As Paul attempts to unravel the great debate over meat offered to idols in 1 Corinthians 8-9, he makes a statement in chapter eight that caught me by surprise. In 1 Corinthians 8:8, Paul writes, "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do."The reason this caught me by surprise is because Paul seems to be saying, "Food really isn't that important in the big scheme of things. It doesn't make or break your Christian life." This is similar to a lot of the argumentation I have heard regarding "gray areas" or "matters of personal liberty." The argument goes like this: "________ (you fill in the blank: social drinking, movies, smoking, music, clothing, etc.) isn't a big deal. It doesn't make me any more or less spiritual to involve myself with this. Get off my back. Don't be a legalist. I can take it or leave it."
And that almost seems to be what Paul is saying in this verse. Almost. In fact, when I read it rather quickly the other day, I thought this was what I saw: "Food will not commend us to God. We are no better off if we don't eat and no worse off if we don't eat." But that is not what it says. Do you see the difference? Paul actually says this: Meat offered to idols doesn't bring us closer to God. If we avoid this thing, we will not be any worse off (spiritually or physically). However, if we indulge ourselves, that won't help us any either. We have nothing to gain by engaging in this questionable activity.
Can we live without meat? Sure we can. Could we survive without entertainment? I would imagine we could. Could we make it through life if we didn't drink alcohol? I bet we could. Would life as we know it end if we couldn't engage in some questionable activity? Probably not. Do any of those things help us draw closer to God and build up our brothers in Christ?
I thought about all the times I had heard "It's not a big deal" and the conclusion then was "so I'll go ahead and indulge." But Paul says, "It's not a big deal, so it's not problem for me to abstain." This is the difference between a self-centered focus and a genuine love for others. Paul's conclusion was, "If food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (8:13).
Comments
I have enjoyed your blog. Very good work.
I think the point about that phrase is that food/meat is morally neutral. It neither helps nor hinders our walk with God. What makes the whole issue an issue at all is not the food/meat in and of itself but its ASSOCIATION with idol worship.
However, it still seems to me that Paul's point in the second half of 8:8 is that food (in this specific case, meat offered to idols) is not morally neutral. If it were neutral, I would expect that he would say, "We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do not eat." In other words, it doesn't help or hinder our walk with God. But Paul says, "We are no worse off if we do not eat, and not better off if we do [eat]." So there is no advantage to eating meat, and there is no disadvantage to not eating meat.
This is like saying "You wouldn't be disappointed if you didn't do Thing A and you wouldn't be any better off if you did Thing A." That's not the same as saying, "Thing A or Thing B-- doesn't really matter which one." Maybe I'm straining out gnats while I swallow the proverbial camel (or maybe just starting to sound like Dr. Seuss), but I expected it to read "eating or not-- doesn't really matter." But it doesn't say that. Paul's argument is definitely slanted toward not eating meat. It seems that, based on his argument in chapter 10 that he saw eating meat offered to idols (or at least meat eaten in idol temples) as morally unacceptable.
If it were neutral, I would expect that he would say, "We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do not eat." In other words, it doesn't help or hinder our walk with God. But Paul says, "We are no worse off if we do not eat, and not better off if we do [eat]." So there is no advantage to eating meat, and there is no disadvantage to not eating meat.
Am I missing something? Help me if I am! :-)
I think they both indicate a morally neutral item, but the second is the way you have to say it, if you are going to go on and make the applications that Paul plans to make, i.e., eating could be bad and not eating could be good.