do this too

Posted on April 27, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (27)

1 Corinthians 11:23-25

1Co 11:23 Because this is what I received from the Lord, a truth I also passed on to you: On the night when He was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took bread,
1Co 11:24 And after he gave thanks, he broke it up, and said, “This represents mine — the body broken on behalf of you all. Do this so that you will remember of Me.”
1Co 11:25 In the same way, he poured the cup also, after they ate the bread, and this is what he said, “This cup is the new covenant, launched with my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

do this too

Paul’s words about the Lord’s Supper are often lifted out of their original setting and used—rightly—to guide the church in celebrating communion. But in their first context, these words were not spoken as a gentle liturgical reminder. They were part of a rebuke. Paul was confronting a congregation that had taken the sacred meal Christ gave and turned it into something unrecognizable.

The Lord Jesus had instituted this simple ritual on the night he was betrayed. It was meant to be a moment of remembrance, reflection, and proclamation. The bread represented his body given for humanity. The cup represented the new covenant established through his blood. The meal was intentionally small, intentionally symbolic, intentionally focused on Christ. Every action Jesus took that night was deliberate: he took the bread, he gave thanks, he broke it, he identified it with his own body, and he commanded his followers to remember him. The repetition of the pronouns in Paul’s retelling—he was betrayed… he took… he gave thanks… he broke… this is mine… remember me… my blood… in remembrance of me—drives home the point. The entire ritual centers on Christ.

In Corinth, that center had been lost. The church had merged the Lord’s Supper with their communal meals, and the result was chaos. Wealthier members arrived early and ate lavishly. Poorer members arrived later and found nothing left. The meal that was supposed to proclaim Christ’s self‑giving love had become an occasion for self‑indulgence. Instead of communion, there was competition. Instead of remembrance, there was revelry. Instead of unity, there was humiliation. The sacred had been swallowed up by the social.

Paul’s frustration was justified. The Corinthians were not merely mishandling a ritual; they were contradicting the very meaning of the gospel. The Lord’s Supper was designed to draw attention to Christ’s sacrifice, yet their behavior drew attention to themselves. The table that should have united them had become a place where the divisions within the church were most painfully visible.

In its original context, Paul’s recounting of Jesus’ words was meant to pull the Corinthians back to the heart of the meal. Christ broke the bread so that his followers would remember his broken body. Christ poured the cup so that his followers would remember the new covenant sealed with his own blood. These actions were never meant to be overshadowed by feasting or pride. They were meant to anchor the church in humility, gratitude, and unity.

The words remain appropriate for communion today, but their original force should not be forgotten. They call the church to remember Christ—and to let that remembrance shape behavior, relationships, and the way the body gathers at the table.

LORD, thank you for giving us a tangible way to regularly remember you, and your gift of grace when you gave yourself for our salvation.

Posted in atonement, communion, Jesus Christ | Tagged | Leave a comment

beast feast

Posted on April 26, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (26)

1 Corinthians 11:20-22

1Co 11:20 This is such a case: when you all come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s Supper.
1Co 11:21 Because at the meal, each one eats his own supper ahead of others. So one person is staying hungry while another is getting drunk!
1Co 11:22 I say this because … Don’t you have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you look down on the church of God and embarrass the ones who do not have what you have? What should I say to you? Should I show appreciation for you? I do not appreciate this behaviour!

beast feast

Paul had just explained that the various preference‑groups within the Corinthian church could be evaluated by the kinds of behaviors they displayed and tolerated. Some groups would reveal maturity, humility, and love; others would reveal pride, selfishness, and disorder. Now he turns to a concrete example that exposed the difference with painful clarity.

The Lord Jesus had instituted a simple, sacred meal on the night before his crucifixion. After celebrating the Passover with his disciples, he took bread and wine and gave them new significance. This small meal was meant to be repeated often. It was designed as a moment of solemn remembrance, a time to reflect on God’s grace, to proclaim the Lord’s death, and to examine one’s own heart. It was not a feast but a symbol. It was not a banquet but a confession. It was a communal act of worship meant to draw believers together in humility and gratitude.

