22 Freedom and the Weaker Brother: Guidance for the Gray Areas (1 Corinthians 8:4-13)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome! My name is Krisan Marotta, and you're listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. We are studying 1 Corinthians chapter 8, verses 4 through 13 today. This is the 22nd talk in our series on 1 Corinthians, and you can find lecture notes for today's talk on the link below this podcast so that you don't have to worry about taking notes if you're driving. Or you can find those lecture notes on my website, just go to wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 2.2. And while you're on the website, take a moment to check it out. There is no charge, no spam, no ads, only lots of Bible study material. Thanks for joining us. We are still in Paul's discussion of meat sacrificed to idols. And just to remind you of where we are in the letter, this letter was written by the Apostle Paul to the church in Corinth. He wrote it during his third missionary journey, although he founded the church during what we call his second missionary journey, and he lived in Corinth for about a year and a half. Paul is writing this letter from Ephesus, and he is responding to a letter that the Corinthians have written to him and to a verbal report that he's received about the situation in the church in Corinth. And in chapter seven, Paul started answering specific questions that the Corinthians asked him, and in chapter eight he started the second of those questions, and we looked at the first three verses in the last podcast. The Corinthians asked Paul whether or not they were allowed to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, and this was a big dispute in their church. Some in the church felt very strongly that it is okay to eat such meat, and others felt very strongly that it's not okay, and they have asked Paul to settle the issue. And they are looking at each other with some derision and suspicion. And Paul is going to address not only the question of should they eat the meat or not, but more importantly, he's going to address their attitude toward each other and the way they're treating each other. At the time Paul's writing, Corinth had many temples to a variety of pagan gods, and people would go there to worship and make offerings of meat. And since there were no pagan gods there to actually eat it, what happened to the meat after the rituals were complete? Well, some of it was burnt up in the offering, and some of it was sold in the marketplace, and some of the pagan temples had dining rooms that members of the community would come and eat together in these dining rooms. So it was kind of like going out to eat in a restaurant. Everyone knew that this was a temple celebrating whatever God and that the meat had been sacrificed to the god, but it was a social event as well as a religious event. You could see your friends and neighbors at these communal meals in the dining rooms of the temples. Many of the believers in the church in Corinth were Gentiles before coming to faith in Jesus, and they would have been a regular part of these temple meals. They would have been in the habit of participating in this ritual and in eating at the temples. And in many ways, these meals were as much a social event as a religious event. It was something they had done their whole lives, and they see no problem in continuing it. Others in the community don't feel this freedom, and they argue that to participate in the meals at all, to buy the meat in the marketplace is to participate in idolatry, and of course we should avoid idolatry. So to participate in any part of the ritual, they would say is idolatry and therefore wrong, and this issue is dividing the church. In the verses we looked at in the last podcast, we saw that the argument of those who feel free to participate in the temple meals is that we know the idols aren't real. Yes, those pagans still think that the temple gods are real, but we know better. We know there's only one God and He's not the god of that temple. We know that they are not worshiping a real being, these are just statues made with human hands. If we were intending to worship other gods, that would be wrong, but that's not our intent. We're not going there to worship other gods, we're going there to eat. We know that there's no God there to worship, we're just going there for a meal. It is their knowledge, they claim, that makes it okay to eat the meat. It is their accurate understanding of what they're doing that gives them the freedom to participate in the meal. And that's why we saw Paul start this discussion in the first three verses of this chapter by addressing knowledge. And we looked at that in the last podcast. Now he continues, and I'm going to read 1 Corinthians 8 verses 4 through 13, and then we're going to go back and look at each section. So starting in eight four, therefore, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. However, not all men have this knowledge, but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrifice to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food will not commend us to God. We are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. Okay, let's go back and look at eight four. He says, Therefore, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. Now notice Paul starts out his argument by agreeing with them. He says, We know this to be true. We know that there is no such thing as an idol, and we know there is only one God. Now, of