|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 5, NUMBER 30, JULY 31, 2005 “I WILL EAT NO FLESH” (1 Cor. 8:13) In 1 Corinthians 8, the Apostle Paul is dealing with some very practical problems the brethren in Corinth were experiencing. While dealing with the specific questions they had, he presents some basic principles of conduct and concern one for another that would help them solve the problems surrounding the eating of meats sacrificed to an idol as well as a host of other questions that could arise. Here are the questions dealt with in chapter 8. (1) Could a Christian attend a banquet in an idol’s temple? (2) Could a Christians eat meat sacrificed to an idol in the home of a believing or unbelieving friend? (3) Could a Christian eat meat sacrificed to an idol if he inadvertently bought it at market? Now we might ask ourselves what the big deal was, but we were not raised in a pagan society and we were not reared worshipping idols. These Gentile Christians had been. Not all of them had progressed to the point where they understood that an idol was nothing. Many of them still were unable to disassociate an idol from worship and any item sacrificed to that idol was still somehow involved in its worship. So, if a person ate meat that was left over from a sacrifice to an idol, they were guilty of idol worship. This was the thinking of some of them. Paul begins to answer their questions by setting forth a vitally important principle. Any answer they arrived at needed to be arrived at by reasoning that was tempered by love and anyone who thought themselves superior to any of their brothers and sisters did not even know this most basic of truths. Paul then proceeded to show that the more mature Christians should realize that food does not affect our relationship to God. In and of itself, food doesn’t make a bit of difference. An idol is nothing and consequently, food offered to an idol didn’t make a bit of difference either. Those who understood could eat the meat with a free conscience. However, there were some who had not yet arrived at this degree of maturity. They did not have this understanding and for them to eat such meat would be to violate their conscience. Paul’s point was to consider these weaker brethren in the decisions they made and not to let the knowledge of the more mature brethren be an occasion of stumbling for the weaker brothers and sisters. As a matter of fact, Paul went so far as to say, “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” What kind of application can we make of this lesson for us today? I can think of several. First of all, we must always be willing to forgo a liberty that we might have if our doing so will help someone else. Secondly, it is sometimes better to abstain from something altogether if there is the chance that what we are doing could be misinterpreted to someone’s detriment. Let me give an example. Suppose I believed that certain kinds of dancing were not lascivious, provided that the dancers are modestly clothed and in a location that is not a bar or dance hall and that the movements are not suggestive. I believe that it would be better and in keeping with the principle of 1 Corinthians 8:13 to abstain from all kinds of dancing, period. How could I explain to someone that certain kinds of modern dancing are clearly wrong while trying to defend other types of dance? Those to whom I am speaking might not be able to make the distinction. Wouldn’t it be better to simply stay as far away from it as I can? I certainly should not engage in any kind of activity if my doing so would embolden someone to violate their own conscience. I have had several Jewish friends in my life, some conservative and some not. I would never have invited a conservative Jewish friend to my home for dinner and served them ham. I know that there is nothing wrong with ham, but by my act I could be causing them to violate their conscience. That would not be in keeping with the principle taught in 1 Corinthians 8. I certainly hope that nobody reads this article and thinks, “What about the weaker brother who uses this just to make sure that he gets his own way?” That kind of thing has to be dealt with on an individual basis, but it does not change in any way the principle taught by Paul.
Greg Litmer LET THE HOMELY TAKE COURAGE Now and again I am driven to go back and look up this passage in J.H. Beadle’s Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism, p. 256. Brigham does not preach oftener than once or twice a month, and did not favor us with his presence this morning; his brother, Joseph Young, preached the opening sermon and I have no hesitation in pronouncing him the most inferior-looking man I ever saw in the pulpit, and I have seen some hard specimens. He is very old, very thin, very weak-eyed, and rather sallow; his general appearance suggested that he had just slept a month, been awakened by a thunderstorm and come away without changing his clothes, washed in a mud-puddle and combed his hair by crawling through the sage brush. And yet, he has FOUR wives. Let the homely take courage. Needless to say, Mormonism has both “mysteries” and “crimes” aplenty. I have little doubt that the substance of Mr. Young’s sermon left much to be desired. But the emphasis, admittedly humorous, on how “inferior-looking” he was is something every preacher knows how to resent. How unimpressive might the apostle Paul have looked? His critics had said, “His bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor. 10:10). Yet the gospel was no less powerful. I, for one, am glad homeliness does not disqualify a preacher. I know a lot of guys who would have to quit preaching, present company excluded. (Taken from Brass Tacks, May of 1987. I just added the last sentence.)
|