Transcription
All right, today we take up First Corinthians chapters eight to ten. And one of the things that is now going to happen, both in this hour and in the next, is that we're going to be moving into some things in First Corinthians where, if you'll recall the first lectures about the the steps of the hermeneutics of the epistles, there is the step one where we must do exegesis. Sit back in the first century and hear what Paul was saying to the Corinthians. And then step two, we must hear what God's Word was to them. What it was that God was addressing them, how it was that God was addressing them. And then step three is, what is God saying to us? Which, of course, is the same thing he was saying to them once we've sat back and listened to what was going on then.
But up to this point, for the most part, we have been dealing with items, look in First Corinthians, where the transfer into the 20th century was pretty easy to do. Mostly because we had what so we called, remember that day, comparable particulars. There are still churches, there are still those who lead churches, the church still belongs to God. And so the Word of God that is addressed to the church is still, you know, carrying into the 20th century. There are still men and women who are to be married or single, that the word from chapter 7 carries very easily. We have comparable particulars, even if the actual cultural setting in which that came isn't precisely the same. That is, we probably don't have people who are arguing for celibate marriage. But nonetheless, even given that historical situation and hearing what God was saying to that situation, we've moved from step one into that step two, and then we can go immediately step two to step three and hear what God is saying to us with regard to the the theology of sexual relations within Christian marriage.
But when we come to chapters eight to ten, we move into a new, into a new arena for us in First Corinthians, because we move to an area where we do not have comparable particulars. We have items that are, in fact, very strongly culturally conditioned. That is, they are conditioned by the culture in which they were first, to which they were first addressed. And when we come to hearing the Word of God, we've got to ask the question, how do we get from step one to step three? And we've got to learn somewhere along the line, and here's what we already need the help of the Holy Spirit. We need to ask the kinds of questions that help us to translate from their culture into our culture. That is, we can go from step one into this morning into step two, or very easily. But going from step two to step three is what's difficult. Because we heard the Word of God that was, what we will hear the Word of God that was spoken to them. But since we don't have anything that has that, you know, that is like what God was saying to them, we have to ask, well, how can God say that word to us since we don't have anything that's comparable to that? So we have to make some kind of a translation, a translation of this word into a new kind of setting. And that's not always going to be easy, but it's something that's worth are trying to do.
So what we must do first of all, then, is do step one. We've got to do the exegesis of this passage in order to hear what God is saying to them in the first century. Now, the difficulties inherent in chapters 8 to 10 are of such nature that many scholars simply despair of finding consistency in this passage. The majority of commentaries, the majority of scholars who have worked on First Corinthians, either divide the church into groups of weak and strong and then relate them to the divisions in chapter 1:12. That is, they have such a difficult time managing the kinds of things that are being said in chapters 8-10 that they say, well, there's two kinds of people in the church, there are the weak and there are the strong. And then they go back and say the weak, those must be the Peter people, and the strong, those must be the Apollos people, or something like that. And there were dint efficacious that Paul himself doesn't make. That's one thing that has happened.
There are some other scholars who find, who have such despair that you can find consistency and logic in this section, that they opt for a theory of compilation of Pauline letters. They argue that First Corinthians, in fact, is not a single letter from Paul, but that the Corinthian church had several letters of the Apostle Paul. And we know, in fact, that he wrote at least four, perhaps five. And they simply argue that First Corinthians, you know, wasn't one letter, but it was a way of putting some letters together, and that he spoke to these things two or three times, and all of those things that were spoken to ended up getting together in this letter of ours. That's that's a way out, but I'm not convinced it's necessarily a good one.
Now, besides several problems of specific detail, there is first of all the obvious difficulty, as you read the text, as to how the various sections are related to one another. Let's take for example, chapter 8, verses 1 to 13. All of chapter 8, in fact, if you're reading in an RSV, you will see that the RSV itself doesn't know what to do with this section. How many of you have an RSV here? That's right. Okay. Notice in the RSV that large space between chapters 8 and 9. See that? And then look at the end of chapter 9. See the large space between 9 and 10? Now, that's a way of them saying, we don't know what to do with this. It's clear that chapters 8 to 10 somehow belong together, but what chapter 9 is doing in the middle of that.
So you read chapter 8, for example, and everything has to do with the word that is translated in the RSV is "food offered to idols." Now, we're going to, I'll stick with that translation, except that I want you to hear, I want you to hear the Greek word, and because the Greek word is kind of important at this point. The word is *eidōlothyta*. We get the word "idol" from that Greek word, *eidōlon*. So *eidōlothyta*, it means, it means things offered to idols. Now, you understand that that's the Jewish terminology. That is, if you were to ask a Corinthian, if you were to go downtown in Corinth and ask, is this *eidōlothyta*? He wouldn't understand you. Why not? Because he does not consider his deity to be an idol. In other words, that would be, that's a Jewish way of talking about this food. The fair way of talking about the food is *hierothyta*, that means sacred food. That would, that's the Greek word that is, that's the word that the pagan would use, *hierothyta*, sacred food, food that has been offered in sacrifice to the, to the deity. The Jew says not *hierothyta*, but *eidōlothyta*. Now, Paul is going to use the word *hierothyta* at one point, and that's going to be a very important point in making some distinctions as to what's going on.