course, he doesn't mean that idols don't exist. The statues exist. The Corinthians can wander around their town and point to all the statues and altars to pagan gods. Paul means there's nothing behind those statues. Those statues are just wood and gold and clay. There's no deity behind them. These are temples to idols that do not exist and temples to gods that do not exist. And this is the heart of the argument that those in Corinth are making who want to eat the meat. They say, okay, this meat was sacrificed to an idol, but there is no idol. The meat was put before a gold statue that means nothing. It's not like there's some mystical connection between the meat and this god because there is no god behind it. The pagans may be fooled into thinking there's a real God behind that idol, but we're not fooled into believing that. So what's the problem? It's just meat. And notice Paul says, I know what you know. He agrees. He says, We know that it's true, there is no idol and no God but God. He's not saying that what they know is wrong or even that what they know is insignificant. He says your knowledge is correct, but he's going to go on to say there's something more important than your knowledge. Let's look at five and six. For even if there are so called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through him. Okay, so what does he mean by this even if language, even if there are so called gods, and this as indeed there are many gods and many lords? I think he's clarifying. He's just said there are no idols and no god but God, but even if there are other so-called gods and lords, and look around you, there are lots of things that people think are gods, and many things that people would name as gods. You Corinthians can just walk around your streets and you'll see all kinds of things that people think are gods. And then he goes on to make his point. So his thought is even if there are lots of so-called gods, and yes, there are lots of so-called gods, just look at all the temples in Corinth, there is only one God. So Paul is not saying with this language that other gods exist. His whole point is there's only one God, but there are lots of things that people call gods out there in the world. So even if there are things that others would call God, we Christians know that there is only one God. So he's again, he's not saying there's lots of gods, but we Christians only acknowledge one of them. He's saying you will find people out there who worship all kinds of things as God, but we know the truth. There is only one God. That's the heart of the argument. But what do we do with that knowledge? What do we do with the knowledge that there is only one God when you live in a culture that has meat sacrificed to false gods? And before we look at how Paul answers that question, I want to stop for a moment and take a look at what he says we know to be true about God. This is the kind of language that we hear all the time, and we can just read through it as lofty praise without really stopping to think about what it means. What is he saying about God that both he and the Corinthians believe to be true? He says, There is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Now the early church devoted a lot of time and energy to debating the nature of Christ and trying to answer the question, how is it that Jesus could be both human and divine? And if you've ever read any of that debate, you know that some thought his divine side overshadowed his human side, such that he only looked like a man and he was just kind of pretending to be a man, but he was really God. And others took the opposite view that his human side had preeminence and he wasn't really God. And these debates about how far you go and what the middle grounds, they got very intense. And there were early church councils that decreed which view was orthodox and which views were considered heresy. And because of these early controversies, when we come to a statement like 1 Corinthians 8 6, we tend to read that issue back into this verse and start asking ourselves, well, which side was Paul on? And we start trying to figure out exactly what this verse says about the controversy over the Trinity and how Jesus is both fully human and fully God. Sometimes that is the issue that the author is addressing, but as I've studied the New Testament, more and more I'm becoming convinced that many of the texts that we think address this issue of how Jesus is fully human and fully God don't really address the issue at all. The author is making a different point. Now, we may be able to deduce something relevant to the argument from the point he does make, but first we want to understand the point the author's making. And I would argue this particular passage is one of those passages. So my personal good for nothing opinion is that the idea that Jesus is God is just not as big a deal in the New Testament as it was in the early church. That just doesn't seem to be an issue the New Testament authors really wanted to directly address and debate. Now there's a sense in which it's very important, but the New Testament authors just don't seem very concerned that we can articulate the details of the doctrine of the Trinity. Their concern seems to be that we make a choice to follow and trust Jesus and believe that he is the Messiah, even if our grasp of the nature of his deity is lacking. So let's look at this verse and ask if Paul has not even got this Trinitarian conflict in his mind, what might he be saying? Some scholars argue