Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians, Downers Grove, Illinois, IVP Academic
Essay 3. Christian and Pagan. Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Cor. 8:1-11:1.
3:1
Food Offered to Idols: Freedom and Responsibility. 1 Corinthians 8:1-13
The overall essay focuses on the question of how Christians are to live out their lives in a pagan world. Are they to accommodate to that world, and if so—to what extent? Are they to blend in or stand apart? The question of food offered to idols offered Paul a concrete case study for a discussion of this critical concern.—p.229
…three patterns of life for Christians living in a non-Christian world. Sometimes they can identify fully with the world (chap. 3:3). At other times they can identify partially (chap. 3:4), and finally there are times when they must stand totally apart (chap. 3:5)….—p. 230
A clear and powerful progression of thought moves through the homily {I Cor. 8:1-13}. Love builds, while knowledge creates pride. It is not what we know that matters, but who knows us! If we love God, God “knows” us.
- Knowledge, love and God. Love is more important than knowledge. Love builds, while knowledge creates pride. It is not what we know that matters, but who knows us! If we love God, God “knows” us.
- Knowledge, idols and God. We know that idols have no existence. There is only one God who has created all things through one Lord.
- Knowledge, your brother/sister and God. The weak person may think that idols are real, and such a person’s conscience is defiled if he or she sees you eating meat offered to idols.
- Knowledge, your brother/sister and Christ. This weak person is your sister or brother, and causing him or her to stumble is a failure to love and thereby a sin against Christ.—p. 232
…The sacrifices were the property of the priests of the various temples and what the priests could not eat, they sold. During the numerous feasts there was an inevitable glut in the meat market, and the price would drop accordingly. For many of the poor of the city (which certainly included at least some of the Christians) that was probably the only time they could afford to eat meat. Furthermore, if a person didn’t ask the butcher, he or she would not know whether a particular piece of meat had been offered to an idol or not. None of the idols existed anyway, so why not enjoy some rarely affordable beef or lamb?
In the context of a city like Corinth all of this made perfect sense. But if reported in Jerusalem, such a practice would sound like a trashing of the Jerusalem agreement. Paul could have simply issued a ruling such as , “Barnabas and I agreed with the apostles in Jerusalem on this matter and I insist that our agreement be honored. No Christian is allowed to eat meat offered to idols, and that’s final!”
Instead of issuing a new law, Paul asks his reader to reflect on “knowledge” and “love.” In the six lines of cameos 1-2 {8:1-3}, the words knowledge and knowing appear seven times with at least one occurrence in each line. The words know and love occur together twice. The last line in cameo 1 reads, “knowledge puffs up but love builds up” and cameo 2c affirms, “But if one loves God, one is known by him.”
The two key words knowledge and love reappear in the hymn to love in 13:4. Once again, Paul is quietly building up a list of negatives that appear when love is absent. In the process, he describes the inner working of “knowledge” on the one hand and “love” on the other. Knowledge, by its very nature, can easily create pride and arrogance. The one who has large amounts of knowledge can easily look down on those less informed.—p. 233
…The Corinthians who knew that idols did not exist were in grave danger of using that knowledge in a way that would tear down what Paul, with great effort, had built up. The issue of food offered to idols could easily split the church in Corinth and elsewhere into Jewish-background believers and Gentile-background believers….—p.234
…The term to know is biblical language for the marital relationship and the linking of “to love” and “to know” reaches into the heart language of intimacy….—p. 235
…In Islam all five daily prayers repeat sura 117 from the Qur’an that opens “God is one.” (p.235) Significantly, this prayer uses the Hebrew word for “one” (ahad) rather than the Arabic wahad. The three Abrahamic faiths are united in this affirmation….—pp. 235-36
Paul’s context is easy to reconstruct. Temples served meals where the meat on offer had been sacrificed to one of the gods. Even in private homes, extended family social occasions would involve meals where the “main course” was meat offered to idols. Such meat was perhaps the only meat the family could afford. Paul presents the problem in Cameo 5{vs. 8:7}. What about the people who were still frightened by the ever-present temples with their statues of “the gods”? If they ate meat offered to them, were they not ingesting the god into their very lives? “Isn’t that what happens at the celebration of the Holy Supper?” they could have asked. Or perhaps the “god” they no longer worshiped would make them sick if they ate “his meat” while refusing to worship him? The “strong” in the community were likely insisting “these gods do not exist. This meat is ‘food for the stomach,’ and nothing more needs to be said.”. But, what about the “weak”?