But first of all, then, it's clear that that all of chapter 8 is dealing with this business of food offered to idols. It's mentioned in verse 1, it's mentioned in verse 4, and then in verse 7, it ties the whole of chapter 8 together. "Some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols, eat food as really offered to an idol." And then he goes on to make some explanations. But then when you come to chapter 9, a whole new thing seems to be in operation. What you have here is a rather strong defense on the part of the Apostle Paul of his own actions, whatever those actions are. There's a very strong defense of them. He starts with a series of rhetorical questions: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not, are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are my seal." And then look at verse 3: "This is my defense, *apologia*, from which we get the word apology or apologetics. This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right, or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right? You know, do I say this on human authority? Does not scripture say the same?" A very strong, a defense of Paul's actions of some kind. And it's fair to say, well, we're moving into a new thing in the letter. Chapter 8 dealt with food offered to idols. Chapter 9 takes up a defense.
But then we turn to chapter 10, and if chapter 10, verses 1 to 6, or 1 to 5, don't seem to speak to the question, by the time we get into chapter 10, verses 14 and following, we have the idea that we're back to food offered to idols. Look at verse 19: "What do I imply? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?" Now, obviously, this material is back to that question. Well, then, in 10:23 and following, Paul takes up the question again. "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience." But if anyone, in verse 27, if anyone of the unbelievers invites you to a dinner, you were disposed to go, go without and eat without raising any question. But he says in verse 28, "If someone says to you, 'This has been offered in sacrifice.'" So we're back to food offered to idols again, obviously.
Now, on top of all of this, the question is, and of course the possibility is, well, this is a brand new issue now, you know, food offered to idols is once, and food offered to idols is twice, you know, food offered to idols course one, food offered to idols course two, and apology in between of some kind. And then, of course, on top of all this, there's the difficulty of their correspondence with him. What precisely did they say in their letter to him? And all you have to do is read his answer, and it becomes pretty clear that they have not just asked a friendly question, "Paul, what do you think about food offered to idols?" It is hardly a "what do you think" kind of question, because his answer is very argumentative. That is, they have taken a very strong position about something, and Paul is trying to combat that position. That should come clear to you as you read the text. It may not as you read it, because we tend to read it and thinking in terms, "Well, they asked what about it, what do you think about this, Paul?" And now Paul is giving us, "What do I think about answer?" But if you read the text with any care, you can see it's not "what I think about" at all. It's a very competitive, argumentative kind of answer that's going on.
Well, that means that there, there a question. It probably wasn't a question at all. That is, they were, they were making some very strong affirmations and then probably asking, "Why can't we?" That kind of question on the basis of something else. Now, that leads us then to suggest some things. And what you're going to hear about chapters 8 to 10 will probably also strike you as being novel in the sense of last night's on chapter 7. But it happens to another, and it be another one of these instances when I am not at all concerned with uniqueness. And I think I have stressed that enough to you. I am only concerned with what's really going on, with what is really there. It isn't any novel or speculative interpretation that interests me at all. I want to know what makes sense of the text, what is really going on in the biblical text.
And some time ago, several years ago now, I was doing First Corinthians at Wheaton College when at the same time, and I happened to be, we were happen to be working our way through chapter 10 at the time, and I was working on the Greek text with some care. One, at this time, I was reading a student term paper that had been written on Second Corinthians, on Second Corinthians 6:14 to 7:1, that famous passage, "Don't be unequally yoked together with unbelievers," etc. And all of a sudden, and some linguistic phenomena, some some close parallels began to leap off the page at me. And I began to sit and put these two passages together, and it came to me that they're talking about the same thing. And that Second Corinthians 6:14 to 7:1 is a another new advance, not an advance, but a repetition of the argument of what's going on, especially in chapter 10:14 to 22. And that Paul is not talking about marriage. And that, of course, isn't even suggested in the text. What kind of relationship with an unbeliever that one isn't to have is the real problem.
And you'll notice that he asks a series of rhetorical questions, and the last of those questions is, "What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God." Precisely what he's already argued, you see, in First Corinthians. "What agreement has the temple of God with idols?" And it's clear that all of the questions up to, everything is leading up to that question. You know, "What relationship has righteousness with unrighteousness?" And he asks a series of questions, all of which are leading up to this question, "What relationship has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God." And then he cites a series of Old Testament passages, all of which are those passages that are calling Israel out of idolatry or promising that God will be their father on the basis of their abandoning idolatry. Therefore, Paul says, "Having these promises, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement." That word "defilement" was one of those words that caught my attention because it comes right out of chapter 10 of First Corinthians.