In Corinth, that holy moment had been twisted into something unrecognizable. Instead of a shared remembrance, it had become a competitive feast. Instead of unity, there was division. Instead of reverence, there was indulgence. Some arrived early and ate greedily. Others were left hungry. The wealthy treated the gathering as an opportunity to display abundance, while the poor were humiliated. The meal that was supposed to proclaim the self‑giving love of Christ had become a stage for selfishness.

Paul’s reaction was sharp because the situation demanded it. The Corinthians had not merely misunderstood a ritual; they had violated the very meaning of the gospel. The Lord’s Supper was intended to embody Christ’s sacrifice, yet their behavior contradicted that sacrifice at every point. The confusion at the table revealed the deeper confusion in their hearts. The disorder of the meal exposed the disorder of their community.

This was Paul’s case in point. The preference‑groups within the church were not neutral. Some were fostering humility and discernment. Others were fostering arrogance and disregard for the body of Christ. The way the Corinthians handled the Lord’s Supper made it obvious which groups were worth following and which were not. The table of the Lord had become a mirror, revealing the true character of the congregation.

LORD, we thank you for giving us a means of reflecting on the marvel of your grace, demonstrated by the sacrificial death of our Saviour. May we treat this gift with respect and reverence.

Posted in communion, consideration of others, discernment, divisions, shame | Tagged | Leave a comment

helpful heresies

Posted on April 25, 2016 by Jefferson Vann

 

April 2016 (25)

1 Corinthians 11:17-19

1Co 11:17 But as I give this command, I cannot show appreciation, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse.
1Co 11:18 Because first, I hear that there are schisms among you when you come together as a church, and to some extent I believe it,
1Co 11:19 because there must be groups with different preferences among you, so that those of you who are approved may become obvious.

helpful heresies

1. Hairesis did not mean “heresy” in Paul’s day

The Greek word hairesis originally meant:

  • a group
  • a faction
  • a school of thought
  • a party within a larger community

It was used of:

  • the Pharisees
  • the Sadducees
  • the Essenes
  • the followers of various philosophers

None of these groups were considered “heretics” in the later, technical sense. They were simply identifiable subgroups.

Danker’s lexicon is right:
the later doctrinal meaning of “heresy” does not occur in the New Testament.

When English readers see “heresy,” they imagine false doctrine, damnable error, and theological rebellion. But Paul’s word simply described clusters of like‑minded people within a congregation.

2. Paul’s point: factions happen—but they reveal character

Paul acknowledges that such subgroups appear in many churches. People naturally gravitate toward those who share their preferences, practices, or personalities. That tendency is not automatically sinful. In fact, Paul says it can serve a purpose:

  • It reveals who is genuine
  • It exposes who is divisive
  • It clarifies who is walking in love and who is not

In other words, differences can help the church discern maturity.

But that only works as long as the subgroups remain charitable and humble.

3. When does a subgroup become a destructive “heresy”?

A subgroup becomes dangerous when it stops being a preference and starts becoming a power play.

Paul’s concern is not that believers have different practices. His concern is when one group:

  • tries to dominate the whole church
  • demands conformity
  • excludes or shames others
  • elevates its own preferences to divine law

That is the point where hairesis becomes what 2 Peter 2:1 calls a destructive heresy—not because of doctrinal nuance, but because of divisive ambition.

The problem is not difference.
The problem is division.

The problem is not variety.
The problem is animosity.

The problem is not clarification of truth.
The problem is tearing the body apart.

4. Paul’s message: truth must be clarified, but unity must be preserved

Paul never feared honest disagreement. He welcomed it when it led to clearer understanding of the gospel. But he opposed any spirit that:

  • weaponized differences
  • created hostility
  • exalted one group over another
  • fractured the church into rival camps

Clarification is God’s will.
Factionalism is not.

