The discussion on food sacrificed to idols is very culturally contextualized. Applying what Paul teaches here is truly more about the principles he uses rather than the practice. But there are ample places to apply the principles. As you study this chapter, see what contemporary cultural practice you can come up with that will form a decent parallel to the application of these principles. It may not be easy, and we will all need to make some concessions as to points of similarity and difference. I'm not convinced there is a modern practice that will fit as nicely into this discussion as sacrificial food did then. But there may be. See what you can find.
Read through this very short chapter a few times. In this chapter, since it's so short, you may more easily see the argument structure Paul uses to start. As you read through, look for argument structures, but also different words in different translations, changes in sentence structure, and anything you find surprising or noteworthy. After going through a few times, read back through with these questions:
- Why do you think Paul makes reference to 'knowledge' right at the beginning?
- How do you think it's possible that if you think you know, you're actually stupid?
- Why do you think being known by God is a 'counter point' to knowing something?
- What do you think Paul meant by 'many gods and many lords'?
- Look at verse 6 in several translations, as many as you can find. Do any of them structure it as a 'poem'? What do you think that might mean if it was a poem?
- In verse 7 Paul gets at other side of the problem with food sacrificed to idols. Essentially, this 'knowledge' that there is only One God isn't 'universal' within the church. What possible modern situation can you think of that parallels this problem?
- Paul concedes that eating does not commend or convict us before God. Considering Paul's Jewish roots, what do changes in thinking you think Paul had to make to come to that conclusion?
- In verse 9, Paul lays out the principle he uses to begin this argument. What can you think of today where we can apply this principle?
- In verse 10, the effect is that one without the underlying knowledge eats (and sins in his mind/heart). Why do you think the solution is not 'education'? Why do you think abstinence is the only option Paul will recommend?
- For the one without knowledge to eat means that he is 'ruined', the brother for whom Christ died. So what is it that constitutes sin, the action or the heart and belief? Do you think that's always true?
- To cause another to 'stumble' in their walk with Jesus is to sin against Jesus. Do you think this is also about the heart and belief as opposed to action?
- Do you think Paul is advocating a 'vegan' lifestyle?
No comments:
Post a Comment