Jew to Jews, Greek to Greeks? Part I
Before writing this article I asked a few people who wrote these words, “I have become a Jew to the Jews.” Without hesitation each of them had the same answer “Paul.” Then I asked “What else did Paul say in the same passage?” Again each one answered the same: “and a Greek to the Greeks.” Some of them were quite familiar with the passage and were able to complete it by adding: “I have become all things to all men, so that I may save some.” 1 Corinthians 9: 19-23.
For several years I have heard these words attributed to Paul so often that I too was fooled into thinking that Paul said that he became a Greek to the Greeks. This popular misconception has been responsible for many malpractices of missionaries to Muslims. Some have concluded that becoming a Muslim to Muslims is the God given strategy to win Muslims.
A few years ago the international director of a large mission agency told me personally that if he was asked: “Are you a Muslim?” that in good conscience he would say “Yes.”
It is incredible how much confusion there is on the mission field because of the serious misinterpretation and as a result, mis-application of this passage.
Let us examine the text to see for ourselves what Paul wrote. I will then try to apply hermeneutical principles to unearth the intent of Paul, both implicit and explicit in this text.
“1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 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. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
Where in the passage can anyone find the phrase: “Greek to the Greeks?” It is obvious that Paul does not mention the Greeks at all in the quoted passage. When I pointed this out some were quick to say that the meaning is implied in the reference to those who do not have the law. Is it?
The Context of the Text
Contextualists and Insider Movement proponents are desperate to find biblical support for their theories. It is understandable therefore that they find a gold mine in this passage. Rick Love calls it the Magna Carta of Contextualization. Some of them I know personally to be knowledgeable in the scriptures. Yet in their eagerness to prove their position they jump to conclusions too quickly. Admittedly, it is hard not to. Paul seems to provide the perfect formula for dealing with people of other cultures. However, if we were to start from the context of the text rather than a preconceived idea, we will discover a different meaning altogether. This may come as a surprise to many of my readers.
Most people who reference this passage to support contextualization or the Insider Movement have zeroed in on that particular passage on its own without much consideration to its broader context.
Applying hermeneutical principles to this text we find that the part needs to be viewed in light of the whole. The part is the five verses in 1 Cor. 9: 17-23. It cannot and must not be interpreted on it own for it falls in the center of a long discourse encompassing all three chapters, 8,9 and 10. These three chapters are to be taken together as one whole. In fact, even the three chapters are part of a larger whole, namely the life and teachings of Paul in Acts and the epistles.
Just as in a mosaic or puzzle, the parts fit together to make the whole. Paul presents a teaching that includes various arguments and illustrations leading to a conclusion. In the whole (Chapters 8,9 and 10) we also find the background, the bases and the concepts that fit together to form the conclusion of the discourse.
The passage we are dealing with comprises 5 verses out of 73 which is only a small part of the discourse. The interpretation of any word, verse or even all five verses in this passage must agree with and not contradict the major theme or the conclusion.
Can Christians Eat Food presented to Idols?
This in fact is the major theme of the entire discourse. Paul starts chapter 8 with it and ends with it in chapter 10. The church in Corinth had many new believers from pagan backgrounds. Idol worship was part of their culture all of their lives. Some who abandoned idol worship continued to eat meat that was sacrificed to idols. The church had a mixed response to this problem. Those who were grace oriented and emphasized freedom in Christ did not see this practice as a problem. On the other hand there were Jewish background Christians who continued to adhere to the law of Moses. Their orientation toward a stricter lifestyle, and so they were not supportive of the practice. This issue became divisive in the church which necessitated intervention by Paul as the apostle who shepherded that church for 18 months.
The Cultural Issue
Paul understood pagan culture quite well. Corinth was one of the most advanced cities in ancient Greece. The predominant culture was pagan though there was a small community composed of the exiled Jews from Rome. Paul alluded to this cultural aspect in 8:7 “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.” The word “accustomed” indicates that it became a habitual cultural practice.
Those who had a weak conscience were caused to stumble by those who were strong. The strong held that idols are nothing and the fact that the meat was sacrificed to idols does not make any difference to them who had solid faith. Paul admonished the strong believers to be sensitive to those with a weak conscience. He argued that these had not completely broken away with the associations from their old religious practices. If a mature Christian begins to exercise his or her freedom in Christ and thinks nothing of meat sacrificed to idols, (we know that an idol is nothing), the weak brother could easily be caused to stumble. The association with idol worship is still there and that can endanger his new Christian walk.
Does this sound like contextualization? Certainly not. This in fact is evidence that Paul’s sensitivity toward the weak is not an attempt to contextualize but rather to decontextualize. His aim is to give them a chance to heal from associating meat with idols.