Paul’s concern is always the same:
the church must be able to tell the difference between healthy diversity and destructive division.

And that remains just as necessary today.

LORD, keep us true to your word, and appreciative of our different approaches to it.

Posted in balance, consideration of others, criticism, divisions, heresies, unity | Tagged | Leave a comment

same principle, different application

Posted on April 24, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (24)

1 Corinthians 11:11-16

1Co 11:11 All the same, a wife should not decide on this apart from her husband, nor a husband apart from his wife,
1Co 11:12 because just as the wife is from the husband, the husband is also on account of the wife. And it all comes from God.
1Co 11:13 Decide for yourselves: is it appropriate for a wife to pray to God uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you the answer, by the fact that when her husband has long hair, he is embarassed by it,
1Co 11:15 but if his wife has long hair, she is proud of it, because she was given it instead of a covering?
1Co 11:16 But if anyone still wants to argue about this, we do not actually practice anything else, nor do the churches of God.

same principle, different application

Paul’s argument here becomes beautifully clear once the cultural assumptions are stripped away and the principle beneath the practice is allowed to stand on its own.

1. Paul’s instruction was about dignity, not domination

In Corinth, some Christian husbands—aligned with the “freedom” faction—were insisting that their wives appear in public without their customary head coverings. Their reasoning was simple: “In Christ we are free. Cultural symbols don’t matter anymore.”

Their wives, however, understood the social reality. In that culture, an unveiled married woman was viewed with suspicion or shame. Only prostitutes appeared that way in public. So these wives appealed to Paul for help.

Paul’s response was pastoral and practical:

  • Husbands should not force their wives to abandon a cultural symbol that protected their dignity.
  • Wives should be allowed to follow their consciences.
  • Both husbands and wives, if they listened to their own hearts rather than to the “freedom” faction, would agree that keeping the veil was the honorable choice.

Paul’s reasoning had nothing to do with male authority.
It had everything to do with avoiding public embarrassment.

2. The cultural meaning of head coverings has changed

In most parts of the world today, a head covering no longer signals that a woman is married. It signals something entirely different—most commonly, that she is Muslim or part of a specific religious tradition.

To insist that Christian wives wear head coverings today would not preserve dignity. It would create confusion. It would communicate the wrong message. And it would produce the very embarrassment Paul was trying to prevent.

Paul’s principle remains timeless.
The cultural expression does not.

3. The principle stays the same; the application reverses

In Corinth:

  • Keeping the head covering on preserved dignity and avoided shame.
  • Removing it would have been socially inappropriate and spiritually unwise.

Today, in most cultures:

  • Keeping a head covering on would create confusion and embarrassment.
  • Removing it is the normal, dignified, culturally appropriate choice.

So the faithful application of Paul’s teaching today is the opposite of what the Corinthians did.

They obeyed Paul by keeping their head coverings on.
Modern believers obey Paul by keeping head coverings off.

The principle is unchanged:

Do not use Christian freedom in ways that embarrass, confuse, or dishonor one another.

The cultural expression simply shifts with time.

4. The heart of the passage

This text is not about:

  • hierarchy
  • male authority
  • universal dress codes

It is about:

  • mutual respect
  • cultural sensitivity
  • self‑judgment
  • the wise use of Christian freedom

Paul’s concern was never fabric on the head.
His concern was the posture of the heart.

More on that principle tomorrow.

LORD, give us the wisdom to do those things which lead to your glory, and to not do those things which would bring you dishonor.