In cameo 3 {vs. 8:4}Paul grants the validity of this argument as it was made by these “strong” believers. Idols do not exist. But here in cameo 5{vs. 8:7}, as an act of love, Paul urges his readers to refrain from opening the way back to idol worship for those who do not yet emotionally feel what their heads are telling them. As G. G. Findlay has written, “Knowledge operating alone makes it an engine of destruction.” {“St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians.” The Expositor’s Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Vol. 2. New York: George H. Doran, 1900., p. 839} –p.239
{My response: emotional blackmail? How long the weak is going to remain weak to black mail the matured one that too based on their emotional feeling. Where is the guarantee that they will limit only with food offered to image worship and try to blackmail many other areas to create problems for the matured one? And what about the ‘gospel obligation’ on the part of the matured one who tries to reach out to their own people? Above all, it is not because of some ‘gospel obligation’ on our part, but as our birth right that we won’t allow others to blackmail us regarding our rights as Hindus as God helped us to be born in this community. Of course any knowledge that creates pride and condescending others is a crime, but to insist on remaining ignorant is also not correct. While the non-Jew new believer with clear understanding (knowledge) try to build up his community with social interaction—thereby accepting meal in which food offered to image is served, the weak Jew or non-Jew new believer insist of remaining in ignorance and use it to blackmail the strong one based on sentiment. This I call prejudice. Particularly the Jews, however concession shown to them, are not going to accommodate the social obligation of the non-Jews because of their religious prejudice towards the non-Jew’s religious/cultural/social views. This is proved by the very life of Sevanand. Instead of his constant effort to reach out to them by sending third mail at the cost of the non-Jew’s sentiment towards their culture and social view, never was successful. Here I don’t want to compare the same with the traditional Indian Christians and the adjustments that the new converts are forced to make to survive among them—though I am tempted to do. My understanding is that ignorance can be corrected through proper teaching, but prejudice can never be removed as it often stems from racial pride. Here I feel that Sevanand also failed. However he tried to become all things to all men, yet he remained a Jew at his core and this is also acknowledged by Bailey: see. p. 256-57, 261. Of course he never had Jewish prejudice against the non-Jews but he allowed it among his own people giving too many concessions either to get recognition for his seva among the non-Jew or try to win them for his mission. But in the end he failed as he failed to address their prejudice and only tried to accommodate their sentiment. Those who always use their sentiment will use the victim card to block mail others.—db}
…It is a case of a person with a strong conscience who wants to force his ethical choices on others. On the other hand there are those who walk their own path ignoring the havoc their choice will wreak in the body of Christ.—p.240
Paul continues, “We are no worse off if we do not eat.” {8:8} That is, it would have been easy for those who ate idol meat to boldly affirm, “There are no idols, so there is no problem! We the strong can eat this meat. Doing so proves the strength of our faith.” Those same people would naturally have looked down on the “weak” who were not strong enough to eat this good, cheap food. No, replies Paul, the one who chooses to refrain is not worse off (i.e., weak in faith) and you who eat this meat are not better off (i.e., strong in faith). The issue has to do with love. You the “strong” can become a stumbling block for the “weak.” Love must influence how you sue your knowledge.—p.240
…The failure to love others in the debate over “food offered to idols” is not a little disagreement on a minor point of ethics. It is a sin against Christ, whose love was so great that he died to save.—p. 241.
{if the strong is forcing his ethical choices on others—particularly on the weak, the weak through their ‘emotional feeling’ try to blackmail the strong. In that scenario what should be done. Educate the weak and make them strong. And if they continue to want to remain in their weakness, then leave it to their choice and allow the strong move forward.—db}
Leave a Reply