the Bible is silent about something. Martin Luther
believed that unless something was specifically forbidden then it was
permitted. Ulrich Zwingli believed that unless something was specifically
permitted then it was forbidden. In the case of gambling, I suppose Luther might
condone it while Zwingli might condemn it. But I wonder—is there a middle
ground. I think there might be. Is it possible that there are some things that
are not specifically identified in Scripture as wrong that are Permissible But Not Beneficial? Let’s
find out.
Subject Text
1 Corinthians 10:23-33
23“I
have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I
have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24No
one should seek their own good, but the good of others. 25Eat
anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for,
“The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” 27If an
unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before
you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if
someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it,
both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29I
am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom
being judged by another’s conscience? 30If I take
part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I
thank God for? 31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do
it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to
stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God—33even as I
try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the
good of many, so that they may be saved.
Context
Paul’s
first letter to the church in Corinth was probably written between 50 AD and 60
AD during his third missionary journey. Corinth is located about 50 miles from
Athens and around two miles from the narrow isthmus that forms a land bridge
between Greece and the Peloponnesus. Because of its geographical location,
Corinth controlled two major harbors and ruled the trade routes between Asia
and Rome.
Corinth
catered to the gods of Egypt, Rome and Greece. The Temple of Aphrodite, the
goddess of love, was in Corinth. Even though the actual temple was not active
during Paul’s time, prostitution flourished in the city below where the temple
once served as the center for prostitution. As you might imagine, Corinth
catered to sailors and merchants from around the world. Even before Paul’s
time, Corinth had an awful reputation. Aphrodite’s temple gave Corinth its
reputation of overt immorality referenced by Paul (1 Cor 6:9-20; 2 Cor
12:20-21). Above, I made reference to Las Vegas as “Sin City,” so let me
describe Corinth for you: “She had a reputation for commercial prosperity, but
she was also a byword for evil living. The very word korinthiazesthai [Gk], to
live like a Corinthian, had become a part of the Greek language, and meant to live
with drunken and immoral debauchery…Aelian, the late Greek writer, tells us
that if ever a Corinthian was shown upon the stage in a Greek play he was shown
drunk. The very name Corinth was synonymous with debauchery and there was one
source of evil in the city which was known all over the civilized world. Above
the isthmus towered the hill of the Acropolis, and on it stood the great temple
of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. To that temple there were attached one
thousand priestesses who were sacred prostitutes, and in the evenings they
descended from the Acropolis and plied their trade upon the streets of Corinth,
until it became a Greek proverb, ‘It is not every man who can afford a journey
to Corinth.’ In addition to these cruder sins, there flourished far more
recondite vices, which had come in with the traders and sailors from the ends
of the earth, until Corinth became not only a synonym for wealth and luxury,
drunkenness and debauchery, but also for filth.”[1]
Remind you of some place familiar? Now that you have a picture of Corinth in
mind, let’s take a closer look at our subject text.
Text Analysis
V. 23 paves
the narrow path between Luther’s theology and Zwingli’s theology when he says
that everything is permissible but not necessarily beneficial or constructive.
We have to look back a few verses to figure out what leads Paul to make this
statement. At this point it is very important to remember the context I
outlined above. Idol worship was prolific in Corinth and with it, animal
sacrifices. Like the animal sacrifices of Israel where the people participated
in eating a portion of the sacrificial animals and thereby participated in the offering
ceremony, the pagans of Corinth had similar practices. Additionally, the meat
of sacrificial animals was sold on the open market available for purchase by
anyone. It appears that the young Church in Corinth faced a moral dilemma:
Should they or shouldn’t they consume meat that may have been part of an idol
worship ceremony? Paul explains that the issue is not the meat itself, it is
what the meat was used for. Animal sacrifices to idols in Pagan rituals were,
according to Paul, sacrifices made to demons and believers have no business
partaking in anything relating to demons or Satan. “The avoidance of idolatry
and scrupulousness about the source of meat (i.e., whether or not the meat came
from an animal that had been sacrificed to a Greco-Roman deity) would have been
a major factor in constructing boundaries between the Christian group and the
outside world.”[2] The
Church seems to be a crossroads of new-found freedoms as Christians versus
propriety in relation to the surrounding culture. “For the Corinthians exousia [Gk. ‘rights’] meant the ‘right’
to act in freedom as they saw fit. For Paul…exousia…meant
the ‘right’ to become slave of all; or as here, the ‘right’ to ‘benefit’ and
‘build up’ others in the body. For him nothing else is genuine exousia.”[3]
However, the matter in this case may be a bit more nuanced; what if the
believer unknowingly purchases meat
purchased in the market that was part of an idol worship ceremony?