The Theological Issue
Even though there is a cultural element at work in this problem, the primary undergirding issue is theological. It has to do with the Law of Moses. Paul is pitting legalism against freedom in Christ. He was defending his right to exercise his freedom in Christ. Yet on the other hand he stressed that our freedom needs to be restrained by our love for those who may be caused to stumble by our exercise of freedom. He appeals to love rather than knowledge (8:1,10), sensitivity rather than freedom (8:9) “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.”
What is Paul really concerned about in Chapter 8? Is he concerned about protecting their cultural practices? Absolutely not. He wanted to do everything in his power to help new converts transition from their old thinking about idols to a new way of thinking and lifestyle. Meat was closely associated with idol worship. If necessary, Paul was willing to give up meat the rest of his life for their sake. “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)
Fast forward to Chapter 10 and Paul picks up the same argument again. This time he throws out a huge explosive to the idea that these chapters are about culture. “19 Do I mean then that a sacrifice offered to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons.”
Who can question the real intent of Paul’s teaching in these three chapters? To the knowledgeable, idols are nothing but to the pagan they are demonic. You are free to eat meat sacrificed to idols if you do not give it a spiritual value. But you cannot guarantee that new believers are not confused about what they are doing when they eat that same meat. Paul put his foot down and warned: “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.” 10:21
Here we find the core biblical teaching on culture. At the core, cultural practices are demonic. We cannot separate the secular from the sacred, the cultural from the spiritual.
Paul concludes his discourse with these words: “Everything is permissible” — but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible” — but not everything is constructive.” 10:23.
By this Paul teaches us that our freedom needs to be exercised responsibly toward others who are not yet completely free from their past. Certainly he is not promoting cultural sensitivity but spiritual sensitivity. He is not promoting a contextual approach but its opposite, decontextualizaton. Paul’s inspired teaching prohibits us from practicing things that we may have the freedom to practice, but for the sake of others we must refrain from practicing.
How does this Apply to Muslim Ministry?
If Greeks coming to Christ struggled with meat sacrificed to idols because it reminded them of the old life, what are some practices that Muslims associate with that could cause them to stumble? I am amazed at those who are so insensitive to the fragile new life of new converts from Islam that they practice the very things that Paul warned us against. If Paul’s message regarding eating meat is clear, why is it not clear that we must keep away from things that could cause a new convert to stumble? These include refraining from reading the Qur’an in the presence of Muslims or new converts from Islam. Going to the Mosque, using Islamic terminology and calligraphy, prostrating to pray, displaying pictures of Mecca among other Islamic symbols; all these bring negative memories and temptations for a new convert who is trying to break away with his past.
Some missionaries feel the freedom to go to the Mosque, read and recite the Qur’an and follow Islamic rituals. One huge issue is participating in Ramadan and other Islamic holidays and feasts. It is not uncommon for some missionaries to even prepare iftar meals (breaking the fast) for their Muslim friends or go to their homes to eat it with them. Paul would plead: Do not practice those things. Do not push them in the face of a weak convert. Your knowledge that these do not matter to you personally must not allow you the freedom to cause your weak brother to stumble. (8:11) You did not grow up with these strong associations. You have no idea of the strongholds associated with these practices.
It is amazing that even though many Christians from Muslim backgrounds object to such practices, some missionaries insist on continuing to practice them. I have seen some converts so hurt and angry that they refused to believe that these missionaries are genuine Christians. Others have been pressured by their missionary leaders to return to Islamic practices, and by this they have nipped their fragile hearts and minds in the bud.
In the next article, I will be analyzing the text of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Stay tuned.
Jews to the Jews, Greek to the Greeks Part II
Introduction
http://biblicalmissiology.org/2010/07/20/jews-to-the-jews-greek-to-the-greeks-part-ii/
In Part I, we have established that Paul never said that he was Greek to the Greeks. We demonstrated that the text must be read in its context, which is broader than the chapter and extends to Paul’s entire discourse, encompassing all three chapters of 1 Corinthians 8, 9 and 10. We expounded on the main theme of the discourse, namely the legalism surrounding the eating of meat that was sacrificed to idols. We briefly brushed by the cultural elements of this religious practice and showed how Paul appealed to the Christians to be sensitive to the fragile conscience of new believers from pagan backgrounds. We showed that this in effect is not contextualization but its opposite, decontextualization. The new believers needed to break away with pagan practices from the past. But some Christians who wanted to exercise their freedom in Christ, were causing the weak brother to stumble. In regard to ministry to Muslims, we proposed that Christian workers should heed Paul’s warning by not participating in Islamic festivals and practices to avoid being a stumbling block to new believers lest they return to their former practices.
Finally I promised to tackle the text of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 in Part II, which I am doing here.
