|
Let me use myself as an example of the sort of dilemma that Christian liberty can present. When I became a Christian I was in the habit of doing a lot of drinking. As time went on I began to be convicted about drinking, so I attempted to find out what the Bible said about alcohol. First of all, I discovered that drunkenness is a sin. Ephesians 5:18 commands us to not be drunk: "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit." To be drunk is to be controlled by alcohol and we are to be controlled by the Spirit. When I discovered that, I decided I would no longer get drunk and that three beers would be my limit. It didn't take me long to realize that my limit wasn't working. Once I had three beers I didn't care if I had four or five and soon I found myself drunk. I woke up sick the day after my stag party and found out some of the stupid things I had done, such as attempting to kick my future father-in-law, and throwing glasses and glass ashtrays across the room. That convinced me that drinking was wrong, to me it was sin and I would no longer touch alcohol.
For the sake of the example, let's say that at that time in my Christian life I went to lunch with a mature believer and he ordered a beer with his lunch. (As far as I understand it now, the Bible forbids drunkeness, but not drinking, and I now believe that I have the liberty to have a drink.) I would have felt that if this mature believer thinks drinking is all right, it must be, and I probably would have ordered a beer too. But I didn't have the liberty to do so and I would have been violating my conscience. For me to drink would have been sin. Should that mature believer have ordered that beer?
Here is another possible dilemma posed by Christian liberty. Let's say that you are dating a young lady who has a puritan background. She is accustomed to reverencing the first day of the week, very much the way they reverenced the Sabbath in the days of the Old Testament. As far as you understand, under the New Covenant the Lord esteems all days equally. In a real sense every day is to be the Lord's day. The New Testament does not command us to keep the first day of the week.
Colossians 2:16-17 (NKJV) "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ."
Because of your perspective, you have no problem with watching a football game on Sunday afternoon or taking your boat out to go fishing. But your girlfriend is not sure because of her background and exposure whether she has the liberty to do those things on Sunday. How do you deal with this situation? Do you watch the game or go fishing by yourself? Do you encourage her to do these things with you? Or do you not do them around her? What is your obligation to her? I hope that by the end of our study this morning you will be able to answer those questions biblically.
The same type of dilemma confronted the Corinthians. They were not concerned about alcohol or allowable Sunday activities. Their concern was eating meat that had been offered in a sacrifice to a god in the heathen temple in Corinth. They may have asked, "Should I eat that meat or should I not eat it?" The question was one of Christian liberty.
Many behaviors are not commanded, commended, or forbidden in Scripture. Those behaviors are neither black or white, but gray. Such issues in one age or area may not be the same as those in other times or places; but every age and every place has had to deal with the gray areas of Christian living. The Corinthians' gray area was eating meat offered to idols. Their problem was complicated by two facts. First of all, it was almost impossible for them to buy meat that had not been offered to an idol. A sacrifice made to the god in a heathen temple was divided into three sections. One section was consumed on the altar, the second section was given to the priests, and the third section was given to the offerer. Because the priest could not possibly consume all of the meat that was given to them, much of it was taken to the market place and sold. Meat purchased at the market in Corinth most likely had been offered to an idol. The question was, should a Christian buy and eat that kind of meat? The problem was co mplicated by a second fact: a Christian's unbelieving neighbor would go to the temple, offer a sacrifice, and bring home his part of the sacrifice. Then the unbeliever would invite his believing neighbor to dinner and serve the meat that had been offered to the idol. What did a believer do? Should he eat that meat?
The Corinthians turned to Paul for answers to their questions and Paul answered them in chapter 8. There are three main sections in this chapter. The first section is in verses 1-3, and Paul declares a basic principle: let your knowledge be guided by love in exercising Christian liberty. Or we could say that knowledge without love can be destructive.
1 Corinthians 8:1 (NKJV) "Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies.
The words "now concerning" draw us back to 1 Corinthians 7:1, and tell us that Paul is answering another question. Their question was concerning "things offered to idols". These questions arose from a particular set of circumstances. Before these people became Christians they had been involved in that idolatry. The Greeks and Romans were polytheistic, worshiping many gods. They had a god, or a group of gods, for every circumstance, every need. They had a god of war, a goddess of love, a god of travel, a goddess of justice, and on and on. The Corinthian believers had been saved out of that background. They wanted to know as Christians what should they do about meat that was offered to idols.
Their dilemma was complicated by another fact. The counsel in Jerusalem that met six years before Paul's letter to the Corinthians had judged that because of the conscience of Jewish persons, it would be better for the Gentile converts to abstain from meat offered to idols. Undoubtedly some people at Corinth were citing this counsel to teach that eating meat offered to idols was wrong.
