Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: 1 Corinthians 8 | Date: August 22, 2010 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

By that, my son’s gift of vague subtlety is something he gets from his mother. I enjoyed the singing this morning. I couldn’t help but smile during the first song when many of you took to clapping. I remembered the first time that I preached in an African-American congregation. The pastor was a good friend of mine. He’s gone to be with the Lord now; he was a wonderful man. And we white folks were clearly outnumbered in that congregation that day. And they went to clapping. They are much more expressive in their churches than we tend to be. And I noticed as I looked around that all of the regulars there were clapping on the second and fourth beat, and all the white folk were clapping on the first and third. And today, what was happening was, while some of you were following the drum and going on the second and fourth, and some of you were doing the first and third, I remembered what that pastor said to me afterwards. He says, “White folk can’t clap.”

First Corinthians, Chapter 8. First Corinthians, Chapter 8. Today we deal with the subject of Christian freedom and the demands of the gospel. Christian freedom and the demands of the gospel—we’ll be trying to look at both 1 Corinthians 8 and 9, but we’ll spend most of our time in Chapter 8. 1 Corinthians Chapter 8, beginning with verse 1:

“Now, about food sacrificed to idols, we know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up. But love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. But the man who loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no god but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things come and for whom we live. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food, they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God, and we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you have this knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother for whom Christ died is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 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.”

Let’s look to the Lord in prayer. Our Father, we pray that You will help us by this passage from Your Word to recognize what is important and what is not. And we pray that You’ll help us to recognize afresh the centrality of the gospel. And we pray that You would give us then to give all of our energies to advancing that. And we pray that You’d not let us hinder it in any way. We pray in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Christian Freedom And The Demands Of The Gospel

Someone has said that the definition of a legalist is someone who lives in dread and fear that someone somewhere is having too much fun. And I suppose some have said by the same token that an antinomian—that is someone who doesn’t give enough care to the law of God—an antinomian is someone who really does have too much fun. Well, some of the implications of the way that’s phrased may not be good, but the point is well made and it has everything to do with this passage that we’re looking at this morning.

Whenever the subject of Christian liberty is addressed, I’m almost sure to make somebody uncomfortable. On the one side, there’s going to be the people listening who fear that the preacher is not going to uphold their particular scruples—what they have demanded, how they have staked out their freedom and limited it as they think is right. I might, in the way that I express this doctrine this morning, make some think that I’ve given some people more liberty than they ought to have. On the other side are going to be those who may fear that I really have restricted their fun too much. I’m not giving them enough license, enough freedom. On both sides, there are going to be those who maybe feel pressure to adjust their thinking a little bit. That’s always a difficult thing. And then, of course, the fear on the part of the preacher himself, that he’s either going to be at the end of this sermon labeled a legalist or an antinomian, or as things go, both.

Here all along, you have recognized the evil of Halloween. And you’ve recognized that with all of its fascination with ghosts and ghouls and goblins and its fascination with death, that a Christian has no part in that whatever—only to find that someone else in this, what you thought was a good church, every Halloween dresses up their children in a funny little costume and lets them go out and get candy. You enjoyed going to the theater with your family watching the Harry Potter movies, only to find that there are other people in this congregation who firmly believe that no Christian has any right whatever to go to the theater, and in particular, not to watch anything on the dark side like Harry Potter. Where do we go?

I was confronted by a church member some years ago who was a little bit upset with me for something I preached in this area, this way of thinking. He said, “All my kids’ lives, I’ve taught them that this particular thing was wrong.” And he said, “Now they come to church and they hear from you that it’s not necessarily wrong.” What do you do? Well, the reality is we don’t come to church and we don’t come to the Bible, I trust, in order to get our opinions confirmed. Ideally, we come to get our opinions adjusted to what God has said. And hopefully, that’s what we can do this morning as we look at this and try to see that we won’t stake out exactly the limits of freedom so much as in particulars, as in general and principle here as Paul does here in this passage.

