D
dies-l
Guest
Chapter 3 seems to address divisiveness in the Church at Corinth. Going back to chapters 1&2, we see that Paul is writing to address specific problems at a particularly troubled church. The biggest issue in this church, as in much of the early church, seems to be that that they have divided themselves along worldly lines, namely, socioeconomic status, culture, and education. In Chapter 1, Paul diagnoses the biggest problem with the Corinthian church: divisiveness. In the carryover section from Chapter 1- Chapter 2 (roughly 1:18-2:5), Paul diagnoses the cause of the divisiveness: reliance on mens wisdom, [rather than] Gods power. (v. 5). And, he concludes Chapter 2, giving them the solution: seeking wisdom from the Holy Spirit. The way I read 1 Corinthians is that the remainder of the book applies this reasoning (i.e., problem, cause, and solution) to various issues with which the Corinthians were struggling. But, first, in Chapter 3, he returns to the divisiveness issue.
You will notice that, in both Ch. 1 and Ch. 3, Paul makes reference to one specific aspect of the division in the Corinthian Church: Paul followers vs. Apollos followers (e.g., 3:4). This distinction really goes back to the division between the educated and the uneducated: the educated members of the Church preferred Apollos teaching because he was aristocratic in background and was a better orator. The working class members of the church preferred Pauls teaching because, even though he was well educated, he had learned a trade (tentmaking) and was, unlike the educated wealthier class, unafraid to work with his hands. So, with this distinction in mind, Paul challenges the upper class members of the Cortinthian Church, likely because of grumblings as to Pauls seeming oversimplification of the gospel. Paul responds in verse 2: I have fed you with milk, and not with meat . . . . What he seems to be saying here is that, as they (the grumbling members of the church) are yet infants in Christ, he is feeding them infant food (milk), as in elementary teaching on the gospel. When they are more mature, they will be ready for meat, (i.e., more substantial teaching). V. 3 indicates that their quarrelling and their divisiveness is evidence of how immature they are.
Although you are right that the meat and milk are metaphorical and that this metaphor refers to the carnality of the Corinthian church, when we understand this passage in context, it becomes not so evident that this passage is relevant to the current discussion.
Honestly, I think you are misunderstanding chapter 5. The message of Chapter 5, the way I read it, is that we should not jeopardize the integrity of the gospel message in order to grant safe haven to unrepentant sinners. One thing that is worth noting here is that incest, the sin that Paul refers to, was considered evil even by Roman Pagans (v. 1). Some members of the Church in Corinth apparently thought that their freedom in Christ required them to accept the man who was sleeping with his step-mother, even though he was unrepentant about his sexual conduct, and even though the outside world found such conduct to be disgusting. It would appear that, at the very least, Paul is telling them not to condone behavior that calls into question the Churchs morality among the greater Gentile population. Whether this is applicable to modern churches that accept unrepentant homosexual members is a matter of reasonable disagreement, because consensual homosexuality does not fall into the class of behavior that is considered evil even by outsiders. But, even assuming that this passage would be applicable to consensual homosexuality, it is clear that it does not refer to any act committed by a person who does not identify themselves as a believer. (v. 9-10: I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral . . . .). Thus, Paul is clearly not saying have nothing to do with immoral people. He is only saying that they (and thus likely, we) should not allow people who are still caught up in their sinful lifestyles and who call themselves believers to participate in our churches or otherwise associate with such people. (v. 11). So, like I said, I dont see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand.
For the sake of brevity, I will limit my comments on chapter 6, but I think you are misunderstanding v. 13. Meats for the belly and the belly for meats (or food for the stomach" in modern translations same diff) was a philosophical saying of the day which made a parallel between food and sex. Essentially the belief behind this saying was in the same way that we eat when our bellys are hungry, we should satisfy our sexual longings when we are (how do I say this appropriately? ) . . . in the mood. Paul was quoting the saying so that he could refute it in the next line. Although I dont necessarily disagree with your statement that sin goes hand in hand with carnality, I dont think that that is what Paul was saying here. But, this is an unimportant point, so I will leave it at that.
Your reasoning here is rather peculiar, imho. Paul here is dealing with a conflict between believers who come out of a history of paganism (hence, sacrificing meat to idols) and believers who dont come from that background. Those who do not associate meat with paganism, say whats the big deal? Its only meat! But, for some people, the very act of eating such meat tempts them into returning to the way of thinking and living that they have come to associate with it. Thus, Paul is saying, there is nothing wrong with eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols, BUT, when in the company of people who are likely to be lead into temptation by it, in love we ought not do so. All that Paul is saying here is that we should not lead other believers into temptation, and that we should be mindful of each others pasts, because our past experiences can have a meaningful impact on what will lead us into sin. He is providing a specific example of meat and how it relates to people whose pasts cause them to be tempted into returning to paganism. It seems that what he is concerned about here is the mental association that seemingly innocuous actions can cause.
For a more contemporary example, I am a recovering alcoholic. When I was new in recovery, simply walking into a bar or a store that sold alcohol would cause very severe temptation for me. So, those who loved me would avoid taking me to restaurants with bars or liquor stores, even if there was an innocuous reason for going. That is love. Thanks be to God, I have been sober for several years now (about 3 years and 10 months), and I have not had a temptation to drink in quite some time. Liquor stores and bars do not present the same temptation for me that they once did, and for me there is no reason to go out of my way to avoid them (but I certainly dont make a habit of hanging out in such places). But, when I was new to sobriety, such places were dangerous for me because they would spark memories that would lead me into temptation to return to my past.
Unlike this example, I dont believe that driving a Ford vehicle is going to cause a believer to be led into temptation to return to a homosexual lifestyle. If I were to give a ride to a former homosexual in my Ford vehicle, it is highly unlikely that his response is going to be, there is just something about Fords that makes me want to have sex with men. Perhaps, the person has a past that would make that sentence make sense, but this unforeseeable situations is just as likely to occur with any make or model of vehicle, and it is such an unforeseeable predicament, that to structure ones life around the possibility borders on absurd. The reality is that this passage of Scripture provides no basis to support a boycott of a corporation because of causes that it supports or refuses to support. Although I am not saying that boycotts are never appropriate, I am saying that there is nothing in Scripture that supports the idea, and certainly 1 Cor. 8 does not provide this argument.
Frankly, the remainder of your post does not seem to add anything new to your argument, so I will set it aside to keep this post as brief as possible. It seems to me that what you are doing here is interpreting the Bible to support your decision (which, although I disagree with it, is not an inherently bad decision), rather than making your decisions based on a contextually reasonable interpretation of the Bible. In making your arguments you omitted passages of Scripture that would seem to contradict your interpretation (e.g., 5:9-11) and it seems to me that you stretched your interpretation of Scripture to make an argument that is not supported by Scripture. And, although I accept that others will likely interpret Scripture differently than me (and that is okay), we all need to be careful to differentiate between what the Scriptures actually say and our interpretations of them.
Upvote
0
