1 Corinthians 8:1–4, 7–13; 10:31–33

Bible Studies for Life
Associate professor of divinity, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University

When Members Insist On Their Way
1 Corinthians 8:1–4, 7–13; 10:31–33

Will the Real Apostle Paul Please Stand Up? (8:1–4)
The apostle Paul told the church at Galatia that if anyone preached a gospel other than the one he had preached, then “let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). Not much flexibility there. But to the church at Rome, Paul sang a very different tune. Trouble had erupted between the carnivores and the herbivores and between the Sabbatarians (those who believe the Sabbath is holier than other days) and the non-Sabbatarians (those who believe all days are alike). To these warring factions, Paul admonished, “One who eats must not look down on one who does not eat; and one who does not eat must not criticize one who does,” and “accept one another, just as the Messiah also accepted you” (Rom. 14:3; 15:7). So would the real apostle Paul please stand up? Which was it? The narrow-minded, dogmatic Paul who must have his own way in Galatia or the tolerant, diversity-loving Paul who advised the church at Rome? It’s both. To the believers at Corinth, at least on the question of meat sold at market that previously had been laid on an altar to false gods, it was the tolerant Paul. Even though Paul knew the so-called gods to whom the meat in question had been sacrificed were, in fact, not true gods and the meat was good as far as meat goes, he would not knowingly eat it in front of folks who viewed such meat consumption as an idolatrous act.

But why? Paul knew nothing was wrong with the meat. Why be deprived of a perfectly good steak on account of legalisms of fellow believers?

What’s Love Got to Do With It? (8:7–13)
The short answer to the question is that Paul also knew that love is the characteristic mark of Christian behavior, not knowledge as such. Now if a foundational issue is at stake, such as the very gospel of Jesus Christ within the church at Galatia, then tolerance of diversity becomes betrayal of our crucified and risen Savior and Lord. Compromise in this case is out of the question. But when secondary matters threaten to divide the body of Christ, it is better for those who possess superior knowledge on disputed questions to accommodate others at their own expense than to rip apart the body over a matter of secondary importance. Therefore Paul could say, “If food causes my brother to fall, I will never again eat meat, so that I won’t cause my brother to fall.”

Being right about fundamental doctrinal issues is worth fighting for and, if necessary, parting ways over. We must not compromise the gospel itself. We cannot equivocate over cardinal doctrines of the faith, such as the confession of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; of Jesus Christ as the fully human and fully divine sole mediator between God and sinful humanity; and of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ on the basis of Holy Scripture. But being right about secondary matters is no basis for insisting on one’s own way within the church. If we do so, then God’s Word says we are “sinning against Christ.” Those who pick fights over who is right and who is wrong while insisting on their own way may claim a love for truth, but tolerant, patient, self-sacrificing love displays genuine understanding of the truth and actually is walking in it, according to Paul. Love does not insist on its own way (1 Cor. 13:5).

The Burden of Discernment (10:31–33)
The message of our passage seems pretty clear and straightforward and parallels ancient Christian wisdom to this effect — in essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity. The problem arises in application when we are confronted with actual cases. On the one hand, those who reflexively defend themselves by an appeal to superior knowledge and then insist upon their own way have not understood the biblical way of love. On the other hand, those who refuse to take a stand on the foundational doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ also fail to recognize their loving responsibility to defend the truth of God. We must embrace our happy duty to discern the essential from the nonessential if we are to walk in the way of our Lord.