(1Co 10:19-20 ESV) 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.
Paul denies the reality of Apollo and Zeus and Venus, but he declares that they are false fronts for demons. And this is a little surprising to most Westerners.
In fact, the Bible never claims that there are no spiritual beings other than the Triune God. The Gospels plainly admit the existence of Satan and various personal demons. We covered this in some detail in this brief series:
Atonement: The Powers in the Old Testament
Atonement: The Powers in the New Testament, an Introduction
Atonement: Further on Christus Victor and Paul’s Epistles
Atonement: Reflecting on the Powers, Part 1
Atonement: Reflecting on the Powers, Part 2
Atonement: Reflecting on the Powers, Part 3 (Repaired)
With Jesus enthroned in heaven and God’s victory over the Powers assured, Paul can refer to the “gods” of the nations as “demons.” No longer, if ever, in power but nonetheless enemies of God.
Paul is careful not to say too much about these powers. He doesn’t want the Corinthian Christians to get too interested in them, and doesn’t claim to know all that much about what precisely they are. Enough to know, as we are rediscovering in our own day even in the secularized Western world, that there are evil forces, that it’s possible for humans to give them power by worshipping them, and that the whole subculture of idol-worship, drunken orgies and the like is the kind of seedbed in which that power grows best.
Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: 1 Corinthians (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2004), 133.
(1Co 10:21-22 ESV) 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Paul is now very, very plain. You cannot do this! Do what? Eat meat? No, you may not eat meat that you know to be sacrificed to an idol. Why not? Because in that culture, to do this is to worship that idol. Even if in your heart the idol does not exist, you are still engaged in an act of worship to an enemy of Christ — one of the beings Christ gave his life to defeat. You must not go there!
Paul next transitions to the realm of expedience, but up to this point, his argument is not expedience or love for one’s brother. It’s the utter wrongness of engaging in idol worship — even a little bit. Even if you don’t believe in idols.
(1Co 10:23 ESV) 23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.
We again meet one of the more misused passages in the New Testament. It’s familiar argumentation among the conservative Churches of Christ to cite this verse as allowing things not otherwise authorized as a matter of expedience. It’s a verse used to soften the severity of the Regulative Principle, that is, the false teaching that all that is without authority is sin. To avoid some of harshness of the rule, we argue that expedience is a form of authority from this verse.
But what the verse says is that expedience can limit what is otherwise permitted. This is not a broadening but a narrowing of what is allowed.
Of course, it’s narrowing from “All things are lawful.” It’s says that the freedom we have in Christ does not allow us to do things that don’t build up or that aren’t helpful.
Now, Paul could not be further from the Regulative Principle. He’s not creating a list of means by which something might be found “lawful.” Rather, he’s starting with “All things are lawful” and then excluding those things that are not helpful or edifying (building up).
The word translated “helpful” (ESV) or “expedient” (KJV) is a pragmatic word. It’s about what helps or benefits. It’s not theological, but practical.
The word translated “edify” (KJV) or “build up” (ESV) sounds more theological, because preachers like to say “edify.” But “edify” is from the Greek word from which we get “edifice” and refers to building a building — or figuratively building or constructing anything. Paul likes to use it of building up a person.
Again, it’s a very pragmatic word that should not be distorted into a Aristotelian syllogism. It’s just about whatever builds people up. We should not try to complicate it.
Hence, Paul is starting with — literally — everything is lawful, and then he narrows it pragmatically, but within the Christian worldview, to whatever helps or builds up. It becomes a judgment call, and what is right or wrong may well depend on circumstances, as Paul is about to explain.
(1Co 10:24 ESV) 24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.
Paul now brings in another principle: “Love your neighbor.” It’s the Golden Rule and one of the Greatest Commandments and Torah. How do I know what helps and builds up? Well, are you acting out of love for your neighbor or for yourself?
Notice the sacrifice required. After all, we were just talking about the Lord’s Supper! Therefore, seek your neighbor’s good — and not your own. Hang your own good on the cross.
And here you have Christian ethics in a nutshell, as taught by Paul. And it’s the exact opposite of “You may only do the authorized.” Rather, it’s “Do anything that’s an act of love toward your neighbor, that helps, that builds up.”
May I support an orphanage from the church treasury? Does it build up? Does it help? Is it an act of love for others and not yourself?
May I hire a located preacher? May I build a fellowship hall? May I build a kitchen in the building?
Notice how frivolous these questions become in light of Paul’s ethics of love rather than the Churches of Christ ethics of authority. Paul would declare, yes, you need a authority — and love is a command that authorizes! Love your neighbor carries with it the authority to love your neighbor.
But perhaps there are ways to love our neighbor that are unauthorized? Nope. There’s not the least hint of such a doctrine here. The question of authority doesn’t arise in Paul’s decision making at all. The question of certain semi-secret approved methods is not here. Just purposes and discernment, wisdom and love.
He doesn’t look for limitations concealed in the silences of the scriptures. Rather, he asks whether an action is truly one of love — bounded by the command to love God. Therefore, no, we may not go to parties with friends whom we love if to do so would be to blaspheme God. Love for our neighbor has boundaries.
There is the “rub” as it were. It is the POWER PLAY that reveals the soulful (not spiritual) nature of the one making the play — without regard to the question at hand. In the above scenario, BOTH could be wrong, because of the attitude of the soul which may on the part of both, insist on having their way — a clear violation of 1Cor 13:5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, NASB
The point of my earlier post was broader that a single issue — Jay simply used an illustration. When brothers seek their own way rather than a way of edifying peace the definition of love is violated: 1 Cor 13:5 . . .It is (not) rude, it is (not) self-serving, it is (not) easily angered or resentful
NET. It is when we see the antithesis of Paul’s description that the theological thermostat begins to break over the top and poisonous mercury spreads abroad.
We are called to peace.
Respectfully,
I believe that the idea that “love authorizes” kinda misses the point. Didn’t Paul also say “where there is no law, there is no sin”? And didn’t John say that “Sin is lawlessness”? Rather, I think “love is the standard” is a better choice.