Lawful, but not beneficial -- Implications of 1 Corinthians 10
In the
Wednesday afternoon Bible Study, we’ve reached 1 Corinthians 10. There is much
to explore in this passage. Paul talks about baptism and the Eucharist, at
least implicitly. He reads the Exodus story typologically, incorporating the
Corinthian church in the story of Israel. He also addresses, once again, the
issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols. As I read the final section (verses
23-32), I sensed that these verses are rather pertinent to our times.
1 Corinthians 10:23 repeats a statement Paul first made in 1 Corinthians 6:12: “’All things are
lawful,’” but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful,’ but not
all things build up.” The context is eating meat sacrificed to idols. As far as
Paul is concerned the meat itself isn’t tainted, and thus if offered to you,
eat it. After all, the idols are not real. You won’t be infected with a demon
by eating it. Paul doesn’t want them to share the table of demons, by which he
means, participating in idolatry (1 Cor. 10:19-21). But the meat is, of itself
irrelevant.
So, if
you go to dinner and meat is set before you, don’t ask where it came from. If
an unbeliever invites you to dinner, and you want to go, that’s okay. Again,
eat what’s set before you without asking questions. However, if someone points
out that the meat was part of a sacrifice at one of Corinth’s temples, then
refrain from eating. It’s not that the meat is somehow now tainted, but the
fact that the person pointed this out suggests that this person is concerned.
All of this is framed in the context of conscience—not one’s own conscience,
but the other person’s conscience.
Here is
the word I think speaks to our times. Paul responds to the unspoken question,
and that is one of freedom. Remember all things are lawful/permitted. Why
should my freedom be impinged upon because someone else’s conscience is
damaged? Shouldn’t I be able to do whatever I please? After all, I’m free am I
not?
Regarding
food, Paul says that whatever you eat or drink, do so for the glory of God.
However, “don’t offend either Jews or Greeks, or God’s church” (1 Cor. 10:32
CEB). Yes, everything is lawful/permitted, but Paul concludes: “I don’t look
out for my own advantage, but I look out for many people so that they can be
saved” (vs. 33). I don’t look to my own advantage, but to that of the other.
It’s not about my conscience, it’s about the other person's conscience.
We live
at a time when growing numbers of people are demanding the freedom to say
whatever they want. To suggest otherwise is political correctness. It doesn’t matter if it hurts someone. I have the right to
say what I wish and do whatever I want. It is that spirit in our midst that led to the election of a
President who is both thin-skinned and intent on saying whatever he feels and doing whatever he wishes. He
can speak dishonorably of a recently deceased senator who spent five years in a
prisoner of war camp without any repercussions. Why is that? Is he somehow an
aberration or is he product of our times? I would suggest the latter. Furthermore, does he not represent a vision of
society that infects even the church?
Paul
says—don’t offend Jews or Greeks or the church itself. He claims not to look
for his own advantage (in chapter 9 he makes that abundantly clear). Instead,
he looks out for the interests of others, especially that they might be saved.
What does he mean here? He means that the mission of God is preeminent. He may
have freedom from the law, but he is bound by the calling of God, which is to
build up others.
I’m
preaching from Psalm 32 this Sunday. The psalm opens with the words “Happy are
those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered” (Ps. 32:1
NRSV). Then in verse three, the psalmist
confesses: “While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all
day long” (Ps. 32:3 NRSV). In my prep it became clear that verse 3 speaks of
the corrosiveness of sin. What is sin? The transgression of which brings
blessing if forgiven? Could it be this?
Could it be that sin is that which “violates shalom?” Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.
suggests that God hates sin not only because it violates God’s law, but “more
substantively, because it violates shalom, because it breaks the peace, because
it interferes with the way things are supposed to be.” (Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, p. 14). Racism, sexism, all the
isms of our day, they are expressions of moral evil. They are also sin because
they are a breach of God’s shalom. As Plantinga puts it, “shalom is God’s
design for creation and redemption, sin is blamable human vandalism of these
great realities and therefore an affront to their architect and builder” [Not the Way It’s Supposed to Be, p. 16].
We have
freedom, but we are not free to vandalize or violate God’s shalom. Instead, as
Paul declares, we are to engage in that which builds up. Sin is pervasive in
the world. None of us are sinless, but, happy are those who are forgiven by
God. May we acknowledge that forgiveness so that we might enter the
righteousness of God and be part of God’s shalom in the world. The world will
benefit mightily if we would simply live out Paul’s dictum that while
“everything is permitted, … everything isn’t beneficial” (1 Cor. 10:23 CEB). It
would be nice if our political leaders understood this, but until they do, may
we embody this principle!
Comments