that the statement Jesus is Lord means Jesus is God. They would say the word Lord is used many, many times in the Bible to refer to God, and therefore when the Bible says Jesus is Lord, they are making the statement that Jesus is God and is part of this Trinitarian debate. Now, if you're looking at the New American Standard Translation, you'll notice that the word exist is in gray font. That word exist is not in the Greek text. The ESV also adds the word exist, but they don't clue you in that it's added by the translators to clarify their meaning. Literally, we have all things are from God and we to God, and all things are through Jesus and we through Jesus, and there's no verb. We have to supply the verb by the context, and that's actually a very common thing in Greek. The translators of the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Bible have filled in the word exist to tell you how they're understanding the verse. So they're painting this picture that the world and everything in it was created through Jesus and we exist because of Jesus. And that is one option. But I don't think that's the best option. I don't think that fits Paul's argument in chapter eight as well as another option, and let me explain what I think that option is. It relates back to this idea that the word Lord is just another word for God. If that's true, if that's what Paul means here, then it makes him seem to contradict himself. He says there's only one God, the Father, and then he would be saying there is one God Jesus Christ. It's hard to even understand what he would mean by that in the context of an argument that depends on the fact that there is only one God and the idols are fake. It seems to me that Paul's typical pattern is to highlight the role of God the Father and the role of Jesus Christ. And that's what's happening here. Paul is saying something distinctive about the role of the Father and the role of the Son. And by saying that Jesus is Lord, Paul is saying something about his role, not his divinity. Let me look at a passage that I think makes that clear. Psalm 110, verse 1. And this is a psalm that's quoted quite frequently in the New Testament, and it's quoted as being about the Messiah, who we know to be Jesus. So Psalm 110, verse 1 reads, The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool to your feet. So the Lord says to my Lord, The My is David, this is a Psalm of David. And if you're reading the New American Standard, you'll notice that the first word Lord is in all capital letters, and the second one is not. When the word Lord is in all capitals in the New American Standards, it's indicating that this is the name of God. This is the name Yahweh. And it was standard practice, following the practice of the Jews, to not say the name of God out loud, to substitute the word Lord instead. And so the New American Standard puts the word Lord in all caps to distinguish it from the actual Greek or Hebrew word for Lord. So they're saying the Lord, that is Yahweh, says to my Lord, which is the Greek word for Lord. So here's an example where we see the practice of the word Lord referring to God, but it's a way of not saying his name out loud. And that it accounts for a lot of the uses of Lord in the New Testament. But more interestingly, we have the Lord says to my Lord, or Yahweh says to my Lord, well, who is talking to whom? So God is not talking to himself. This is Yahweh talking to the Messiah, the coming king, whom King David refers to as my Lord. Now Jesus makes this a little clearer. He's speaking to the Pharisees, and he refers to this Psalm, and this is what he says. This is Luke chapter twenty, I'm going to read forty one through forty four. Then he, that's Jesus, said to them, the Pharisees, How is it that they say the Christ is David's son? For David himself says in the book of Psalms, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Therefore David calls him Lord, and how is he his son? So how is the Messiah? How is the one who is his Lord his son? So Jesus asks the Pharisees basically, whose son is the Christ? Whose son is the Messiah? And they say, Well, of course, he's the son of David. And Jesus says, David calls the Messiah Lord. Why did David call him Lord? David is king over all Israel, and yet he is bowing down to this one he calls Lord. Well, in the context there, I think it's pretty clear that Lord means master. Lord is the one to whom I owe obedience and allegiance. And here you have David, the king of Israel, referring to someone he must call Lord, he must obey and give his allegiance to. And the Messiah is the one that David must obey. So even the greatest king in Israel's history obeys the Messiah. The Messiah is greater than even the king of Israel. I think that's part of what Jesus is saying. How is he his son? Well, because he's the Messiah. He's greater even than the King of Israel. In Acts 2, Peter also refers to this psalm in a sermon he gives. And he refers to Psalm 110, and then he concludes, Let all Israel know for certain that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. So Christ is the word for Messiah, and he says, God made Jesus both Lord and Messiah. So let me read that. This is Acts chapter 2, verses 34 through 36, and what I want you to notice is that Peter is clearly referring to the role Jesus was given. So Acts 234, for it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. So what I want to point out through all of that is that the word Lord seems to refer to something bigger than the fact