So I sat down and began to rethink First Corinthians 8 to 10. And in the process, I wrote an article giving an interpretation, a scholarly journal, New Testament Studies, which has just recently appeared. And I am convinced is really on the right path in terms of the interpretation. Now, that's the interpretation that obviously I have come to. It's it's the kind that I will be very frank to tell you, you're not going to read in a lot of commentaries because, as far as I know, the only one of previously who had come to that conclusion about Second Corinthians 6:14 to 7:1 was John Calvin in his commentary. But he didn't make a great point of it, and he didn't make too much of how it related to chapters 8 to 10. But I think that I can really make sense out of this whole chapter. And in the same way as in chapter 7, that is, once one begins to sort of get clued in to what the real problem is, everything begins to fall into place. So that's what we're going to suggest to you. And now some detailed exegesis is rather imperative for us.
Now, I think the place for us to start, and this is where I began in the article, and it's still the place where I think it's the proper place to start, is to start with what is really obvious. That is, where there really aren't any questions at all about what Paul is saying. And in this instance, that obvious place is at the end, chapter 10, verses 23 to 11:1. Who, now, I know that that's not where they would have begun their reading. I'm well aware of that. But let's be reminded again that they know what's going on, they know what Paul is speaking to, because they've asked the question. We're the ones that are somewhat in the dark. So we're trying to find out what in the world is going on in chapter 8, chapter 9, chapter 10, and especially when in chapter 10:23 and following, he simply writes out and says, "It doesn't matter." And everything up to that point has argued it does matter. Now, you can't have your cake and eat it too, it seems to me. How can idol be a matter of indifference at the end when it's been a matter of great at dif up to this point? And of course, that's the real disturbing factor. In fact, this is what scholars say, he's been addressing the strong from chapter 8 through 10:22, and now he's addressing the weak. You know, hey, so he, they divide the church up and say Paul speaks to one kind of in the church at one time, and then another kind in the church at another time. It, that isn't even suggested in the text. I thought, I'm saying that that doesn't really come out of the text.
So let's start and hear what Paul says. And let's assume that there's a consistency, a logical consistency to what he argues. Verse 23: "All things are lawful," but "not all things are helpful." "All things are lawful," but "not all things build up." "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." Now, that's the general principle upon which matters of indifference are going to have to be settled. Now, you understand, we have to start there. We're not going to spend a lot of time there, but you have to start there. "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." Because he's coming to matters of indifference, matters that the Greek is *adiaphora*. I'll tend to keep repeating that word just so here, *adiaphora*. It means stuff that doesn't matter, you know, stuff that doesn't count, and stuff that God doesn't really care about, only human beings do. The *adiaphora*, a kind of stuff, things that are culturally conditioned and moved from culture to culture. And you find a whole different set of *adiaphora* as to what people are concerned with and what they think counts, but that God doesn't. And Paul speaks to that. But he says that the guiding principle is, "Let everyone seek not his own good, but that of his neighbor."
Now, he gives the general principle, and it is clear, absolutely clear, in verse 25: "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience." Now, it seems to me that before we go much further, we need to have something before us as to what kind of problems are involved. You remember the picture that we had of Corinth on the board the other day? The *bema* here, and the central shop, and the north shop, and then the great temple of Apollo, okay? Now, I was only one of the temples that, the Temple of Apollo, of course, is the patron, he's the patron deity of Corinth. And so that's the great temple, and probably it's in partial ruins by the time of Paul. It's hard to know whether they rebuilt the temple or not. That's one of those kinds of things. Because that this temple goes back to the to the Roman time, into the to the Greek period. But in any case, these, the temple, and many, many other shrines of its kind, twenty-six of them, remember, all together. And by the way, that 26 includes all the way up to the top of the Acrocorinth. There are something like seven on the way up to the top of the hill, plus the one on the top of the hill, at 26 of these in Corinth.
And what you need to have, I think, before you is something about pagan worship and antiquity. When you and I think of worship, our first response, our first reaction to worship is that worship is something that's patterned after the Jewish synagogue. It's patterned after the old, and you, you come and you ascribe praise to God. You have the *barakah*, the blessings, the descriptions of praise to God. And then you pray, and you sing, and you have the Word of God, and you pray, and you go home. Worship has to do with that kind of, it's what I call it, has to do with the, the whole area of verbalization. That is, we worship God by verbalizing. We worship God by singing. We worship God by praising. We worship God by praying. We worship God by letting him speak to us. Worship is something that is verbalization. Now, that happens to be a rather unique way to worship God, you understand that? That that's kind of new on the scene in pagan antiquity, and including in antiquity, including Jewish antiquity. God was worshipped by sacrifice, by the sacrifice of animals, especially. But not just by sacrifice. What happened is that they would sacrifice their animals, and not just animals, that is, they're not just bloody sacrifices. They would sacrifice their food, and they would bring their food and the animal, especially, and bring it to the altar in the shrine. And here they would burn some of it, and the God would be placed here, and they, the smell of the burnt sacrifice would go upward into the nostrils of the deity, and he was to be pleased and placated by the smell of the burnt sacrifice.