Some believers in Corinth were mature enough to realize that eating meat offered to idols was not an issue of spirituality. They knew that idols were nothing and they could eat any meat with no problem. However, other believers in Corinth did not feel that way; they were not sure if it was permissible. You can imagine the conflict that developed over this. Unity between believers can be jeopardized by misunderstanding of Christian liberty.
The phrase "we all have knowledge" was probably a Corinthian slogan and it most likely reflected the position of the strong believers in Corinth. 1 Corinthians 8:7 tells us that not everybody at Corinth shared this knowledge; some of them were weak. Paul addressed himself primarily to the strong believers in the church. Contextually, the knowledge spoken of is knowledge concerning idols as we will see in verses 5-6.
Paul answered their slogan with this statement: "Knowledge puffs up." The Greek word translated puffs up is phusioo; the primary sense is of blowing or inflating. Figuratively, it means to make proud or arrogant. This little phrase has been greatly misused by many to depreciate knowledge, but I don't think Paul meant to belittle knowledge. Of all the apostles, Paul was least likely to be accused of belittling doctrine, the knowledge of God's Word. Notice what he prayed for the Colossian believers:
Colossians 1:9 (NKJV) "For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding."
Knowledge of God's Word is extremely important. It is impossible to believe or obey what is not known. The Bible places no premium on ignorance. So what did Paul mean when he said, "Knowledge puffs up"? Knowledge alone is not enough. Knowledge alone will just make a person proud. But knowledge controlled by the attitude of love will build up.
1 Corinthians 13:2 (NKJV) "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
Love and knowledge must go together. It has been said that "Knowledge without love is brutality, but love without knowledge is hypocrisy." Knowledge is power and it must be used in love. But love must always be controlled by knowledge
Philippians 1:9 (NKJV) "And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment."
The strong believers in the church at Corinth had knowledge, but they were not using it in love. They were not "speaking the truth in love," as Ephesians 4:15 commands us to do. They were speaking the truth about idols, but they weren't speaking it in love.
To enforce his principle, Paul said in verse 2 that knowledge about God is always partial or incomplete: "And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." Our knowledge, however much we know, is incomplete. We are in a growth process in the Christian life. We are growing in knowledge as the Lord illumines us. No one knows all that he can know. Someone has defined knowledge as "the process of passing from the unconscious state of ignorance to the conscious state of ignorance." We all still have much to learn.
Paul concluded his argument by saying the test of real knowledge is loving God. "But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him". We could translate it this way, "If a man loves God, God is known by the man." In other words, the person who loves God is the person who has an intimate knowledge of God. This corresponds to 1 John 4:7-8:
"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love does not know God, for God is love."
The person who has a deep knowledge of God is the one who loves Him. And when a person loves God, he loves others.
1 John 4:20-21 (NKJV) "If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also."
The principle is this: knowing is less important than loving. Love in the life of a Christian is superior to knowledge. Paul said this as a rebuke to those at Corinth who were very proud of their knowledge. The subordinance of knowledge to love is a consistent theme of the New Testament. The first fruit of the Spirit is love. Paul said, "Now abideth faith, hope, and love but the greatest of these is love". Jesus said his disciples would be distinguished by their love, not their knowledge. Love is superior to knowledge. The determining criteria for the conduct of a Christian is not his knowledge, but his love for other Christians.
Paul develops the idea that love rather than knowledge directs a believer's conduct in the rest of the chapter. The second major section of 1 Corinthians 8 runs from verse 4-8. How does love's primary importance relate to the question of Christian liberty? Paul showed them how it relates in verses 4-8. The basic problem forms around two focal points. The first one was the correct knowledge of the strong believers at Corinth:
Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.
"We know that an idol is nothing in the world" was also a slogan of the strong believers at Corinth. Their knowledge of the Word taught them that there is only one God and that idols are nothing. A passage in Isaiah demonstrates the utter futility and stupidity of idolatry.
Isaiah 44:8-10, 14-17 (NKJV) "Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one." Those who make an image, all of them are useless, And their precious things shall not profit; They are their own witnesses; They neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. Who would form a god or mold an image That profits him nothing?..... He cuts down cedars for himself, And takes the cypress and the oak; He secures it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it. Then it shall be for a man to burn, For he will take some of it and warm himself; Yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; Indeed he makes a god and worships it; He makes it a carved image, and falls down to it. He burns half of it in the fire; With this half he eats meat; He roasts a roast, and is satisfied. He even warms himself and says, "Ah! I am warm, I have seen the fire." And the rest of it he makes into a god, His carved image. He falls down before it and worships it, Prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god!"
Paul agreed with the strong Corinthian believers that idols are nothing. He went on in verse 5 to clearly deny the existence of any beings behind the gods that the Corinthians worshiped.
For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords),
Paul taught this truth throughout his ministry and was often persecuted for it. Demetrius, a pagan silversmith in Ephesus said of Paul,
Acts 19:26 (NKJV) "Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands."