In v. 24
Paul provides the general rule of thumb for his instruction in our subject
text. However, it is important to note that this instruction is consistent with
Paul’s overall theology in general. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to
suggest that Paul’s imperative that no one should seek their own good but
should instead seek the good of others applies in all cases. “In the course of
his argument he points out that it is God from who all things exist, regardless
of whether one regards idols as something or nothing. The Christian should be
guided by concern for the conscience of others, rather than by what he feels
from his own conscience.”[4]
V. 25
begins to address the nuanced dilemma I referenced earlier. How do the
Corinthians know for certain whether meat sold in the market was or wasn’t part
of an idol worship ceremony. This is where our freedom in Christ; our freedom
from legalism, frees us to live life to the fullest. In our sincere desire to
be faithful and obedient to Christ, we can become paralyzed with not knowing if
our actions might somehow be inappropriate. Our consciences are so sensitive
that we question everything. In some respects, this is not all bad yet it is
generally unnecessary. Specifically, v. 25 gives the Corinthians permission not
to obsess over the possibility of offending God by innocently doing something
they had no reasonable way of knowing might be wrong? This is confirmed in v.
26 when Paul reminds them that everything belongs to God in the first place. “Meat
that arrived for sale in the marketplace may have been left over from a
sacrifice at a pagan altar. But it is impossible to know if such meat had been
part of a sacrifice. Paul told the believers simply not to ask because it
didn’t matter. Whatever happened to the meat in a pagan temple, the believers
knew that all food was created by God and is a gift from God.”[5]
Paul
continues and expands on his explanation in v. 27 when he says that when the
Corinthians visit the home of an unbeliever, they are free to eat whatever is
in front of them without the need to ask from where the food came. It is only
in the case when an unbeliever voluntarily discloses that meat had been
previously offered as sacrifice that we see in v. 28a Paul instructing the
Corinthians to abstain from eating such food. The principal here is the same as
previously discussed in v. 25. It is unnecessary for the Corinthian believers
to interrogate their dinner hosts about the origination of the food that was being
served. Since temple food was a non-issue in a non-ritual setting there was no
reason to raise the subject. However, Paul’s instruction in vv. 28b-29a is
another matter altogether. If the host discloses that any part of the meal was
part of a sacrificial offering then the believer was to abstain from eating the
meal—not for the sake of the believer but for the sake of the unbeliever’s
conscience. This is part of Paul’s theology of servanthood as previously
described in v. 24. But how is an unbeliever’s conscience affected by our
actions? Think about it—if Christians knowingly eat food offered as sacrifice
to idols, does it affect their Christian witness? “The clue lies in the meaning
of ‘conscience,’ which is not to be understood as ‘a moral arbiter’ but ‘moral
consciousness.’ The one who has pointed out the sacrificial origins of this
meat to a Christian has done so out of a sense of moral obligation to the
Christian, believing that Christians, like Jews, would not eat such food. So as
not to offend that person, nor his/her moral expectations of Christians, and
precisely because it is not a matter
of Christian moral consciousness, one should forbear under these
circumstances.”[6]
Even though
vv. 29b-30 seem abrupt and disjointed, I think Paul anticipates objections to
his instructions by advancing two rhetorical questions. Specifically, he’s
saying something like this: ‘What difference does it make if I do something
that isn’t specifically prohibited as long as my conscience is clear about it?
If someone else has a problem with it, that should be their problem. I
shouldn’t have to change my behavior just because someone is overly sensitive
about my actions.’ Ouch! That flowed off my brain way too easily; almost like
I’ve said it before! “For Paul personal freedom is not absolute; it is always
conditioned by the ‘rule’ of v. 24—seeking the good of another.”[7]
“At one level the Christian is free: it is not other people’s judgments, as
such, which should determine one’s own. On the other hand, always to ask about
the impact or effect of these things on the self-awareness (confidence,
vulnerability, insecurity, negative reaction) of the other must play a part in the believer’s decision about how the freedom which God has granted is to be constructively used.”[8]
Having
established in v. 26 that the earth and everything in it belongs to the Lord,
Paul instructs the Corinthians in v. 31 to give God all the glory in whatever
they eat or drink or in anything they do. “Paul’s rule of life is that every
thought, word and deed is to enhance the glory of God, to demonstrate that he
is truly the summum bonum [Latin ‘the
highest good’] of life and thus worthy of worship.”[9]
Vv. 32-33
describe the heart and ministry of Paul when he says, don’t do anything that
might cause an unbeliever (Gentile), a Jew or another believer to stumble.