Now About Food Sacrificed To Idols

Now, we might laugh at the particular problem that was at issue in the church of Corinth. To us, this is not an issue at all. You’ll notice how Paul begins the chapter: “Now, about food sacrificed to idols.” The first two words there signal us to something of a shift, a change of thought. This is pretty much the way Paul outlines this letter to the Corinthians. He’s dealing with one problem after another that he’s been made aware of in the church at Corinth, and so he takes up each issue. Now about this. Now about that. Now about food sacrificed to idols.

Evidently, some had the audacity—some Christians in the church at Corinth—to shop for their meat at the meat market attached to the pagan temple. Here was meat that had been offered to false gods in worship. And now the leftover that had not gone to the priests, the leftover had been brought out to the market for sale. Well, that would be a horrible thing to buy and to eat that kind of meat. Number one, that’s supporting paganism. Number two, the meat’s contaminated. It’s got idols attached to it somehow. Of course you wouldn’t buy or eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols.

Well, some had done it and some in the church were very bothered by that, and they’re watching this happen and transpire in the church and it becomes some sort of a problem in the church at Corinth. And for some in particular, this was a real problem—enough that the Apostle Paul had to write to address it. Somehow they had thought then that some in the church were wrongly associating with the former pagan religion. And they thought that we ought to stay at least a step removed from it in this way. But not unlike church problems today, we look back at that and we snicker. And I wonder if in a generation or two they might look back at some of the things that we have. We shouldn’t have drums in church. Or should we or should we not drink that glass of wine with dinner and some of the scruples that we have in churches today?

Well, as you might expect, the Apostle Paul begins answering this question by answering it directly and then goes on to expand on some of the implications of it and to qualify it a bit. But his direct answer in this question is given to us in verses 4 through 6. And he tells us here that the problem itself is answered by a healthy dose of basic theology. Verses 4 to 6: “So then about eating food sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing at all in the world. There’s no God but one. Even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth… for us, there’s just one God, the Father from whom all things come, for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came.”

There’s only one God. An idol is nothing. Is an idol really a god? No, an idol is not really a god. And so, if the meat has been offered to the idol, has it been offered to a false god? Well, in a sense, but it’s a false god who really is no god at all. And therefore, this is a non-issue. There’s nothing wrong with the meat. It’s not contaminated with paganism as such. And Paul’s answer simply is, this is a non-issue. Meat sacrificed to an idol? So what? It’s just meat. And you’re not participating in false worship just by eating the meat that had been offered in that pagan temple.

Now, in Chapter 10, Paul will pick up on the question in a bit of its relations, and that is the Christian has no right to participate in the false worship itself. That’s another matter. But the meat itself, he says, is nothing. As Paul says in Romans 14 and verse 14, there is nothing unclean of itself. Christianity is not made up of holy objects and unholy objects and such. So Paul says this is a non-issue. And he comes down then on the side of freedom, a freedom that’s grounded in an honest assessment of reality. There are no false gods. They’re a non-entity. Meat that’s been offered in pagan worship is a non-issue. Meat is meat. Have at it.

The same we have in verse 8. Food does not bring us near to God. We’re no worse if we do not eat, no better if we do. That is, this is an irrelevant issue. It’s a non-issue. Now, some of you have probably heard the word adiaphora—things that are indifferent, things that are non-essential. We have freedom in matters that are indifferent. And that’s Paul’s teaching here. In itself, this is neither good nor evil. As I say in Chapter 10, he’ll forbid idolatry or participation in the pagan religion itself. But these non-essentials, he says, you have to recognize are non-essential. The Christian faith is made up of bigger things than this. As Paul says in Romans Chapter 14, the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, joy, and peace in the Holy Spirit. So it’s made up of other things entirely. This is a non-essential; this is a non-issue.