But here's the part that hardly ever seems to be noted by us, and that's the fact that that in the process of this worship, the rest of the food would be out here, and there would be tables, and here the people would sit and have their friends, and they would have festive meals in the presence of the deity. Now, what happened in antiquity is that people ordinarily ate in the presence of their God. That was how they worshipped him. They had a meal in the presence of the God. Now, the evidence for this is thoroughgoing in antiquity, but it's also to be found in the Old Testament. Take a look at Exodus 32, let's try 32, verse 5. "When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it." This is the golden calf. Now, that has been set up, and Aaron made proclamation and said, "Tomorrow shall be a feast to Yahweh." Now, Yahweh, now being the god, that is, a golden calf. And they rose up early on the morrow and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play. Now, you understand that the worship of God, they were worshipping God in the form of a golden calf. They were worshipping Yahweh in feasting. That was how they worshipped him. They sat down to eat and drink in the presence, after offering the burnt sacrifice, as you see.
Look at Numbers 25. In Numbers 25:1, it says, "When Israel dwelt in Shittim, that the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab." These, meaning the daughters of Moab, invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods. And the people ate and bowed down to their gods. Now, what I want you to catch sight of is that the people regularly ate in the presence of the deity. That was what they did when they worshipped the God. They would offer sacrifice, and then they would have a festive meal. Now, it just also so happened that these meals would become very, very intense celebrations. And many of these cults, especially the Baal, Ashtoreth, you know, cults of the Orient, would also have sacred prostitution that would be a part of the festivities. So they would sit down and eat and drink and rise up to play, meaning that they would, they would engage in sacred prostitution in the presence of the deity. And of course, in the, in the expressions of the deities of the fertility cults, it was their way of, by the, the practicing of sexual intercourse in the presence of the deity, they were acting out symbolically what they wanted the God. And I've forgotten which Baal and Ashtoreth are, but one is the, the goddess of fertility, and the other is the god of rain. And the sexual intercourse of the two deities would be that which would cause the, the crops to grow. That's why in the Old Testament, by the way, there's this strong anti-Baal thing, because the worship of Baal always involved the deities having sex, and the people having sex in the presence of the deity. This is why you have this, this is why Hosea talks about Israel going a whoring after other gods. He's using the language very meaningfully, you understand. It's not just some kind of nice figure that he picked out. It's a figure that's picked out directly because that's what they've done. They've gone a whoring after Baal.
Now, that whole business, you see, of the temple cult with its prostitution, that's the part that I'm having my difficulties with in terms of First Corinthians thinking. Now, back to 6:12-20, you know, and how it might fit in. But nonetheless, this is what would happen in worship. Now, the second part of this, and this is the part that we also need to know, is that right here, hard on the shops off the temple, there were markets, meat markets, grain markets, the food markets. And all of this food that had been sacrificed to the God would become the food of the priests, those who kept the temples and the shrines. But there was always too much. So what they would do is they would serve as wholesalers and and simply take what's left over, and it would become meat that was sold out here in the marketplace.
Now, the Jews had scruples about that. And so in a later time, did Christians. In fact, but the Jews had real scruples. They forbad, absolutely forbad this. This was, this was for them the same as having some kind of tolerance for idolatry. So it was absolutely forbidden of Jews to eat this food. Now, there's all kinds of Jewish evidence for this. Now, what happened, in fact, this is a guess on my part, but it's a, it's a guess that's based on real good historical data on the fact that we don't really know everything there is to know about how things come about. But my guess is this is the real origin of kosher food among the Jews. Kosher, you see, doesn't so much have to do with the food meaning beef as over against pig. It will include that too, but you know, you can have kosher, you know, hot dogs, of course, fixed with beef. But the point is that kosher has to do with fixed properly by Jewish hands. It means that this has been prepared by Jews, and there can be no contamination of idolatry in it. And so there's kosher fish, there's kosher grain, there's kosher everything there is to eat. It's kosher because it would have been sold in a Jewish market and prepared by Jewish hands, and therefore it can be eaten by Jews. It's almost certainly, I think, historically the, the origins of kosher, because Jews living in the Diaspora simply were exposed to this food that is being sold in the marketplace, which they're forbidden to eat.
Now, we also know in the second century that Christians had taken the same stance with regard to food sold in the marketplace. There is, for example, a document that comes from the end of the first century. It's dated at the same time as the Gospel of John. It's known as the Didache, translated means something, the teaching, the teaching of the Twelve Apostles. And in that Christian document, which is a thoroughly, absolutely orthodox document, in fact, it was found in some people's New Testaments in the early going in a variety of places. It's a thoroughly orthodox Christian document. In that document, it forbids Christians to eat food offered to idols. And probably what is meant there is the food sold in the marketplace.