Posted in bible study, consideration of others, discernment, head coverings, judgment, marriage | Tagged | Leave a comment

angels and authority

Posted on April 23, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (23)

1 Corinthians 11:7-10

1Co 11:7 Because, on the one hand, a husband should not have his head covered, since he is supposed to reflect the character and good reputation of God; on the other hand, his wife reflects her husband’s good reputation.
1Co 11:8 Because a husband is not from a wife, but a wife from a husband,
1Co 11:9 because a husband was not created on account of a wife, but a wife on account of the husband.
1Co 11:10 For this reason, the wife ought to have the right to decide about her head — because of the angels.

angels and authority

You will notice from my translation that I approach this text with a different set of assumptions. I am not convinced that Paul is trying to get rebellious women to submit to godly men. I am also pretty sure that Paul is not reflecting some theology of gender hierarchy that all Christians should accept on the same footing as the gospel. I was almost convinced of those two doctrines a few years ago, but now I see them as erroneous. The reason I changed my mind is that I seriously studied this text. I discovered that most translations reflect the assumptions related to those erroneous doctrines.

My assumption is that some husbands in Corinth are insisting that their wives go uncovered during worship, to prove that they are free to do so. The wives are horrified to do such an embarrassing thing, so they appealed to Paul. That is why Paul says something that seems so out of place if you think he is arguing for submission. He says that the wives should have the right to decide (exousia) what to do with their own heads (10).

He gives three reasons for this instruction: First, he says that what wives do reflects back (eikon) to their husbands’ reputation (doxa), so they should not be forced to do something that would shame their husbands (even if it is their husbands who want them to do it).

Secondly, he points back to creation, reminding the husbands that — like Eve — their wives were lovingly created on account of them. When they worship, they reflect that fact by wearing the head covering.

Thirdly, Paul reminds the Corinthians of what he said earlier in this letter about angels. “Do you not know that we are going to decide the fate of angels? So, why not questions of normal life?” (6:3). In that context, Paul was desperately trying to get the Corinthians to stop taking each other to secular court. He said that believers should be able to resolve their own conflicts because someday they will be deciding the fate of angels. He was teaching the principle of personal judgment. He’s doing the same thing in here chapter 11. He’s arguing that the wives of Corinth have the wisdom to decide for themselves whether or not to wear a head-covering when they worship.

LORD, forgive us for how we have abused this text to teach a doctrine of gender supremacy. Help us as husbands and wives to love one another and submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Posted in angels, consideration of others, discernment, head coverings, marriage, submission, worship | Tagged | Leave a comment

holiness and hats

Posted on April 22, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (22)

1 Corinthians 11:4-6

1Co 11:4 Any husband who decides to be praying or prophesying while having something against his head, puts his head to shame.
1Co 11:5 But any wife who decides to be praying or prophesying with her head uncovered puts her head to shame, since that is one and the same as having it shaved.
1Co 11:6 Because if a wife is not covering up her hair, she should cut it off; but if it is disgraceful for a wife to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should cover it.

holiness and hats

The idea that “all wives everywhere wore head coverings as a sign of their husbands’ authority” is simply not true. That claim is a modern projection backward, not a historical reality. What was true is far more specific, cultural, and practical.

1. In Corinth, a head covering functioned like a wedding ring

In first‑century Corinth, a married woman’s head covering signaled her marital status. It was a cultural marker, not a theological one. To appear in public without it was considered immodest, even provocative—much like a married person today removing a wedding ring before going out.

A wife who went unveiled in Corinth would “put her head to shame”—meaning:

  • she would embarrass herself
  • she would embarrass her husband
  • she would appear to be rejecting her marital identity

This was not about male authority. It was about public perception in a specific cultural setting.

And as you noted, many husbands today have no objection to their wives’ hair being visible. The cultural meaning has changed. The symbol no longer communicates what it once did.

2. The problem in Corinth was created by the “freedom” faction

Some husbands in the Corinthian church—aligned with the freedom group—insisted that their wives should go unveiled because “in Christ we are free.” They believed that Christian liberty meant rejecting cultural norms altogether.

Their wives, however, understood the social consequences. They did not want to be shamed publicly or mistaken for immodest women. So they appealed to Paul.