Interpreting 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
This passage is simple, and its meaning is discovered when read in its full context. Yet, a number of missiologists and missionaries have committed grievous errors in interpreting it to mean the direct opposite of what Paul intended it to mean.
Here is the text 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:
19 Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 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. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
In Part I we showed that the text needs to be read in its immediate context of the full discourse of Paul in Chapters 8 to 10. Here we will build on that principle of hermeneutics and apply another principle, which is that the text needs to be cross-referenced with other texts that have a direct relationship to the passage or story.
We will look at passages from Acts, Romans, Galatians, as well as various chapters from the two letters to the Corinthians. We shall see that without looking at all these other texts, it is easy to misinterpret our passage.
What did Paul really say?
In chapter 8 Paul established the argument that we must not exercise our freedom or right when we know it may cause a weak brother to stumble. Paul continues to make the same argument in Chapter 9 which opens with the question: “Am I not free?” Paul goes on to argue that indeed we have freedom and the right to practice even those things that pagans practice. But then he points out: “But I have not used any of these rights.” (9:15). Consequently, even if one claims that this applies to Islamic practices, we must refrain from participating with Muslims in their religious practices. The true meaning of the text does not permit us to exercise this freedom, for the sake of our weak brothers who have converted from Islam and have not yet been completely “freed” from their past.
To illustrate his point, Paul reminds the Corinthian church that he had the right to receive financial support from the churches he planted. Yet he did not. “I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast.” (9:15). Paul is adamant about not using our freedom to hurt others. He always wanted to be above reproach and not give anyone a reason to accuse him of serving Christ for financial gain.
“…I became like a Jew…”
The popular misconception is that Paul said he became a Jew to the Jews. Paul said he became “like a Jew.” Is this significant? By all means.
It is well known to students of the Bible that Paul had dual citizenship. In reality he was both a Jew and a Greek at the same time. So what is this about him saying that he became like a Jew? Is he denying his Jewishness and saying that he is like a Jew but not a true Jew? Certainly not. Is he reminding the believers in Corinth that he was a Jew when it was well known that he was? There has to be a deeper meaning. Paul did not have to become a Jew nor a Greek because he was already both biologically. So when he says “like a Jew,” he is not using the term Jew in the physical sense to refer to his Jewish roots.
The meaning of the word Jew
The Bible frequently uses terms in more than one sense. Paul particularly uses terminology that is paradoxical or that simply carries different and sometimes opposing meanings. For example he writes “…not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (Romans 9:6) Here he uses the word Israel in two senses. One, the physical branch from Abraham through Jacob (renamed Israel.) The other meaning is spiritual. Paul says in this verse that not all who are from the blood line of Abraham are children of faith.
In another passage, Romans 2:28, 29, Paul had explained that “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.”
Here Paul is making the distinction between being an ethnic Jew, (outward and physical) and the spiritual Jew, (inward and spiritual). When Paul says that to the Jews he became like a Jew to win the Jews, he uses the word Jew in both senses. The first and third refer to the race, the middle (like a Jew) refers to his obedience to certain Jewish laws. In this case, not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Various times in the Bible the word Jew is used in either or both of these two meanings. Sometimes it is hard to tell. But a sincere student of the Bible who lets the Bible speak for itself rather than imposing his or her bias on it, can easily find out the difference.
Paul in Corinth
Since the passage we are discussing in this article, 1 Corinthians 9:19-23, was addressed to the Corinthians, why don’t we go to the story recorded for us in Acts 18:1-18. The significance of this story is that it tells what Paul did in Corinth, where he stayed and served the church for one and a half years. It contains elements that shed light on our text. Let us see how the word Jew is used here. “Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately” (Acts 18:24-25). Apollos was a Christian, yet in Acts he is called a Jew. Paul more than once also spoke of himself as a Jew. “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia…” (Acts 21:39) Here he is referring to himself as an ethnic Jew.
Many have jumped to the conclusion that if Paul said that about the Jews, he could have said that about the Greeks too. So they put words in his mouth and say that Paul became a Greek to the Greeks or Gentile to the Gentiles. Paul was capable of saying those words, but he did not. In any case, had he said that he was a Jew or a Greek, he would have been right because he was both a Jew and a Greek. Yet he deliberately did not say he became a Greek to the Greeks.
To those not having the law..
When I have pointed this out to some people, they quickly responded: “But it is implied that he became a Greek to the Greeks.” This is a huge error.