Now, we come along to Justin Martyr in the second century. He lived in Rome about the year 150 and wrote a dialogue with a Jew by the name of Trypho. And in the midst of this dialogue with Trypho, Justin, Trypho the Jew is arguing with Justin that Christians, you know, don't really abide by the laws of God. And so Trypho the Jew says, "But Christians eat food offered to idols." And Justin says, "No, real Christians do." That is, people who call themselves Christians but aren't really, they might eat food offered to idols. But no real Christians. And he's talking about it, it's in the context of a dialogue with a Jew. He's talking about this food here.
Now, what has ordinarily happened, therefore, is that most people interpreting chapters 8 to 10 have interpreted the entire section as having to do with food sold in the marketplace. Now, what becomes clear if you read the text without any blinders on at all, without any bifocals, just read the text starting at 10:23, Paul says that food sold in the marketplace is a total matter of indifference. It, now, you understand, here's a Jew who has, you know, simply risen above his Jewish heritage at this point and recognizes that in the sight of God, that food is a matter of indifference. It is pure *adiaphora*. God does not care one whit whether you eat that food or not. It is a total matter of indifference. Now, it says that in the text. Read it for yourself. "Eat whatever is sold in the meat markets without raising any question." Don't ask, "Did this go before the idol or not?" Just eat it. And why? Because verse 26 cites the Old Testament, "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." It just doesn't get, you know, it just doesn't make a single snip of difference whether that food has gone in the presence of the idol or not.
Now, that's the Christian stance, if you will. That is exactly that is what is absolutely clear. There can be no question about that's the meaning of of the food sold in the marketplace as a matter of *adiaphora*, not counting. Now, of course, in verse 28, verses 27 and following, I mean, if an unbeliever invites you to dinner, and someone says to you, and he says, "Go ahead and eat whatever." You know, "It doesn't make any difference there either." If you're at dinner, obviously, meaning in a person's home, if you're invited to dinner and you're in that person's home, and they say, "You know, eat whatever's there. Don't raise any question." In other words, it's the same thing as buying for yourself. So he set up two things. If you buy for yourself, don't ask any questions. If you go to an unbeliever's home, don't ask any questions.
But if somebody says, now, who's going to say this? Well, it becomes quite clear that it's the unbeliever saying this. And the reason that's quite clear is that here is where that word *hierothyton* comes in. See, Paul well recognizes that's what the Greek would say, that's what the pagan would say. He'd say, if he says this is *hierothyton*, this is food that has been sacrificed, you know, this is sacred food that it's been sacrificed. Then Paul says, "Don't eat it." Now, why not? Well, because if that man raises that question, he obviously thinks that you probably ought not to eat it, and he's putting you to the test. So don't eat it for the other man's sake. In other words, it's a matter of indifference to you. That's why it doesn't matter. You can take it or leave it. So don't raise any question. But if he raises the question, then don't do it. Thus, in one's own home, eat whatever is sold in the marketplace. In a pagan's home, eat whatever is sold before you.
And with regard to this question, therefore, verses 31 and following become very significant. Paul says, "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it to the glory of God." Now, that means this is a generalized principle now on the business of, on the matter of *adiaphora*. Whether you eat or drink, you know, it doesn't make any difference. But just do it to the glory of God. That's the only criterion. Is it to the glory of God? But he says there's a proviso, verse 32: "Don't give offense." Don't offend somebody by your actions. Now, I'm going to argue, and in fact, it doesn't even need really need argument, there's a difference between offending somebody and causing somebody to stumble. And the stumbling block principle, which comes out in chapter 8, is not being talked about here. This is to offend somebody. You don't out-and-out deliberately offend somebody. And if what you do is an offense to somebody, you just don't do it in their presence or in their knowledge or something. Notice the nice division here: "Give no offense to Jew or Greek or to the Church of God." And my first reaction to that is, try it. Try to live like that. No offense to Jew or Greek or the Church of God. You know, this is one of those cases where you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. You know? So the point of course isn't, is it, don't don't become hyper, is this going to offend the Jews? It's going to offend the Greek. Is it's going to offend somebody, the church? Just live to the glory of God, but don't deliberately offend somebody. That's the point. That is, you're going to offend somebody for sure, but don't deliberately set out to do that. Don't make that a part of what's going on in your action.
So about food offered to idols, then, it seems to me, the food offered to idols in terms of being sold in the marketplace, it's very clear that it's a matter of indifference. Now, just as clearly as 10:23 through 11:1 says food sold in the marketplace is a matter of indifference, just so clearly for at chapter 10, verses 14 to 22, is a total prohibition against participation in the pagan meals and the temples. That is, if this is okay, this is absolutely *verboten*. Nine. There are times when the Germans have it over the rest of us. Their language speaks it better. The *syst* for *bohtan*. Nine. Here's the clue. 10:14: "Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols." In 10:21: "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."