Paul’s response was pastoral and practical:

  • Husbands should not force their wives to abandon a cultural symbol that protected their dignity.
  • Insisting on such “freedom” was inconsiderate and socially foolish.
  • It would embarrass both the wives and the husbands.

Paul even flips the analogy: if a husband wore a woman’s head covering, it would be like cross‑dressing—socially inappropriate and publicly confusing.

His point is not about authority.
His point is about honor, propriety, and mutual respect.

3. This passage is about consideration, not holiness codes

Paul is not laying down a universal rule for all cultures. He is addressing a specific situation in Corinth where:

  • cultural symbols mattered
  • public shame was real
  • Christian liberty was being misused

The issue is not:

  • male authority
  • female subordination
  • eternal dress codes

The issue is:

  • don’t use freedom to embarrass your spouse
  • don’t use freedom to create unnecessary offense
  • don’t use freedom to act foolishly in public

This is the same principle Paul applies to meat offered to idols, lawsuits, and sexual ethics:
freedom must be governed by love.

4. The heart of the passage

This text is not about holiness in the sense of moral purity.
It is about social wisdom and relational consideration.

Paul is saying:

  • Don’t use Christian liberty to trample cultural sensitivities.
  • Don’t insist on your rights at the expense of someone else’s dignity.
  • Don’t confuse the watching world by behaving in ways that communicate the wrong message.

In short:

Freedom is never a license to behave foolishly.

More on headship—not hierarchy—tomorrow.

LORD, we do not want to put you to shame, either by how we dress, how we act, or what we profess. Teach us to be considerate of one another.

Posted in consideration of others, discernment, holiness, marriage, worship | Tagged | Leave a comment

headship and heartache

Posted on April 21, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (21)

1 Corinthians 11:1-3

1Co 11:1 Become imitators of me, like I seek to imitate Christ.
1Co 11:2 Now, I appreciate the fact that you have all remembered me and, are trying to hold to the traditions, in the same way that I passed them on to you,
1Co 11:3 but I want you to know what I meant when I said “the head of every husband is Christ, and the husband is head of a wife, and God is head of Christ.”

headship and heartache

Paul’s teaching in this passage becomes far clearer once all second‑person language is removed. What remains is a reflection on how the Corinthian church—and the modern church—has consistently misread Paul because of cultural assumptions about hierarchy.

Paul’s point about headship was almost entirely missed by the Corinthian believers. The same mistake continues in today’s church. Just as in first‑century Corinth, modern readers often approach marriage and gender through hierarchical lenses, and then use Paul’s words to defend long‑held traditions rather than to understand what he actually taught. Even Bible translators have sometimes allowed cultural assumptions to shape their renderings of this passage.

The problem is not the Scriptures themselves. The problem is the cultural baggage brought to the text. Every generation imagines itself to be independent in thought, yet all are shaped by the assumptions of the cultures in which they live. Because human cultures are shaped by sinful humanity, they often distort what God has revealed.

This distortion is evident in the way verse three is commonly read. Many preachers insist that Paul is laying out a divine hierarchy: God at the top, then Christ, then males, then females. Readers raised in hierarchical cultures naturally see the verse that way. But the order of subjects in the verse does not match a hierarchy at all. The sequence is: Christ as head of every husband, the husband, and God as head of Christ. If Paul intended to describe a chain of command, the order would begin with God and descend to women. Instead, Paul presents the relationships in a different pattern entirely.

Paul was not constructing a pecking order. He was not reinforcing cultural dominance. He was teaching headship, not hierarchy. The two concepts are not the same. The Corinthian believers misunderstood him because they assumed hierarchy. Modern readers often repeat the same error, causing unnecessary heartache and confusion.

Paul’s teaching stands as it is. The misunderstanding belongs to the interpreters, not to the apostle. More on the meaning of headship follows in the next reflection. More on this tomorrow.