And Paul teaches us here the simple rule that where biblical commands are absent, and where biblical principles do not specifically apply, Christian freedom begins. Let me say it again. Where biblical commands are absent and where biblical principles do not specifically apply, Christian freedom begins. And he says this is one of those issues; it’s a non-issue. It’s not worth fighting over. So in non-essentials then, he says in effect: make up your own mind as to what you will or will not do—and here’s the trick—and allow your brother the same freedom. That’s the tough part, isn’t it? I can stake out the limits of my freedom, and I know what’s right and wrong, and I know where I shouldn’t cross the line. The problem comes when you don’t draw your line in the same place, and now I know you’re carnal. That’s the problem with Christian freedom. But if we would recognize that non-essentials are not essential—brilliant, isn’t it?—if we would recognize that non-essentials are not essential, what a more peaceful experience church life would be.

The Weak Versus The Strong

Now, in keeping with all of this, before we move on, I want you to notice how the Apostle Paul characterizes the two sides in this discussion. You’ll see it in verses 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. But let’s just look at it in verse 7. Notice how he characterizes who are the weak: “Not everyone knows this. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food, they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol. And since their conscience is weak, it is defiled.” So we have the weak versus the strong in this passage. That is, the immature versus the mature.

And what’s interesting in all of this—it’s ironic in some circles, the circles I come from, in fundamentalist circles—what’s ironic here is that it is the person with the strong convictions who’s characterized by the Apostle Paul as weak. Now, that doesn’t mean that if you have strong convictions, it’s a sign of weakness. But it does mean that it’s possible to have a very strong conviction that is wrong. Here these people are tightening up and they’re holding firm to their convictions and they’re very strong in this matter. And Paul says it’s a sign of weakness. Their conscience has not matured. Their conscience has not been sufficiently informed yet. They’ve not grown in their understanding of grace enough yet to know that this is a non-issue. This isn’t worth fighting over. And that is a sign of weakness. And their contentiousness over this issue reflects a lack of understanding on their part. In that sense, they are weaker believers. It doesn’t mean they’re insincere. It just means that they have not recognized the implications of the Christian faith sufficiently.

In fact, it was the weak brother then who was causing the disturbance in the church of Corinth on this score. It wasn’t the exercise of freedom that was wrong here. It was the weak brother imposing his scruples on others that brought the disturbance in the church—needless convictions being enforced on the rest of the church. And it was the mature Christian, in turn, who realizes, verse 8, that this meat issue is nothing. I’m no better if I eat, no worse if I don’t. This is a non-issue.

Now, clearly there’s more to the problem than just that, and that’s why Paul expounds it the way he does here and then spends so much time on this in Chapter 9 and in Chapter 10 as well. And he states the problem in verse 7: “Not everyone knows this.” That is, not everyone has this degree of understanding. Not everyone’s conscience has been sufficiently informed to give them the freedom that some of you exercise. Not everyone knows this. Now, they knew that the pagan deities did not exist. They knew that that old religion was nothing. But they were not yet so spiritually strengthened in Christ to recognize that the meat issue was not an issue. They thought that was too close to paganism and so their conscience bothered them if they ate. And so Paul says, not all know this. This, by the way, is one of the practical values of an increasing understanding of biblical doctrine. It frees us up on issues like this.

But now, did you notice in all of this the premium that Paul places on love in this discussion? Verses 1 to 3, let’s see that again. “Now about food sacrificed to idols, we know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up. But love builds up, and the man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know, but the man who loves God is known by God.” That is to say, love is a higher virtue. Can I say this? Love is a higher virtue than theological education. This is Paul’s point here, because your knowledge, if that’s all that you have, may just serve to puff you up and make you feel superior. But if you love, then by definition, you will be very careful to build up your brother and not to harm him.

Now, of course, Paul here is not deprecating knowledge in any way. That’s why he writes his letters—is to teach. But what he is saying is that comparatively, love is a higher virtue than theological education. The whole assumption here is that better knowledge would avoid the problem altogether. But he is comparing knowledge to love and he’s saying, “Yeah, choose.” God forbid that we have to. If you had to choose, love is still superior because then by definition, if you love your brother, you will not do anything to harm him.