Paul said that although they had a temple to the goddess Aphrodite and though they worshipped her, there was no Aphrodite. There was no Zeus, Ares, or Poseidon. Those gods may have been worshipped, but they do not exist. Paul affirmed the Corinthians in their assertion that nothing existed behind the idols.
Paul went on in the next verse to assert positively that there is but one God:
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. (1 Corinthians 8:6)
In contrast to the polytheism of the Greek culture, the Christians worshipped only one God. Paul described the one God as "the Father." Of all of the gods that the Greeks knew and worshipped, there was not one that they could have an intimate relationship with. The title Father suggests the family concept and intimates that we are God's children. The Greeks feared their gods and they did not know them personally as Father. Paul went on to say that this God is the originator of all the things that have been made. The Greeks had a different god for everything, one made the sea, one made the sky and so on. Paul contradicted that when he said that our God is one God and he made everything. Paul also said there is one Lord. To a Greek, Lord was a title of divinity. This one Lord was Jesus Christ. This is one of the clear statements in the Bible that declares the truth that Jesus Christ is God. He is the agent of creation. He is co-equal with God the Father.
Paul agreed with the persons in Corinth who had claimed that there is only one God and the idols were nothing. The idols were just wood, stone, and metal. These persons are the strong Christians at Corinth; they knew the truth and the truth led them to a conviction that there was nothing wrong with eating the meat that had been sacrificed to idols. It was a logical conclusion: A nonexistent god could not contaminate food offered on his altar.
The second focal point of the problem was that everyone in Corinth did not have that knowledge. That's what Paul said in verse 7:
However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
"However," is a strong adversative. Everyone didn't have the knowledge of the believers described in verses 4-6. The weaker believers knew that there is only one right God but perhaps they had not yet fully grasped the truth that there is only one real God. Because of their former association with idolatry, many believers sensed a religious association with the meat sacrificed to idols.
The believers who were unsure of the religious associations in meat had a weak conscience. God designed humans so that the conscience supplies the standard of right and wrong. Conscience is the internal court where our actions are judged and are either approved or condemned.
Romans 2:14-15 (NKJV) "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)"
A weak conscience is a conscience that is limited in its knowledge of the truth. A person with a weak conscience was not sure that it was all right to eat meat since it had probably been sacraficed to an idol. He didn't have the knowledge to give him a clear conscience. He was not really convinced that there were no gods behind the idols. For that man to eat the meat was to defile his conscience. A defiled conscience is one that has been ignored and violated, and therefore brings guilt. Paul said in Romans 14:23 that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." In other words, whenever a believer does something that he does not have a clear conscience to do, for him to do it is sin. When a believer does something that he is not sure is right, he is saying, "I don't care what God says, I'm going to do what I want."
Some believers in Corinth did not have the knowledge that the strong believers had. As a result, they did not have the solid conviction that eating meat sacraficed to idols was right. For them to go ahead and eat was to violate their consciences and thus sin. Whenever a person violates his conscience he is in sin. Conscience is the mechanism that God put in us in order to guide us and to violate it is to sin.
There was a division at Corinth between the strong and the weak believers. Who was right, the strong or the weak? Paul said that the strong were right in verse 8.
But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.
Meat is a matter of indifference. Eating or not eating doesn't matter to God. There is no spiritual advantage to eating or not eating. Many things in the Scripture are strictly forbidden. Other things in the Bible are explicitly commanded. And then there are many things that are a matter of Christian liberty. Eating meat that has been offered to an idol is in the area of Christian liberty.
Paul contradicted the decree that came from the church counsel in Acts 15. They had decreed that the Gentile converts abstain from meat offered to idols. But Paul said it was a matter of indifference. There was no permanent moral foundation for the prohibition given by the counsel in Jerusalem. That probation was a temporary thing for the transition time between Judaism and Christianity. In order not to offend the Jewish Christians that probation was given in the transition period. (Be careful in forming doctrine from the book of Acts because it is a transitional book.) Eating meat is a matter of total indifference. Jesus put it this way in Mark 7:15:
"There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man."
Since Paul clearly indicated that some choices are not moral choices, that one with good conscience can do either this or that, is it wise for Christian teachers to tell people that "God has a plan for your life and you should use great care to find it"? Should a person worry whether God would have him become an engineer or a bank manager, or whether he should live in Virginia Beach or Dallas? Paul said that it makes no difference--do what you like. In non-moral areas we have freedom to do as we like.
How should the Corinthians have resolved this problem between the strong and the weak? The strong believers were right. But the weak were in jeopardy because of the liberty of the strong. How should the stronger believers have handlee this? They could have launched a campaign to convince the weak that it was alright to eat meat. They could have simply demanded their right to eat meat in front of their weaker brothers. Paul's solution was to apply the principle of verses 1-3 to the problem of verses 4-8. That is what he does in verses 9-13.