Now, most scholars think that chapter 10, verses 14 to 22, are a digression. And here's the point where I differ. I'm one who thinks that all of chapter 8, 9, and 10 through 22 is dealing with this question here. That is, Paul has not even raised the question of food sold in the marketplace until 10:23. And that every last thing in 8, 9, and 10 up through verse 22 is, in fact, forbidding them going to the temple and eating with their friends in the presence of an idol. Now, it's, this is the point where I, I think that, and I'm trying to, I'm trying to work my way through some some notes here that are very long, detailed notes, and in a class at the seminary at the same time, try to set these out in just a little bit more, you know, loose form. And sometimes I get myself caught to try to figure out where I'm supposed to be. But I know where I'm going in my mind. It's that I can't always find my page sometimes in these notes. But let's go back now and say some things about chapter 8, because I think this will set the thing now in perspective for us.
In chapter 8, verse 1: "Now concerning *eidōlothyta*, food sacrificed to idols, we know," Paul says, "that all of us possess knowledge." Now, if you're reading an RSV, "all of us possess knowledge" is going to be in quotes, and that's right, because that is obviously not any concern for Paul at all. As all you have to do is read the thing through, even in the King James, and you can see that verse one is not what Paul is going to say. That's obviously their position. "We all possess knowledge." Now, Paul's got to qualify that, you see. "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not know he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, he has known by him." It isn't a question of whether you know, it's whether you're loved by God, known by God. That's, it's not whether you know, it's whether God knows you. That's the important question, Paul says. So after he's qualified their little statement, "We all have knowledge," he takes it up again. Now, he's, you know, he's coming right out of their letter. Now, concerning, remember that, now concerning, right out of their letter, verse 4: "Hence, as to food offered to idols, we know," now he's quoting them again, "an idol has no real existence." Now, who can argue with that? Yeah, surely not the Apostle Paul. But he does. "No, not really." But no, that's that's their point. "An idol has no real existence." And then secondly, "There is no God but one." And who can argue with that?
Now, skip down to verse 8, which in the RSV is not put in quotes, but probably should be, at least the first part of it. "Food will not commend us to God. We are no better off or no worse off one way or the other." Now, if we take that position seriously, "Food will not commend us to God," and take that as a part of their argument, listen to what they're saying. All of their lives, these people have been worshipping the deity with their friends down here. This is the big thing in Corinth. I mean, this is the social moment. When you receive an invitation that says, "Carry on, invite Demetrius to sup at meal in the shrine of Lord Serapis, nine o'clock Friday evening at the Serapeum." And I happen to be citing almost word-for-word some actual invitations we have from antiquity that say exactly that. As people are invited by their friends, they had a new baby, and what do they do? They happen to be devotees of Serapis, so they go to the shrine of Serapis, to the Serapeum, and they're going to offer food to Serapis, and then they're going to eat in the presence of Serapis and have a gay old time. They're going to invite their friends. That's who you share the joy of the sacrifice of thanks to the gods with. So they invite their friends. They've been doing this all their lives. And now they become Christians, and what they're arguing for is for the privilege of continuing this practice.
Now, you say, "How could they as Christians?" Well, it's easy because they're first-century Corinthians. That's why. You and I have been Westernized long enough, and then through Westernized Christianity, that the very idea that, you know, strikes horror to us. Well, it struck horror to Paul also, you understand. But I want you to listen to their argument. First of all, I am convinced, and here's where we're going to working out chapter 9, and we're not going to spend any time with chapter 9 because we're not going to have that kind of time to just go into it in detail. But why does chapter 9 come into the middle of this? Well, here's, here's what I think is going on. Paul himself has already adopted this attitude with regard to food sold in the marketplace. And they know that. That is, he told them nothing new in 10:25. That's something they know. All they've had to do is watch the Apostle Paul, and they know that with regard to food sold in the marketplace, it's a matter of indifference. Okay?
Now, they also have already had the Apostle Paul tell them they can't do this. And in their letter, now this is a reconstruction, I grant you, a reconstruction, but allow the reconstruction, and everything makes sense in the text. Everything allowing that this is something Paul has already done, but Paul has already forbidden them to do this. What they are doing in their letter is arguing, "What authority do you have, Paul, to forbid us to do this, given you do this?" Now, that's why in the middle of this argument, Paul has to defend his apostolic authority. "Am I not free? Have I not seen Christ my Lord? Do I not have the right to do all these things?" And you'll notice that the point of that *apologia*, that defense, is a very interesting one. He argues for the right to do whatever he wants to do, and then turns around and says, "But I've given all these rights up." In other words, once he's established the fact, "I've got these rights," then he turns right around and says, "But I've not used any of them." So don't jump on here with regard to rights and apostolic rights.