Now, we’re not quite sure yet at this point in Chapter 8 where Paul is going with all of that. But then when we get to Chapter 9, we find it: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom”—that is those of you who have a stronger knowledge, a healthier conscience, more built up in the faith—”be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” That is to say, love will temper the exercise of your freedom. You recognize that this is a non-issue. You can eat or not eat; it’s not an issue. But if you love, your choice in a specific matter will be regulated by how it affects your brother. That’s the long and short of it, and he expands on that through verse 13 as well.

So the problem with freedom, as Paul’s explaining it here—and we’ll see this in Chapter 9 and 10 as well—the problem with Christian freedom is that we are too easily enslaved to it. Isn’t that ironic? I recognize my freedom, and I’ve got to have it. And somehow, by some twisted reasoning on my part, I become enslaved to my own liberty. I’ve got to have it. If I can have that glass of wine, I’m going to, and I don’t care who it hurts. If I can have that meat, I’m going to, and I don’t care who it hurts. We become enslaved to our own liberty. The problem with all of that is we’ve forgotten the welfare of our Christian brother. And we forget entirely, verse 7, that not all have this understanding due to ignorance, due to a weak conscience. They don’t understand.

And so by your own example now, you might embolden that weaker brother to do something—and this is the catch here—to do something of which his conscience does not approve. And that cannot be healthy for him. Now, I want to explain here what the problem is and what it isn’t. The problem here is not, and Paul here is not saying, that what we ought to do in the church to make sure everybody is happy is let the person with the most scruples—or what we might call the most legalistic person, or what he calls here the one with the weakest conscience—dictate to the rest of the church what their limits of their freedom ought to be. That is not what he’s saying here. And he’s not saying that if you drink that glass of wine with dinner and someone is angry with you, therefore you are wrong. That’s not what he’s saying.

What he’s dealing with here is a situation in which someone whose conscience is weak—and there’s a particular issue involved that in his heart of hearts this person really believes it would violate his conscience, it would be doing what is wrong to partake of it—and Paul says, “Be careful now. You have the freedom to eat that meat. But if in a certain circumstance you do it, the issue here is not whether or not you’ll make him mad, but in a certain circumstance you might embolden someone to do what his conscience really does not approve of yet.” Have you really helped him? Can it be right to violate conscience, and do you really want part in that?

And so Paul is staking out the limits of freedom. Here, you have the right to eat this meat, but be careful how it would affect others. There are times, I think, in our Lord’s ministry when He pushed traditions just in order to push them, in order to teach them on this issue that human traditions have no bearing on the Christian life. That’s not the point here. The point is you don’t want to drive someone to be emboldened to do something of which his conscience does not approve. And so verse 7: “and their conscience, their conscience is weak, it is defiled.” That is, you’ve brought them to do something of which their conscience does not approve. Same in verse 9: “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.” Verses 10 and 11, we have the same: “For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you have this knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother for whom Christ died is destroyed by your knowledge.” And then again, verse 12: “When you sin against your brother in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.”

Because of all this then, Paul says in verse 13 that the strong now have been sinning. They’re sinning in the—or the weak sin in violating their conscience, but the fault of the strong is they have emboldened their weaker brother to do that. So it’s always dangerous to violate conscience. What we want ideally is for these people to be built up in knowledge, to be taught so that their conscience becomes adjusted accordingly, and then they can exercise their freedom in a full, robust conscience. But you don’t want to lead them to do something of which their conscience does not approve. That’s the long and short, then, of Paul’s answer to this issue. This is a non-issue. You have freedom to eat. But if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, well, then, he says, I’ll never eat meat again.

I hope that’s an exaggeration. I would hate to be a vegetarian. My idea of vegetarian is let the cow eat the grass and I’ll eat the cow. But Paul says, “I recognize I can have this meat, but if it’s really going to hurt another believer in his walk with God, then I’ll be done with it forever.” And we limit then our freedom that way. So then the pointed issue is not: what am I allowed? The pointed issue is: how is this going to affect others? Will it hinder or will it help their walk with God? The question is not what suits me best. The question is what helps my brother the most.