But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. (1 Corinthians 8:9)
Paul told the strong believers to be careful that their liberty, their rights (the Greek word liberty is exousia which means a lawful power or right) not cause the weak to stumble. They were free not to exercise their liberty if it was going to hurt someone else. Stumbling block is the Greek word proskomma which is an object in the way which causes a person to stumble and fall if he strikes his foot against it. We are not to put an obstacle in the way of someone that would make him fall spiritually. A believer's conduct should be governed not by his knowledge but by his love. When a person loves someone, he will do nothing to harm the object of his love.
How could a believer cause a brother to stumble? Paul gave an example in the next verse.
For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? (1 Corinthians 8:10)
In his example, the stronger brother is sitting in the idol's temple eating meat. In those days many of the social events, such as weddings and banquets, took place in the pagan temples. The stronger brother was not involved in the worship of the idol: he was simply there eating. The weak brother saw him and even though he believed it was wrong to eat there, his conscience was emboldened. Emboldened is from the Greek word oikodomeo which means to build up. Because his conscience was emboldened, the weaker brother ate the meat also and violated his conscience.
Violating a weak conscience has tragic results: "And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (1 Corinthians 8:11). The weak brother perishes (Greek: apollumi which means ruined). The weaker brother experiences guilt and therefore his spiritual life is ruined. He did what he did not have a free conscience to do because the stronger brother influenced him to do what he thought was wrong. The weaker brother acted against his conscience; once a person violates his conscience it gets easier and easier to do. He destroys his conscience and his spiritual walk.
"For whom Christ died." If Christ loved that weak brother enough to give up His exalted rights and even His life, surely the strong brother could give up his right to exercise his liberty.
Philippians 2:6-8 (NKJV) "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."
Paul used verse 11 to depict the contrast between the death of Christ and the callousness of the strong Corinthian believers.
There is also a consequence for the strong brother who causes a weak brother to sin:
But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:12)
Because of the unity of the body of Christ, the stronger brother sins against Christ. Christ and his people are one. Paul learned this on the road to Damascus when the Lord asked him, "Why are you persecuting me?" In persecuting believers, Paul was persecuting Christ. Whatever a believer does to a fellow Christian, he does to Christ! Do you understand this? When you slander another Christian, you slander Christ. When you fail to help a fellow Christian, you fail to help Christ. When you fail to greet a visitor, you fail to greet Christ.
Matthew 25:40 (NKJV) "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."
For you to cause a brother to stumble is to sin against Christ.
How should the strong brothers have dealt with the situation? They needed to apply the principle that love is more important than knowledge. They needed to let love guide their actions. Paul's solution is loving liberty:
Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. (1 Corinthians 8:13)
The word that the NKJV translates `stumble' is a different word then the word translated stumble in verse 9. The Greek word here is skandalizo which refers to the moveable stick or trigger of a trap. To offend a believer is to cause him fall into the trap of sin. Jesus warned us about causing another believer to sin in Matthew 18:6:
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
That's clear enough isn't it? A believer is better off dead than to cause someone to sin. A believer is not to do anything that would hurt another believer no matter how correct his actions are or how much knowledge he has. Paul said that he would give up the exercise of his liberty for the sake of his brother. Love is sacrificial service for the benefit of the one loved. Paul was willing to forgo his rights for the spiritual progress of others.
How far do we go with limiting our liberty? Just about anything we do is bound to offend someone. Should we give up our zippers, electricity, and cars so we won't offend an Amish brother? Should a woman never wear pants? Should you men never wear a beard? Should we all use only the King James Bible?
Paul did not say that we are to abandon our Christian liberty to the ignorant prejudice of bigots. There are always pharisees who try to impose their rules on someone else. They have strong convictions and they know what they believe. Another believer's actions are not going to cause them to stumble. The person Paul is talking about in our passage is one who is not sure of what is right or wrong. He is weak, whereas the pharisee is a legalist. You may make a legalist angry, but you will not cause him to sin by violating his weak conscience.
Paul did not say that the mature Christian is to be permanently shackled by the weak person. We have liberty and it is a beautiful thing, not something that we are never to use.
Galatians 5:1 (NKJV) "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
That weak person needs to be taught and instructed in the liberty that he has. Eventually he will mature to a point where he has knowledge that gives him liberty. We are to help the weak to grow up so they too can enjoy their liberty.
Paul did not teach legalism; he taught love. There is a world of difference. Paul simply said a believer is to lay aside his liberty if need be for the sake of his brother. We are to walk in love in all we do. We are to exercise loving liberty.
What guides your conduct? Are you concerned about others who may be affected by your actions? Liberty is beautiful as long as we do not use it to destroy our brothers.
|
|