Just For Fun

This is an essay I wrote for class earlier this week. I should warn you, it is long and you don't care. Basically, the point of the essay was to exegete, theologize, and apply any text I wanted in about 1000 words.

The text in question is I Corinthians 10:1-13.

To begin to understand these verses, one must first consider the context. Beginning in chapter eight, Paul is answering a question posed to him by the Corinthian church concerning “food sacrificed to idols” (I Cor. 8:1). The church in Corinth seems to have differing opinions over whether or not a Christian can eat meat that has been sacrificed to an idol. That is, some Christians were eating meat bought from a pagan temple and eating, while others felt that doing so was engaging in the worship of other, pagan deities. Paul’s argument concerning this issue is long and complex, such that it is hard to understand what exactly is the point for which he argues. He begins in chapter eight by showing how idols represent literally nothing, so it is acceptable to eat this meat because it has in reality been sacrificed to nothing. Yet, Paul’s answer is not a simple “yes;” it is the dreaded “yes, but….” The “but” concludes chapter eight: “Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall” (8:13). Paul then argues in all of chapter nine for a Christian understanding of “rights.” That is, how a Christian should understand his or her rights in relation to others. Ultimately, the only right that Paul will claim is that he might “become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some” (9:22). Following this declaration is Paul’s sport analogy where he argues that the Christian life should be driven by Kingdom purposes. This leads directly into the content of 10:1-13.

Paul’s single-minded devotion to God’s purposes motivates him to forsake his right to eat meat sacrificed to idols for the sake of his brother. This idea leads Paul to argue from the example of Israel. He begins by paralleling Israel with the Corinthian church. Israel, like them, received a water and spirit baptism (10:2). So also Israel was nourished spiritually in Christ (10:3-4). Yet, in spite of this calling to be God’s chosen people, they repeatedly fell short of God’s call and suffered the consequences (10:5-10). Paul says that these events transpired (presumably, in part) as an example and warning to those who would follow those desert wanderers. Israel, who had just experienced the pinnacle of their history in the Exodus and receiving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, was still susceptible to failure. In the same way, the Christians in Corinth, who had received the very pinnacle of God’s revelation of his redemptive history, are still susceptible (10:12). Yet, being susceptible is not the same as being hopeless, for hope is found in the help of God (10:13). Thus, from Israel’s history, Paul teaches the Corinthian church how they are to think about themselves in relation to the way they treat those brothers and sisters who do not share their opinion about eating meat sacrificed to idols.

From the meager exegetical work above, the primary principle that one should draw from the passage in question concerns the claiming of perceived rights. That is, Christians ought to give up their rights for the sake of their fellow Christians. This practical principle is driven by another, more theoretical principle. This principle is addressed more in chapter nine. The reason Christians give up their rights for the sake of others is because of their whole-hearted devotion to the gospel of Christ (9:12). Paul embodies this principle: “But I have not used nay of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me. I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast” (9:15). Thus, the normative principle for Paul is single-minded devotion to the cause of Christ. Paul applies this in principle generally as the forsaking of one’s rights. In his context, this plays out as a Christian abstaining from meat sacrificed to idols for the conscience of his brother.

Paul can argue for and apply these principles based on the history of God’s redemptive acts in the world. That is, Paul does not argue in or from a vacuum. The foundation of his argument is the very cause of Christ for which he forsakes his rights. At the heart of the story in which Paul places all others, including his and the Corinthian church, is the one, true Redeemer. It is God who seeks always redemption for His creation. Yet this redemption does not occur through victory and oppression, but through death and resurrection. It would be through the death and resurrection of His chosen people that God redeemed his covenant with Abraham. It would be through the death and resurrection of His Son that God would fulfill his redemptive plan. In the Incarnation and subsequent death and resurrection of Jesus, God forsook his divine rights. In fact, at the end of his address on eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul appeals to this divine example (11:1). It is this act of God through Christ - the very culmination of His redemptive history - that necessitates singular devotion to the Gospel of Jesus.

This devotion is fundamentally characteristic of the Christian life. Because of what God has done, the Christian no longer lives a self-centered life. Rather, imitating Paul imitating Christ, the Christian lives a life of sacrifice for the cause of the Gospel. This story of what God has done, that shapes the life of the believer, also has relevance for others. As such, he is not wiling to let himself be arrogant concerning his call. No one is worthy of the call of Christ. Thus, he is concerned that when Christians start claiming their rights at the expense of others, especially other Christians, it will detract from the story of what God has done. Paul sees the Gospel as suffering most when Christians are self-centered

Application begins with the two principles that gird Paul’s argument in this text: devotion to the Gospel and the forsaking of personal rights. Many in our contemporary context view personal rights and freedoms as the core of a new gospel. Freedom to speak or believe whatever one wants has become the fundamental “right” of humanity. The elevation of the individual is the result. And, as such, the oppression and coercion of others for the sake of the individual is rampant. In this setting, Paul’s theology is distinctly counter-cultural. The Christian faith has never been about claiming one’s rights. The consequences of human fallenness are what belong rightfully to humanity. No one seems to be claiming these, however. Christians who stridently claim their rights and freedoms need to consider then their perspective. It seems that too often their perspective is more American than Christian. Thus, in a passage of Scripture that often seems confusing and out of place, the example of Israel remains relevant. The calling to Christ is not an elevation to higher status. The joy of a life in Christ is living the life of Christ (Philippians 2:5-11). The glory of a Christian is the glory of the cross. This selfless forsaking of human rights is possible only when one’s story is found in the story of the one, true God. The story of what God has done places all things in clear perspective. And, as Christian center their lives around this Gospel, they find that they would rather not claim their right, but only their cross. They trust not in themselves, but only in God, who is faithful.