The discourse in all three chapters of I Corinthians 8, 9 and 10 is addressing the issue of freedom from the law. Paul’s theology is clear that the law does not save and that we must not practice the law as a means of salvation. But he never said that the law is bad. He, in fact, wrote, “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly.” (I Timothy 1:8) The proper use of the law is to apply it not for salvation but as a result of salvation. So if Paul was willing to practice some aspects of the law to avoid being a stumbling block he would. However, in dealing with those who do not have the law, he does not find it necessary to go out of his way to observe the law.
Let us not forget that the entire issue is about whether to eat meat sacrificed to idols. The law dictates not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Grace gives us the freedom to eat it in good conscience because idols are nothing. So if you are eating meat with someone who does not know the law and is not expecting you to keep it, go ahead and eat that meat. Yet even so, if your Greek friend tells you this meat was sacrificed to idols, then refrain.
Interpretation: handling the word of God Correctly
We have no right to put words in God’s mouth. We have no freedom to interpret the text beyond the scope of its original meaning. Paul has warned us to handle the word of God correctly (II Timothy 2:15). And he added: “… we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. (II Corinthians 4:2)
Peter and the Law
The 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 passage should be balanced in light of Galatians 2:11 “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”
This is a challenging passage. Paul called Peter’s accommodation hypocrisy. What was wrong? If Paul promoted the idea of being a Jew to the Jews, why was he disturbed by Peter’s accommodating the Jews? Why was Peter wrong when he was sensitive to “the circumcision group? Wasn’t he being Jew to the Jews and Greek to the Greeks?
This passage in fact demonstrates what Paul meant in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. He certainly did not mean to be all Greek or all Jew. The text was limited to the issue of our freedom in Christ.
The circumcision group promoted full adherence to the law. They were Christian Jews who had not broken away with their Jewish practices. The problem with Peter was hypocrisy. He was compromising his own convictions to please the wrong crowd.
Based on the above explanation, no one can make Paul do in 1 Corinthians 9 what he emphatically said he would not do in Galatians. He did circumcise Timothy but not Titus. Why? Timothy was a half Jew like Paul. Circumcising him was not a problem because circumcision has no value. In a sense Paul is saying, with it or without it, there is no difference. Titus on the other hand was Greek so he did not need to go out of his way to practice Jewish law. This confirms that the issue is about the law, not culture.
Elsewhere Paul asserted: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” (I Corinthians 7:19)
To the weak I became weak
What does Paul mean by “weak”? To understand that we need to go again to Chapter 8. There Paul uses the word weak five times. In each case he refers to new converts who have freshly left idol worship and have not fully broken away with pagan practices. Paul made himself weak in the sense that he refrained from eating meat for their sake even though he himself has no problem eating meat.
Therefore, it is clear from 1 Corinthians chapter 8 that to “become weak” meant that Paul did not insist on his freedom. Weak converts could not handle such freedom when they are still emotionally tied to their past. Rather, he was extra careful to stay away from the former cultural/religious practices of the weak in their presence. Furthermore it is clear from Galatians Chapter 2 that becoming “like a Jew” certainly did not mean preserving Jewish law and practice. It would be wrong then to conclude that Paul would become Muslim to the Muslim and indulge in Islamic practices.
All things to all men
Paul concludes his passage with these words, “I have become all things to all men.” These words have been misquoted and abused to a shocking degree. Did Paul mean literally that he became all things to all men? Would Paul be a prostitute to prostitutes, a Hindu to the Hindus, sorcerer to the sorcerers, or an idolater to idolaters? Absolutely not.
Paul was very specific in this passage. What he wrote must not be interpreted beyond the scope of the context of the passage. These words: “all things to all men”, are a generalization that aims to show the heart of Paul as one who is willing to deny himself and do anything for the sake of the gospel.
These words must not be taken literally as though Paul believes that the end justifies the means. Paul adds an important qualifier when he added: “…though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law.” This means that there are limitations to what he would do. It is like saying I would do anything for Christ as long as it does not violate Christ’s law. This excludes any sin or act not honoring to God such as being a stumbling block to others who are weak.
Conclusion
Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 have been grossly misinterpreted by those who promote the Insider Movement, Common Ground and other contextualists. They have used it to promote the concept of becoming Muslim to the Muslims. When solid principles of hermeneutics are utilized to interpret this passage, we find that what Paul intended to say is contrary to the notion of taking the identity of people of other religions. He in fact was decontextualizing by asking mature believers to exercise their freedom in Christ responsibly by not doing what pagans do and not participating in their religious rituals.
Therefore, we must exercise extra care in not causing anyone to stumble, especially our brothers and sisters in Christ who have left Islam. We must not tempt them to return to Islam by indulging in Islamic practices that could cause their weak consciences to be enticed by the old ways. Though they left Islam behind, they still struggle with the emotional baggage. We must not hinder them from leaving Islam behind and letting the Holy Spirit transform them into the likeness of Christ.