And you see the point is, they have argued some other things with Paul as well, you see. Paul doesn't do these things that apostles do. He, he doesn't take money from us. That becomes a real thorn in their side. And all of Second Corinthians, Paul has to keep reading, you know, keep coming back to that, because look, Paul, and you know, here's one of these places where he's really damned if you do, damned if you don't. I mean, it really is. If he takes money from them, what will they say? He's coming in as a charlatan, and he's only after our money. If he doesn't take money from them, what do they say? They say he's not a genuine apostle, because the genuine apostle would take our money. There's no way the Apostle is going to win with regard to the Corinthians about this money business. But he has already apparently had enough prophetic insight to recognize that he'd better, better not take money in Corinth. That that's going to be worse trouble than not taking money. So he has taken no money from them at all, and then they damned him for it.
So he says, "Look, don't I have a right to do this?" That's the argument, see, the beginning of chapter 9. "I have a right to do this as an apostle, or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right?" But it says then he says, "But I want you to know, of course, we have not used these rights." That is, I am fully enough, and those apostolic privileges and rights, there's a pretty strong word, after the kind of thing we've said, you know, we have no rights. But you understand, he's talking about privileges of an apostle. "Do I not have the, do I not have the position as an apostle to do these things?" And the answer obviously is yes, but I've given them all up.
Now, why does he have to argue that way? Because a part of their argument in their letter is against Paul because of his own actions. And they're saying, "Look, what authority do you have to tell us not to go to the temple?" Now, listen to their argument. Here's the neat part of their argument. Their argument goes like this: "We all know that an idol has no reality." Like I say, who can really argue with that? Oh, reality to that idol. Secondly, "We all know that there's only one God." That's really no deity involved here. Now, furthermore, we already know from your own position that food is a matter of indifference to God. It doesn't matter one way or the other whether we eat or don't eat. Now, what they've done is put it all together and say, "Look, it isn't a matter of 'may we,' but 'why can't we?' What's wrong? It's not 'may we eat this food?' but it's a matter of where they want to eat it. Why can't we eat it in the temple? There's no God there. That sacrifice is made to something that doesn't exist. Only God is God." And besides all that, they've argued, and here's where chapter 10:1-5 comes in, besides they've argued, "We have the sacraments." And they've taken a kind of a magical view with regard to baptism and the Lord's table. We've already been baptized. We have the Lord's table. And surely that secures us, you know, that that makes us safe. Nothing can hurt us in in our eating food offered to idols. It nothing can hurt us. We've been baptized, and we eat the Lord's table.
Now, Paul is about to die. He can't believe this is happening, but it is. So what does he argue? Well, he starts in chapter 8. You'll first of all notice that in verses 5 and 6, he does qualify this business about idols and gods. He says, "Although there may be so-called gods in heaven and earth, and indeed there are many gods and many lords." That gods and lords, by the way, those are technical terms for the Greek deities and the Oriental deities. The gods are the gods of the Pantheon, and the and the lords is the title for the Serapis, Isis, Cybele, you know, Bacchus, and all of those kinds of cults. So they're the lords, and the gods, and there are many. But now Paul is not allowing that they have existence. Notice what it says in verse 6: "Yet for us there is only one God." That is, he isn't saying that those lords and gods really do exist. But they do exist where? In the minds of the people who worship them. Precisely what he's saying. They exist in the minds of the people. They don't have real existence. "For us there is only one God, the Father. There is only one Lord, Jesus Christ." But verse 7: "Not all possess this knowledge. Some, through being hitherto accustomed..."
To idols, eat food as really being offered to an idol. In other words, they can't make those nice distinctions you're making. And when they eat that food in the presence of the idol, he doesn't say it here, but it'll be saying in verse 10, their conscience being weak is defiled.
Now, I grant you, Paul says that food will not commend us to God. Only take care, lest this, and he uses the word liberty in the Greek, in the Greek translation, but this authority, this authority you have with regard to food, says take care, lest this authority of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.
Now, here's verse 10. Here's the one that ought to have given us the clue all along. This is the one effect that I really jumped up and down on and in my article to try to convince scholars that they ought to have paid attention to the text at this point. Paul says, "For if anyone sees you, a man of knowledge, doing what? Eating food sold out in the marketplace? No. If he sees you, a man of knowledge, sitting at table in the idol's presence, what is he going to do? He is going to try to emulate your action. He's going to go and sit with you. And what's going to happen to him when he does this? It's going to kill him." You can make the distinction, and he can't. And Paul says, "For the sake of this brother, you ought to have forgotten about things like this."
Now, the first thing then is that he forbids it on the basis of the stumbling block principle. But I want you to notice that the stumbling block principle does not mean it's going to offend somebody in the church. Some weak brother isn't going to be offended by your action. The stumbling block principle has to do with somebody else's doing something you feel you have authority to do, but he can't do, and he follows you in doing it, and in his doing it, he's destroyed. A stumbling block principle, therefore, is not a matter of offending somebody. It is a matter of somebody else's emulating your action because they see your freedom and they don't have that freedom, and they're destroyed by it. It's a very important point because the stumbling block principle is a statement taken out of this context and made to apply to a thousand thousand things apart from this text historically.