LORD, forgive us for reading our cultural biases in the text of scripture. Help us to get closer to your heart, and avoid giving our loved ones heartache.

Posted in Bible, discernment, marriage, traditions, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

freedom and conscience (part 2)

Posted on April 20, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (20)

1 Corinthians 10:27-33

1Co 10:27 If someone from the unbelievers invites you over and you want to go, eat everything that is set before you, as long as you can do so with a clear conscience.
1Co 10:28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, out of consideration for the conscience of the one who told you.
1Co 10:29 I am not saying your own conscience should be bothered, but the other person’s might. Because “Why should my freedom be limited by a decision made by someone else’s conscience?”
1Co 10:30 “If I am sharing by grace, why should I be insulted over that which I am thankful for?”
1Co 10:31 This is why: whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1Co 10:32 Become blameless to Jews, and to Greeks, and to the church of God,
1Co 10:33 just like I also am trying to please all people in all things, not seeking my own benefit, but the benefit of many, so that they may be saved.

freedom and conscience (part 2)

Paul brings this long discussion to a sharp and pastoral conclusion. The freedom‑group in Corinth felt unfairly judged. They believed they were simply applying Paul’s own teaching: Christians are free, idols are nothing, and no one has the right to police another believer’s conscience. In principle, Paul agrees. Freedom in Christ is real. The gospel does not create a new legalism. But Paul insists that freedom is not the highest principle in the Christian life.

There is something greater—the advance of the gospel and the glory of God.

Freedom is good, but the gospel is better

Paul refuses to let the Corinthians treat liberty as the ultimate measure of Christian maturity. The question is never merely, “Am I allowed to do this?” The real question is, “Does this help or hinder the mission of Christ?”

Paul’s own life is the clearest example.
He had rights.
He had freedoms.
He had preferences.
But he consistently laid them aside for one reason: so that more people might come to know Christ.

He says, in effect:

  • If adjusting my lifestyle helps someone hear the gospel, I’ll adjust.
  • If giving up a freedom removes an obstacle, I’ll give it up.
  • If pleasing others opens a door for Christ, I’ll gladly do it.

This is not people‑pleasing. It is mission‑pleasing. Paul’s aim was not to win approval but to win souls.

The freedom group had missed the point

They were defending their rights, but Paul was defending the reputation of Christ.
They were concerned about being judged, but Paul was concerned about unbelievers being reached.
They were focused on what they could do, but Paul was focused on what would glorify God.

Christian liberty is never an excuse for self‑indulgence. It is a tool for gospel service.

The principle for us

Paul’s words land squarely in our generation. We also live in a culture obsessed with personal rights, personal expression, and personal preference. But the Christian life is not built on personal rights. It is built on self‑giving love.

Our choices—what we watch, what we consume, what we participate in—should be shaped by a single question:

Does this enhance the reputation of Christ and help others see Him more clearly?

That is the higher principle.
That is the mature principle.
That is the principle Paul lived by.

And it is the one he calls us to embrace.

LORD, give us a heart to reach others with the gospel, and a commitment to be blameless in everyone’s sight in order to accomplish that mission.

Posted in conscience, consideration of others, freedom, gospel | Tagged | Leave a comment

freedom and conscience (part 1)

Posted on April 19, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (19)

1 Corinthians 10:23-26

1Co 10:23 “I am allowed to do anything,” but not everything is profitable. “I am allowed to do anything,” but not everything contributes positively.
1Co 10:24 No one should search for what he prefers, but search for what the other person prefers.
1Co 10:25 Eat anything sold in the market as long as there is no question in your own conscience,
1Co 10:26 because the land and all it contains belongs to the Lord.

freedom and conscience (part 1)

The freedom‑loving faction in Corinth had built a whole identity around the idea that Christians can do anything they want. The question of eating meat sacrificed to idols became their favorite example. To them, the logic was airtight: the meat belongs to God, idols are nothing, and therefore no one should feel guilty about eating it. Paul does not deny the principle. In fact, he affirms it. The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it. Nothing in creation is off‑limits simply because someone misused it.