In fact, Paul casts this in much more significant light than that. Verse 11: “So this weak brother for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.” That is to say, here is a man for whom Christ died. Here is a man who is so much the object of the love of Christ that He came and gave up everything for him. And yet to help him, you can’t give up a good steak? And Paul lifted it then to that plane. What our Lord, he says, has done for us is simply the model that we have in serving one another. This is simply a part of Christian cross-bearing: deliberate choices of painful alternatives in order to serve Christ better. And in this application of it, he says simply what that means is: I’ll restrict my freedom before I hurt a Christian brother in his walk. It is then a matter of our responsibility to the weaker brother to help him in his walk and not to hurt him in any way.

Paul’s Own Example

Now then, it’s in this context that the apostle speaks of his own example in Chapter 9. And I’m tempted here to wait for another sermon entirely to preach on the subject of paying the preacher, because that’s what Paul deals with here. But I’m not going to do that, because I think it would miss the point. Paul’s point here is not to pay the preacher; his point here about his discussion in Chapter 9 that we read earlier of the rights of the preacher to live by the gospel is simply—and it’s used as an illustration—to point out that in this case, in Corinth, Paul gave up those rights. He’s using himself as an example.

That in the case of Corinth, he gave up those rights in order to further the gospel for them. And when Paul was in Corinth, he did not ask for financial remuneration from them. This became a source of criticism. If he were a real apostle, he’d live by the apostleship, but he doesn’t—”Remember, when he was here, he didn’t make anything off of it. He’s just a man on his own.” It’s one of those pastoral situations: doomed if you do, and you’re doomed if you don’t. You know, you take the money, and people criticize you for being mercenary. You don’t do it, they say, “Well, you’re not a real apostle, or you’d be paid for it.” And Paul’s having to deal with that here, but he chose in the situation at Corinth—although he did take money elsewhere; we talked about that, he talks about that in 2 Corinthians and another of his letters—in this situation, when he came to Corinth, he gave up that right, and he’s simply using that then as an example of surrendering rights in order to help our Christian brother.

So don’t lose the larger point in all of that discussion in 1 Corinthians 9. He’s simply illustrating the extent of his own freedom. So free is the Apostle Paul that he’s not even enslaved to his own rights, even to the point of giving up a salary in that part of his ministry. What was the higher purpose in all of that? He tells us that in verse 19. What was his higher purpose in giving up the money? “Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone. Why? To win as many as possible.” That is, I will flex one way or the other, however necessary, determined by what is most helpful for the advance of the gospel. The deciding consideration is not “how will it help me.” The deciding consideration, he says, is the advance of the gospel in the lives of the people to whom I minister.

And so he says in verse 20: “To the Jews, I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law, I became like one under the law, though I myself am not under the law, so as to win those under the law.” It’s a fascinating passage, by the way, and we’ll have to deal with this someday—Paul’s implications here about the role of Moses, the role of the law in the life of the new covenant believer. But it’s interesting how he speaks in verse 20, being a Jew, yet now he’s speaking as a Christian. He says, “to those under the law, I became like one under the law.” And the assumption is he’s not under the law. And he says that in the next verse. But when I’m in a Jewish context, I’m very willing to become like a Jew. Whatever customs that they have, I’m happy to go along with that. And I’m going to abide by their scruples. And I’m not going to let anything interfere with my ministry to them.

So also, verse 21: “to those not having the law”—that is the Gentiles—”I became like one not having the law.” He qualifies that: “(though I am not free from God’s law, but I’m under Christ’s law) so as to win those not having the law.” That is, I can go to a Jewish context and I’ll abide by their scruples. I can go to a Gentile context and I’m just as comfortable. I can flex either way. And Paul views himself as in a third position—neither Jew nor Gentile. He’s Christian. And his point in verse 21 is that the point of reference in my deciding what is right and wrong is not Moses. I’m not Jew. My point of reference in deciding what is right and wrong is Christ. I’m not without law altogether. I became, to those who are not under law, as one without under law, but not without law altogether. My reference point is Christ.