that Jesus is divine. When the Bible talks about Jesus being Lord, they're referring to this claim that he is the Messiah, the one who is going to sit at God's right hand and God is going to make his enemies a footstool for his feet. If Lord only means he's divine, then Peter's statement in Acts doesn't make much sense because God didn't make Jesus God. What God did was make Jesus Lord and Christ. The role that Jesus has to play in creation is master and messiah, or king and messiah. He is the one who will establish God's rule on earth and bring in the kingdom of heaven, the one who sits at the right hand of God and who everyone acknowledges is the King of kings and Lord of Lords, such that even David, Israel's greatest king, calls him Lord. So Peter's point is the Father is crowning him Christ, Messiah, and King, Lord or Master or ruler. So I would argue when the New Testament says Jesus is Lord, quite often they mean He is my King, my master, and my ruler. What he says is true and right. He is the one to whom I owe everything, and what he commands I must do. Now, it is true that part of what makes him feel Fit to be Lord and fit to be Christ is the incarnation and his deity, but it seems to me the emphasis in saying that Jesus is Lord is saying He is my king, He is my master, He is the one who rules with the authority of God. And Peter is saying to the Jews in Acts, this man whom you crucified, he's your master. God made him master and Messiah. He is the anointed ruler and the one to whom you owe allegiance because he's the one who rules with the authority of God. Now let's take that back to Corinthians. Paul is speaking into this situation where the Corinthians are surrounded by pagan idolatry. The pagans have many gods and many lords, and they believe that those lords and beings have mastery over them. That's what we mean by lords. They believe they need to submit to these beings and obey them. Why do they honor and obey these gods? They're looking for life and blessings. They hope these gods will treat them favorably and bless their lives and bring them prosperity. This has always been true of mankind. We have problems and we hope that there's someone out there with the power to solve these problems and treat me well and do something for me that I cannot do for myself. So the pagans thought there were lots of gods and lots of lords, and they were looking to these beings for divine intervention. They were submitting to their mastery because they hoped to be blessed by them in return. So idolatry is not just a religious mistake. It's all about who I trust, who I listen to, who do I obey, who do I think is going to be able to bless me and give me life. And now Paul says, yes, there are many gods and many lords out there, so-called gods and so-called lords, but we know there is one God the Father from whom are all things, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things. So one of the common themes in the New Testament, especially in Paul's letters, is that God is the source of all life and blessing. God the Father decided to create us, he decided to rescue us and redeem us when we fell. He is the one source of life, he is the one who decided to call a people for himself, and he is the one and only source of life and blessing. At the same time, Scripture argues that Jesus is the one through whom God is bringing all this life and blessing about. He's the Messiah, He's the high priest who offered Himself on our behalf and intercedes with the Father to ask for our forgiveness. He is the king who will rule over this new creation with the authority of God. Jesus is the one who makes possible all the blessings that God intends to give to his people. Now over and over again Paul tells us that God is acting through Christ, that God brings forgiveness through Christ, that God will establish his rule through Christ, that he will free us from sin and death through Christ, that he chose us through Christ. God is bringing all these blessings about because of Jesus. Just read through the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians and notice all the times he says in him, meaning in Christ. So God is the only source of life and blessings, and we will receive that life and blessing through Christ. If not for Jesus, we have nothing. We would be lost and without hope. So now we come back to 8.6 and we have these cryptic phrases with no verb. There is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we for him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him. I think the we there as Christians, we who know Christ, the context is contrasting what the pagans know with what those who follow Christ know. So we who believe in God the Father and Jesus Christ. And I think Paul is referring to this source and means idea, this the roles that God and Jesus are playing. God is the source of everything, and Jesus is the means by which God is bringing it about. So the Father is the one from whom are all things, and we belong to Him, and we owe everything to Him, and all the blessings that He has promised will come through Jesus and to us through Christ. So we through Him. If we are to receive life, it will be through Jesus, and we belong to God through Him. That may be a little hard to follow in a podcast. Let me try to paraphrase it to put it all together and see if this clarifies for you how I'm taking this verse. So this is my paraphrase. The pagans think that there are many gods who will bless them. They obey many lords and masters so that they can