But Paul refuses to let the conversation stop at principle. Christian freedom is never exercised in a vacuum. Two questions must always be asked before a believer “chows down,” as you put it.

1. What is happening inside your own heart?

Paul wants each believer to examine his or her conscience. Is this something you can do with a clean heart before God? Is there any lingering association with your old life? Does this feel like freedom, or does it feel like compromise? Liberty is not meant to override conscience. If your heart is uneasy, your freedom is not the issue—your integrity is.

2. What is happening around you?

Even if your conscience is clear, what about the people watching you? How will your choice affect them? Will it confuse a new believer? Will it embolden someone to violate their own conscience? Will it send a message you never intended to send? Freedom that harms another believer is not freedom at all. It becomes a stumbling block.

Paul’s point is simple but profound:
Christian freedom is always shaped by Christian love.

The Corinthians needed to hear that, and so do we. Our choices—what we eat, what we watch, what we drink, what we participate in—are never just about us. They ripple outward. They shape the faith of others. They either honor Christ or obscure him.

LORD, teach us to be considerate of and thoughtful in everything we do.

That is the posture of a mature believer—one who values people more than personal rights, and Christ’s honor more than personal preference.

(More on this subject tomorrow)

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in conscience, discernment, freedom, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

too far

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Jefferson Vann
April 2016 (18)

1 Corinthians 10:19-22

1Co 10:19 What am I saying then? That something offered to idols is real, or that an idol is real?
1Co 10:20 Instead, I am saying that what they sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. I do not want you to become sharers of demons.
1Co 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot share in the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
1Co 10:22 Or have we started provoking the Lord to jealousy now? We have not become stronger than him — have we?

too far

The group in Corinth advocating for eating meat offered to idols was almost certainly the faction that championed Christian freedom. Their reasoning sounded persuasive, even biblical. They argued that since Christ had fulfilled the law, believers were no longer bound by the dietary restrictions of the old covenant. To them, meat was simply meat. The fact that it had passed through a pagan ritual did not alter its substance. And to strengthen their case, they likely quoted Paul’s own teaching on liberty—statements such as:

“The one who abstains must not criticize the one who eats anything, because God has accepted him… To his own lord he stands or falls.” (Rom. 14:3–4 JDV)

And again:

“Each of us will give an account of himself to God.” (Rom. 14:10–12 JDV)

These verses emphasize personal responsibility before God, the freedom of conscience, and the danger of judging fellow believers. The freedom group in Corinth seized on these truths and used them to defend their participation in meals that included meat previously offered to idols. Their arguments were sharp, their confidence high, and their numbers likely significant. They were winning debates because they were appealing to a real biblical principle: the believer’s accountability to God alone.

But Paul saw the danger beneath their logic. They were taking a true principle and stretching it beyond its proper boundaries. Christian liberty is real, but it is not absolute. Freedom in Christ is never a license to indulge in practices that dishonor Christ or harm his people. The freedom group had forgotten that liberty must always be governed by love. They were so focused on what they were allowed to do that they failed to consider what their actions communicated, encouraged, or damaged in the lives of others.

Paul’s correction is gentle but firm. Knowledge alone is not enough. Freedom alone is not enough. The question is not merely, “Am I allowed to do this?” but “Does this honor Christ, and does it build up his people?” When liberty becomes self‑indulgence, it ceases to be liberty at all. It becomes a stumbling block.

The Corinthians needed that reminder, and so does every generation of believers. Freedom is a gift, but it is a gift meant to be exercised in the service of Christ, not at the expense of his body.

LORD, give us the wisdom to check our freedom so that we do take it too far.

Posted in balance, discernment, freedom, self-control | Tagged | Leave a comment