Instead, Paul instructs the Corinthians to imitate his actions and attitude
because he does nothing for his own good. Paul, ever the pastor and evangelist,
tells them that his primary objective is to advance the good of others
primarily for one purpose—so that they might be saved! “Paul expressly forbids
the strong to cause the weak to stumble and to hurt their conscience. Their
freedom, though justified in itself, must not cause others to fall. This is the
law of love. He who hurts the conscience of another creates an obstacle for the
gospel.”[10]
Where the NIV translates the Greek “Do not cause anyone to stumble,” some
translate the text as “Do not give offense.” What does it meant to cause someone
to stumble or to offend someone in this context? “To ‘give offense,’ therefore,
does not so much mean to ‘hurt someone’s feelings’ as to behave in such a way
as to prevent someone else from hearing the gospel, or to alienate someone who
is already a brother or sister…Hence, ‘freedom’ does not mean that one does
whatever one wishes with no regard for others; nor do limits on freedom
suggested here mean that another’s conscience dictates conduct. To the
contrary, everything is for God’s glory and for the sake of the gospel, that
is, for the good of all, which from Paul’s point of view means that they might
be saved.”[11]
Application
Unfortunately,
this lesson could easily devolve into a lesson on do’s and don’ts. It is very
difficult to ascertain the correct answer when it comes to something that is
not specifically addressed by Scripture. It is a narrow path we must follow in
this respect. Not surprisingly, the correct answer usually involves a certain
degree; usually a large degree, of self-sacrifice. Yet self-sacrifice is one of
the many things our sinful nature fights against; this is when we bring out the
“freedom in Christ” card or the “legalism” card. This is, however, unnecessary.
Paul’s instruction is not really a matter of what Christians should or
shouldn’t do even though our subject text had a specific purpose as it related
to meat sacrificed to idols. Paul is trying to get us to understand a very
important principle: Some things may be Permissible
But Not Beneficial.
Even though
there are countless issues that fall under the umbrella of biblical silence, let’s
continue with the illustration of gambling that I opened this lesson with. Like
I said before, I could make a sound theological argument that gambling is
unbiblical. However, there is no specific prohibition against gambling. Now
let’s consider the issue of gambling by Christians in the context our lesson. You
sit down at a craps table or a blackjack table or a poker table or the roulette
wheel with only a thought of your own actions and whether you will win or lose.
You’re not generally focused on anyone else, but consider this: In the United
States there are twice as many addicted gamblers than cancer victims, Americans
that live within 50 miles of a gambling establishment are twice as likely as
anyone else to gamble and become addicted, every compulsive gambler costs the
United States $16,000 every year, 25% of addicted gamblers attempt suicide,
nearly 700,000 college students and 35 million teens are addicted to gambling,
3 million people are problem gamblers, 15 million people are at risk of
becoming problem gamblers, and 148 million fall in the low risk gambling category.
Knowing these things, how is your participation in gambling in any way at all
beneficial to those around you? I’ve picked on gambling in this case but there
are other examples as well. How about movies with gratuitous sex and violence?
How about video games that glorify killing people? How about listening to
profanity-laced music? And there are countless other things we are involved in
and encounter that aren’t specifically prohibited or endorsed by the Bible. Nevertheless,
can you see how something can be Permissible
But Not Beneficial? Don’t misunderstand me, I absolutely do not condone
establishing a list of rules and regulations to follow! Instead, I want to
encourage you to consider your actions in light of their impact on a watching
world. I’m not saying you can’t have fun in life but becoming a Christian
necessarily requires certain sacrifices that represent a change in our
attitude. We live in a way that is pleasing to our Lord who gave his life for
us; we live in a way that does not cause other believers to stumble and betray
their faith; we live in a way that erects no obstacles for unbelievers to
become reconciled to God. All I really ask is that you consider your actions
carefully in light of what you say you believe and who you say is in control of
your life. Don’t hide behind the “freedom in Christ” or “legalism” argument. I
will stipulate that you are probably free to do anything that is not clearly
prohibited by Scripture. However, be honest with yourself when you decide what
to do with respect to a matter on which the Bible is silent. Let me finish with
this: Are you permitted to gamble? Yes. Are you permitted to watch movies that
contain gratuitous sex and violence? Yes. Are you permitted to play video games
that glorify killing people? Yes. Are you permitted to listen to
profanity-laced music? Yes. However, just because you can do them doesn’t necessarily mean you should. There are many things that are Permissible But Not Beneficial. “Everything is permissible—but not
everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible—but not everything is
constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.” Do your
actions seek your own good, satisfaction or enjoyment or the greatest good of
others?
[1]
William Barclay, The Letters to the
Corinthians, (Lexington, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), pp. 2-3.
[2]
David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the
New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 560.
[3]
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the
Corinthians, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1987), p. 479.
[4]
Colin Brown, Gen. Ed., Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, Vol. 3, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
1986), p. 433.
[5]
Bruce Barton, Philip Comfort, Grant Osborne, Linda K. Taylor and Dave Veerman, Life Application New Testament Commentary,
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001), p. 679.
[6]
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
p. 485.
[7]
Ibid., p. 483.
[8]
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistles
to the Corinthians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary,
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), pp. 792-793.
[9]
Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, Daniel G. Reid, eds., Dictionary of Paul and his Letters, (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 820.
[10]
Brown, DONTT, Vol. 2, p. 706.
[11]
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,
pp. 488-489.
No comments:
Post a Comment