So Paul says, "Look, if food is going to cause my brother to stumble, I won't even eat meat." You know, "I'll be a vegetarian if that's what needs be. Nothing to cause a brother to stumble." Then he launches into it. "Look, am I not free? Am I not?"
And finally, now in chapter 10, and here's the point of the argument coming into full. Paul says, "I want you to know, brothers," and what he's going to do is, you're going to set up some examples. You see what they've argued is that we've got the sacraments, therefore, you know, we are safe. Now Paul's going to set up some arguments based on the Israel, and it's a real neat package for him because it's going to speak right down the line to the thing he wants to get to.
Now, let's listen carefully into the argument. "I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses." Now, you understand, that's nice symbolic language. He's not arguing they were really baptized into Moses. This is a way of saying typologically, you know, as a type, they had their baptism by passing through the Red Sea. Same thing happened to them has happened to you when you pass through the waters of baptism. They also had their own kind of Lord's table. They all ate of the same spiritual food, the manna, and they all drank of the same spiritual water. They had their sacraments.
But he says, "I want you to notice with regard to them, verse 5, with most of them, God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness." Now, why does he say that? Well, he says that on the basis of verse 12. "Therefore, let anyone who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall." A nice bunch of text been taken out of context by the way. Here's one of them. "If any man thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall." This is okay, that's true, that's a general truth, I'll grant that too. But this is spoken in the context of somebody's arguing for this possibility. And if anyone thinks that he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.
Now, look at verse 7. And here's the thing. Here was the thing that finally convinced me, and that this is the correct interpretation of the text. Now he says in verse 6, "These things are warnings for us not to desire evil as they did." And he's going to set up a series of ways they desired evil. Now look at it. It's right on the context of their having sacraments like ours, but falling. Now Paul has set them up. You have sacraments and think you can't fall? Well, they have sacraments and they fell. And we are not the test God as they did. So look at what he says. "Do not be idolaters as some of them were." And then he's going to cite an Old Testament example. And of all the Old Testament examples of idolatry, which one does he choose? Exodus 32:6. The people sat down to eat. It doesn't even say in presence of the camp of the calf, nothing about that at all. The only thing it says about idolatry, in fact, that ought to queue up sometime along the way when you read that text, the only thing he says about idolatry is, "Do not be idolaters as they were." As it says, "The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance."
Look at verse 8. "We must not indulge in pornea, in immorality, as some of them did, and 23,000 fell on a single day." And what does that refer to? Well, the background of that text happens to be Numbers 25:1-5. And what did they do in Numbers 25? That was where they sat down in the presence of the gods of the Moabites, and they rose up and had fornication with the Moabite women in the presence of what? In the presence of the idol.
Now, it just so happens that food offered to idols is mentioned three other times in the New Testament. Every time it's mentioned, immorality has always been mentioned alongside it. Acts 15:29 and Revelation chapter 2. Can't remember the exact verses, but once in Thyatira and once in one of the other churches where Jezebel is. And in both instances, they eat food offered to idols and fornicate. Eat food offered to idols and fornicate. It's the combination of that and this text makes me think that's also what's going on in the Corinthians. That's what chapter 6 therefore is really referring to. You see, is that they are arguing not only for the privilege of eating food, but since the body doesn't count either, what difference does immorality make? And it's all a part of the same argument.
Paul says, "Look, look what happened to them. Don't be as they were. Don't be idolaters. Don't be immoral." Well, then it says in verse 9, "We must not put the Lord to the test as some of them did." And how are they putting the Lord to the test? Well, by eating in the presence of the idol. Look at verse 22. Now at the end of the chapter, "Should we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?" They are testing God by their action. And then finally, "Don't grumble as some of them did." And what are they doing? They are grumbling because Moses and because, yeah, they are grumbling because Paul has forbidden this action of theirs. And the whole thing fits into place.
Now, look at verses 14 to 22, and we conclude our exegesis with this. And then in the next hour, we'll come back and ask how we're going to get this into the 20th century. But the exegesis now can conclude, you see, with this 14 to 22, which is Paul's forbidding them to sit at table in the presence of the idol. Now, is he arguing that an idol has reality? He asks, "No." What they have forgotten is that the idol is not real, but that idols represent demonic powers. That's an Old Testament point of view. They knew that the idea in the Old Testament that the gods of the heathen had power, and since there's only one God, how do you explain the fact that the gods of the heathen had power? Well, precisely correctly. How is it that Dagon could get something done? Because there are demons in the world, and those idols are demonic powers. And you cannot sit at the table of God and the table of demons simultaneously. Those are mutually exclusive options. And that is predicated, you'll notice, on what it means to sit at the Lord's table. When we sit at the Lord's table, we actually participate in the Lord Himself. We are partners in the Lord. You can't be a partner in the Lord and a partner in a demon. Those are mutually exclusive options. So it is absolutely forbidden, not only on the stumbling block principle, but simply on theological grounds. It's out, period.
Okay, that's the exegesis of the text. Now we'll take the break and we'll come back and find out how are we going to get that.