find help and blessing. But we Christians know there is only one God, the Father, and that everything comes from Him, and we Christians belong to Him alone. And there is only one Lord and Master, Jesus the Messiah, and that all the blessings God has for us, He is giving us through Jesus because of what Jesus did for us. Now that's what Paul says we know in 8.6. This is what he agrees to. You Corinthians have argued that you know this to be true, and I agree with you, I Paul will know this to be true. There's only one God the Father, and everything comes through him, and there is one master or one Lord, Jesus Christ, and we will be blessed only through him. That's a pretty big statement when you stop to think about it. And Paul says, This is what I know to be true, and Paul claims to be an apostle. That is, he claims to be one of a handful of people that God revealed his plans and purposes to, and that Jesus appeared to and taught him, and Paul is saying, This is what he taught me, this is what I know to be true, this is what God is doing, and he's doing it through Christ. The idols are nothing. There's only one source for life, and that's God the Father, and there is only one means to gain the life he offers, and that is through Jesus Christ. That, if you stop to think about it, is a pretty big important theological statement, which makes it very striking that the next word he says is however. However, there's something else we need to know. This knowledge alone is not enough to tell us how to act in this situation of meat offered to idols. As important as that knowledge is, we need to know something else. Let's look at verse seven. However, not all men have this knowledge, but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. So he says, however, not everyone has this knowledge. He could be saying, Well, all the Christians know this to be true, but there are some pagans out there who don't get it. But because of what he goes on to say, I don't think that's what he's getting at here. I think he's saying there are some Christians who get it, and there are some Christians who aren't quite there yet. Some of your brothers and sisters in Christ have not fully grasped this idea that the idols are fake and irrelevant. They believe in God and they look to Jesus for salvation, but because they were raised to believe in idols, they still have this sense that there is something there. Now they may know intellectually that the idol is a fraud, but it still feels like maybe the idol has some power. They're accustomed to it. It's habit, it's a way of life to them. They grew up worshiping this idol and it feels true to them. So when they get around those idolatrous practices that they used to participate in, it feels significant for them. The actions still carry some meaning for them. And he uses this phrase, their conscience being weak is defiled. Our English word conscience doesn't quite capture the idea of this Greek word, I think, at least as Paul uses it in this context. If I say the phrase, well, my conscience is weak, typically you would say, you would get the idea from that statement that I know I'm not supposed to do something, but I want to do it anyway. So I'm conflicted. I'm weak and that I'm struggling. I know that it's wrong on one level, but on another level, I really want to do it. That's not what Paul means here. I think by conscience here, Paul means something closer to what we might think of as worldview. I think he means that set of ideas that I hold to be true and that inform my actions and my choices. So it includes what I think is right and wrong, so it is my conscience in that sense. But to have a weak conscience is not to be conflicted, it's not to think it's wrong but want to do it anyway. To have a weak conscience in this context is to have a misunderstanding about what is right and wrong. The ideas that I hold that dictate my choices are weak in the sense that they are incomplete or inaccurate in some way or misinformed. So Paul agrees that we can eat the meat sacrificed to an idol because there is no idol and it's just meat, but their conscience is weak because they don't fully grasp that. They think it's sinful to eat the meat sacrificed to an idol because those idolated practices still seem to have meaning, they still feel real to them. In their eyes, if you eat such meat, you're engaged in idolatry. That's what they did for years and years when they did those practices. They were engaging in idolatry. So I think what Paul's saying here is their conscience is weak, their understanding is weak. They haven't fully grasped it yet. And Paul's concern is how are those of you who know it's okay to eat the meat going to treat those who think eating such meat is wrong? Look at eight eight. But food will not commend us to God. We are neither the worse if we do not eat it, nor the better if we do eat. So he agrees there's nothing wrong with eating the meat, it's just meat. Whether you eat it or you don't eat it, it's not a big deal. It's not going to make you better or worse. What is a big deal is how you treat your brother or sister. Look at nine through thirteen. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you who have knowledge dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it's weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. I think one of the key concepts in this section is this idea of being a stumbling block, and this is one of those phrases that we want to keep in context. Some people have concluded that it is our obligation as Christians to not do anything which might possibly offend someone else and to not do anything which someone else might disapprove of. And they have used this passage to enforce that idea. Historically, I think this passage has been applied much more harshly and strictly than it ought to be, and some have argued that it is incumbent upon us believers not to do anything that might upset someone else. That's not what Paul's saying. He's saying don't be a stumbling block. A stumbling block is that thing that I trip over that causes me to fall. Paul's not talking about hurting their feelings, he's talking about leading them astray or confusing them in such a way that they fall away from faith. A stumbling block pulls someone away from God. You trip them up and make them fall away. You cause them to fall headlong into their doom. That's what Paul's concerned with. That I'm using my freedom in such a way that I am enticing someone else away from God, that I'm encouraging them to do what they believe to be wrong, which will ultimately or might ultimately cause them to fall away and go back to their idol worship. So the situation is not that I play music that someone else is offended by or that I read a book or watch a movie that upsets someone. This is enticing someone to fail such that they fall away from God. Consider this situation as an analogy. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it'll get the idea for us. Suppose that I have never gotten drunk in my life and alcohol means nothing to me. I can take it or leave it. It's just not a big deal. It means nothing to me. And when I go into a bar, my purpose is to hang out with my friends. I can have one drink all night and be content. But then there's my sister who is a recovering alcoholic and just recently broke her addiction. Should I invite her to join us? Maybe even pressure her to join us? And should I make fun of her reluctance to set foot in a bar? You know, it's just one drink after all. That's closer to the situation. Her past addiction is still fresh. The alcoholic lifestyle is very real to her, and it's very enticing, and it carries weight and memories and baggage, and she believes it would be wrong to have even one sip of alcohol, let alone one drink, because of the dangers and the temptations of falling back into that lifestyle. So if she joins me, she's likely to fall back into alcoholism. I have been a stumbling block to her. I have caused her to fall off the wagon with my freedom to drink. That's closer to the situation Paul's describing here. The situation is I have this knowledge that there's nothing wrong with eating this meat, but my sister who has a long history with idolatry and remembers all those sinful practices as very real, thinks eating meat is a sin. Why am I encouraging her to act in a way that she believes is sinful? I'm doing something that I believe I'm free to do, but my sister would be doing something she believes she's not free to do, and I'm encouraging her to flirt with her sinful past and participate in her old idolatrous ways. Why would I do that? I could very easily cause her to fall away from God. That's being a stumbling block. And you can see how this could get really kind of insidious. Maybe she wants to please me. Maybe she wants to look cool and sophisticated in my eyes. Maybe she's just tired of me pushing her to get with it, and she wants to be one of the in-crowd. So she says, Okay, one drink, you know, or one steak, what's the big deal, right? But for her, it is a big deal because I am encouraging her to do that which she believes is wrong. And Paul's saying it's not enough that you know the truth. You need to consider the implications of your actions, and you need to consider how you use your freedom and be careful not to use it in such a way that you cause others to stumble. So Paul is talking about this issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols, and admittedly, none of us probably struggle with that today. But in this discussion, it seems to me that Paul has made two very profound points that we would do well to take to heart. First is this idea that God is the one and single source of all life and blessing, and that Jesus is the means through which we gain that life or blessing. Now we don't believe in pagan gods anymore, but we do look to a lot of things to find life and blessing. There are a lot of things in this world that we think will just fulfill us and make us happy and bring us all the good things that we want wealth, health, beauty, fame, fortune, the right education, the right career, romance. The list can go on and on. So we can say, yes, we know God's there and we know he's one, but there's this other stuff that will really fulfill me and make me happy. And Paul is saying it won't. All the life and blessing that your heart longs for, it only comes from God, and it only comes from God through Jesus. Now, either Paul is right or he's wrong. I think he's right. But what he's claiming is a very big deal. Paul is telling us there is one source of life, God the Father, and only one way to find it through Jesus Christ. Every good thing comes only from God and only through Jesus. And if you believe otherwise, you're deceived. Think back to the first three verses we looked at in the last podcast where Paul talked about knowledge and love. There's nothing wrong with knowledge. This is a fundamental truth that we need to know, and this is probably the truth Paul had in mind. It is crucial, it's important. Paul's