Does
having the 'right' to do something mean we are right to do something?
Paul takes us through a
scenario presented to a first century believer. Possessing the knowledge that
fake idols, gods and lords, with small g's and i's, hold no power against the
one true God. They no longer had to fear the eating of meat left as sacrifice
to these idols. Paul is telling the reader that in terms of sin they are clear
but that is not the end of his message. They have the 'right' to eat this meat
but are they right to?
Paul gives us a clear
instruction in verse 9 "be careful, however, that the exercise of your
rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak." The situation Paul
is speaking into is one where the body of believers is undecided and wary of
eating meats left to idols. Paul takes his opportunity, to address the theology
of 'idol meat' but carries on to present a more passionate plea. That
regardless of wrong and right our actions are determined not by what we are
allowed to do, the rights we have but by the offence or blessing they may cause
others.
Although today we are
not dealing with the issue of 'idol meat' perhaps there is a still an amazing
question we can ask. Just because I have the 'right' to do something, am I
right to do it?
(lay member of staff)