And so within those limits, he says, I will do whatever is necessary. I’ll flex either way. And I’ll be as comfortable in either situation in order that by that I may win some. And so I’m perfectly willing to act like a Jew. I’m very perfectly willing to act like a Gentile. But I’ll do whichever is necessary. When Hudson Taylor went to China as a missionary—something of a pioneer missionary—he went to China and word got back that when he was in China, he adopted Chinese clothing and culture and hair style. And of course, we civilized people know so much better than that, and he was—many people looked down on him. He was very much criticized for adopting that because that’s, after all, it’s a pagan culture. And actually, Hudson Taylor was very much ahead of his time in terms of cross-cultural ministry, recognizing what is essential and what is not.

I have a friend who’s a Southern Baptist pastor, and a man was in his area who was led to Christ, came into the church, joined the church. He’d been there for a little bit, and the pastor said to him one day, “What about your wife? Do you think we’ll ever get her out here?” He said, “She doesn’t want anything to do with you.” And what he meant was, “you preachers.” “Well, why not?” He says, “She thinks you’re all a bunch of hypocrites.” “Well, why does she think that?” “Well, your rules.” “Well, like what?” “Well, like you won’t drink wine and things like that.” This friend of mine says, “Do you think she’d invite us over for dinner?” “Well, she might.” He said, “Why don’t you ask her if she would invite my wife and me over to have dinner with you guys?”

So sure enough, she did. She invited them over for dinner. They sat down to a nice spaghetti dinner. And just as they prayed, they’re just about to eat, and my pastor friend looks around the table and says, “Where’s the wine?” You know what’s interesting? True story, true story. As a result of that visit with them, the woman came to Christ, came into the church, and is still there today. Can’t you just see that in the denominational newspaper? “Pastor drinks wine as a form of evangelism in his church.” Well, this is Paul’s point here. I recognize my freedom, but how I exercise it is determined by the good of the people to whom I minister. I’m out to advance the gospel in the lives of the people to whom I minister.

Now, what Paul is not willing to do, again—and I want to emphasize this in verse 21—what Paul is not willing to do is overstep the line and violate the law of God. And again, that’s why he clarifies that the law of God for him is seen by a new perspective. He doesn’t view it through Moses. He views it from the perspective of Christ and the fulfillment of the law in Christ. But still, there are limits. The law is given to him, and he sees that as coming through Christ. And so he views himself in a third position. He’s not Jew. He’s not Gentile. He’s not without law altogether. He’s under the law of Christ, and the higher value of the gospel advance is what determines what he does. He realized there are no holy days. There are no unholy days. There’s no Santa Claus either. These things are non-issues.

And he states it all again then in verse 22, this time in reference to the weaker Christian himself: “To the weak I became weak in order to win the weak. I’ve become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some.” I know that meat is nothing. I know where that meat has been is nothing. It’s a non-issue. I’m free to eat it, and I enjoy a good prime rib. And in fact, the meat coming from the temples—man, better meat. People tend to give the best stuff there. I can eat it. It’s nothing. But I won’t allow a little thing like that to interfere with the advance of the gospel. And so you see, then, his point.

And this is really the bottom line of the whole thing. And we’ve seen this through Paul’s letter to Corinthians all through. He brings it all back to gospel essentials. The gospel is a bigger issue. And that’s what’s at stake. And so we judge all matters accordingly. I will not add to the law of Christ. I will not call evil what God has not called evil. But when I’m trying to give the gospel to someone, when I’m working with a weaker believer, I won’t allow these things to get in the way. I’ll eat vegetables. That was the devil.

Strict Training For An Eternal Prize

Now, in all of this, Paul is simply fleshing out our Lord’s demand of discipleship: Take up your cross. Choose a painful alternative if by that you can advance the work of the kingdom. And here, as it’s applied to the weaker brother, that means I’ll restrict my freedom in certain circumstances. I won’t allow the weakest brother who comes into the church to dictate the standards of the church as a whole—that’s another issue—but in my personal interaction with that person, I’ll be careful in what I do and restrict myself accordingly.