not dissing knowledge, he's not saying knowledge is not important. It is crucially and fundamentally important that we know that God the Father is the source of all life and that Jesus is the only way to gain that life. So it's really striking that Paul goes on to say knowing that to be true is not enough. I have to use that knowledge in the context of loving my neighbor as myself. Paul doesn't want us to use that knowledge selfishly to get our way or to hurt someone else in the process. That brings us to his second point, and that is there is no biblical principle that says you are not allowed to do anything that might bother or offend or upset someone. In fact, I would argue there are times we ought to bother and upset someone, because there are times when the most loving thing to do is to confront someone else with the truth, and they're not gonna like it. And in some situations, we are definitely called upon to upset someone else. The principle is act out of love. Seek the welfare of your brothers and sisters. That's the principle Paul's applying. How do I seek the welfare of my weaker brother? How do I act out of love in this situation? I have this knowledge, I'm right in my knowledge, I know that knowledge is true, but if I exercise my freedom, it might have destructive and terrible consequences for someone else. So some situations might call for me to offend my sister and upset her because she needs to learn the truth, but in other situations, I don't want to upset or offend her because she's not either ready to learn that truth or I'm not presenting it in a way that's helpful, but in a way that might cause her to fail. So life is complicated. We have to be wise in our understanding and we have to be humble in our approach. And this advice Paul gives here, it's situation specific. The weaker brothers were part of this pagan idolatry. They've only recently come out of it. They're probably newer in the faith, and in that situation, though their theology is mistaken, they believe they would be sinning to participate in this meal, and I should do nothing that entices them to fall back into sin. So I should never pressure anyone to do what that person thinks is sin, because I'm setting the example that it's okay to do what I believe to be wrong. In this case, it's okay to participate in idolatry. My actions communicate to them that it's okay to whitewash the sin, and there's nothing wrong with sinning now and being cavalier about it. That's the problem. My freedom in that situation is sending the message that it doesn't really matter whether it's sin or not. We can go ahead and participate because it's kind of cool and sophisticated, and that is a dangerous message to communicate. And I think that is an incredibly relevant message to us today. I see this kind of thing around me all the time, especially the older I get and the more I study. There's this huge temptation to dabble in the stuff that seems a little bit over the edge, and each generation seems to find a new edge to dangle over. You know, it used to be, oh, rock and roll, or going to R-rated movies, or playing cards, or certain types of dancing, or certain types of music. Then it was drinking wine or swearing, or maybe it's a way of dressing in fashionable clothing, or maybe what you do or you don't do on the Sabbath. We love to find that one thing that we're convinced isn't really sin in and of itself, but it sure offends our parents, so let's flaunt our freedom in their face. It has great shock value and it feels really cool and sophisticated, and after all, we're free to do it. Now, maybe we're right or maybe we're wrong in our understanding of our freedom, but you can see the temptation to be hip and to be cool and to be with it. There's this really strong temptation that I'm cool enough that I can dip my toe in those waters, and it doesn't hurt me because I know better. I have it all together. I know where the boundaries are, so I can skirt right up against them and rub my back on them. Watch me, watch how cool I am. And that we all face that temptation, and every generation seems to find a new edge to run right up to and dangle over. Now, first I'd say be very, very sure that you are actually exercising true freedom. Because quite often we just want to fit in with our culture and we've crossed a line that we dare not cross. But even if we're right and we're truly free to participate in something, what would Paul say to us? I think he'd say, be careful you don't use your freedom to cause someone else to stumble. You do not want to communicate with your behavior that it's okay to dabble in the dirt and flirt with sin. Real people are watching you. Your friends, your neighbors, your children, your coworkers. Be very careful that you are not using your freedom to communicate that sin doesn't matter and holiness is not important. We want to be very clear and very conscious that we are not encouraging someone else to engage in what they think is sin. And we ought to be thoughtful and careful about how we exercise our freedoms. You've been listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. If you've been blessed by listening, please leave a positive rating and review wherever you listen to your podcast. And don't forget to share what you've learned with a friend. Our theme music is graciously provided by my friend and favorite musician Reggie Coast. You can find his music at heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll see you here next week at Wednesday in the Word.