Now, we come then to verses 23 and following. And what we find here, I think, in its context is Paul is saying, in effect: lest you think this is some kind of an optional extra for me, I want you to see that this really is not optional at all. And what Paul does is simply applies this larger principle of cross-bearing, or he applies this principle of sacrifice for the work of Christ, and makes that the deciding factor. Verse 23: “I do all this for the sake of the gospel. Why? That I may share in its blessings.”

What are you saying, Paul? Are you working to be saved? By your works you’re going to earn righteousness with God? And I think what we have here is what we’ve seen so often in the New Testament, and that is while on the one hand we say that the gospel is free, salvation is free, absolutely free—it will cost you nothing—on the other hand, and in another sense, salvation will cost you absolutely everything. Jesus said, in order to save your life, you must lose it. Take everything you have and everything you are, and place it at My disposal. That’s what our Lord demands. And Paul is simply saying this is just one application of that. This is our Lord’s demand of discipleship.

And it shouldn’t surprise us to see Paul talking like he does then in verses 24 and following: “Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore, I do not run like a man running aimlessly. I do not fight like a man beating the air. No, I beat my body and make it a slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified from the prize.” Or as the older translation has it: “cast away.”

And what he’s simply saying here then, I think, is: didn’t our Lord tell us that these were the terms of discipleship? That we come in this thing agreeing to serve Him, that we lay everything at His disposal, that you’re in this for life, and your whole heart and soul and everything we have and everything we are is placed at His disposal for the work of the kingdom? It’s called perseverance. It’s called faithfulness. Again, salvation is entirely free, but in another sense, it costs us everything. And Paul is simply saying here that laboring for the kingdom is a gospel priority. The gospel requires that we deny ourselves and take up our cross and follow after Christ—lose our life in order to save it.

And Paul draws out this point with the illustration of the runner or the athlete. The Isthmian Games were held in Corinth every three years, something like the Olympic Games. An athlete in the Olympics does not wake up one morning and say, “Yeah, I’ve got the Olympics this week. I think I’ll compete.” He gives his life to it. And it consumes him. For all of his life, he trains and he works. And all of that, Paul says, for a crown that won’t last, for a crown that they can’t keep. And he gives us that illustration as a rebuke to those professing Christians who are so flabby and half-hearted in their Christian living as to think it’s all about them—as to think that the gospel makes no requirements on the way that they live.

And Paul says that’s not what the Christian life is about. The Christian life is a call to serve the King and to put aside all other considerations in subjection to that purpose. And so Paul says again in verse 26 and 27: “I run… not like a man running aimlessly. I do not fight like a man beating the air, but I beat my body and keep it under subjection.” I keep back my own self-interests in order to pursue the interests of Christ. And so Paul says to follow Christ, to follow the Christ of the cross, we take up our own cross and we give up everything for that consideration for the advance of the kingdom.

Death, then, to self-interest. We recognize our freedom, and we enjoy that freedom to whatever degree we can until it hinders the higher cause of the gospel. We strive, then, he says, by every means to promote the interests of the kingdom, so that, verse 23, “so that I may share in its blessings.”

These are the demands of the gospel. These are the demands of the King living in His kingdom—the claim that our Lord lays on all of us, that our lives do not belong to ourselves, but that they belong to Him. And Paul is simply saying that I’ll do the work that saves. We come to pursue the salvation of the lost. I’ll put aside all other considerations. I think the teaching on Christian freedom is an interesting one. We recognize our freedom and we want to exercise it. Brothers and sisters, we must be careful, like the Apostle Paul, not to become enslaved to our freedoms. Recognize what is the higher cause and determine our interest in any given case accordingly.

Let’s look to the Lord in prayer. Our Father, we need this instruction. It is not just the ancient church at Corinth. We need these reminders that we are in this to serve the King. And Lord, we pray that You will give us the grace, on the one hand, to recognize that non-essentials are not essential. On the other hand, with that, to see the cause of Christ is paramount. May we give ourselves to advancing the kingdom for the honor and glory of Christ, we pray. Amen.