Ravi Zacharias was one of the most famous apologists for Christianity. His ministry, Ravi Zacharias International Ministires, was international. He owned spas all over the world and used his ministry funds dedicated to “humanitarian effort” to pay for four therapists with housing and monthly support whom he abused.
Soon after his death in May 2020, women came forward whom he had sexually abused sometimes in the name of Jesus. “One woman reports that after she experienced what she describes as rape that Zacharias had her pray with him thanking God for ‘the opportunity.’ He called her his ‘reward’ for living a life of service to God.”[1] He warned this woman that “if she ever spoke out against him, she would be responsible for millions of souls lost when his reputation was damaged.”[2] Zacharias not only grotesquely abused women but Christian liberty.
Paul quoted a slogan the Corinthians were throwing around to justify their immorality: “All things are lawful.” Perhaps the Corinthians were referring to Paul’s declaration of Christian liberty in Galatians 5:1: “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.”
1. Paul is rebuking legalism in the book of Galatians
Paul is battling the legalism of Judaism in the Galatians. The Judaizers taught legalism for justification which Paul refuted in Galatians 3-4. The Judaizers taught that a person must keep the law to be justified. Paul countered with the doctrine of justification by faith (2:16). The Judaizers also taught legalism for sanctification which Paul corrected in Galatians 5-6. Paul in Galatians was exhorting the believes not to think that legalism in keeping the law was a way to sanctification (Gal 5:1). Only by loving God and one’s neighbor can a believer live a holy live. Loving God and one another is the result of being filled with the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:13-23). Paul is addressing another problem in 1 Corinthians.
2. Paul is rebuking license in 1 Corinthians
Charles Barrett believes the Corinthians were quoting the slogan to justify immorality with prostitutes. “It could have been argued in Corinth ... that the right course was for a husband to keep his wife ‘pure’, and, if necessary, find occasional sexual satisfaction in a harlot.”[3] The Corinthians had a false view of Christian liberty. Paul just provided a vice list that Christians were not to practice in 6:9-11 which included immorality:
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Christians do not have Christian liberty to practice sins forbidden in God’s Word.
In 1 Corinthians 6:13, “Paul is referring to our liberty in unspecified areas. There is much freedom in our walk with Christ. We can choose any car, any apartment or house, any clothes, any food, any sport, etc..”[4]
Paul provides three qualifications for Christian liberty or three questions we can ask when confronted with a Christian liberty dilemma.
1. Is it Expedient?
Our practice of Christian liberty must help us grow spiritually (1 Cor 6:23a). When confronted with a questionable issue, we can ask ourselves, “Is it expedient for my spiritual growth?” Obviously the sins the Corinthians were trying to justify were hindering their spiritual advancement.
Robert Wilkens poses several Christian liberty issues that I am going to borrow: How many believers today are under the power of television. Studies show that the average American watches forty plus hours of TV a week! Believers are not immune to this problem. Even if we are watching wholesome shows and Christian broadcasts, we are to restrict our freedom here so as not to squander our talents and abilities.[5]
2. Is it Enslaving?
Our practice of Christian liberty must not be additive (1 Cor 6:23b). When confronted with our liberty in unspecified areas, we can ask ourselves, “Is it enslaving?” John Piper has a sermon entitled Total Abstinence and Church Membership. Here is part of his argumentation:
Some people rank alcoholism as our second greatest health problem in America …. There are about 10 million alcoholics and 20 million persons who consume an immoderate amount of alcohol. About 70% use alcohol as a beverage. As a result, alcohol contributes to 205,000 deaths each year. Life expectancy of the alcoholic is reduced by at least a decade. One-half of all traffic fatalities are the direct result of the abuse of alcohol. It is directly connected to one-half of the homicides and one-third of the suicides. It costs business alone 19 billion dollars a year. And now one out of every twelve marriages comes apart over drinking.” In this sermon, Piper listed four reasons he is a “teetotaler”:
1. First, I choose not to drink because of my conscience.
2. The second reason is that alcohol is a mind-altering drug.
3. The third reason why I choose total abstinence is that alcohol is addictive.
4. The fourth reason I choose total abstinence is to make a social statement. Piper concluded his sermon: For these four reasons, then, I am a very happy teetotaler, and I think you should be too.[6]
Norman Geisler stated that one out of ten social drinkers will become alcoholics.[7] Why gamble or cause someone else to gamble with alcoholism with those odds? I have heard men justify their drinking by saying, “I am not hurting anyone but myself.” Ask the wife and children of the alcoholic if he is only hurting himself. But the drinker is not just hurting himself, he is destroying his marriage and family.
3. Is it Edifying?
Our practice of Christian liberty must edify and not hinder others (1 Cor 10:23). The problem at the Corinthian church was believers eating meat that had been offered to idols in pagan temples. Some believers saved out of paganism would be offended. Paul writes to believers who are not offended at eating this meat, to think of others and not themselves: “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor” (10:24). If they invite over someone saved out of paganism, serve something else besides meat offered to idols.
F. F. Bruce raised this scenario: “A present-day analogy may be imagined if someone with strong principles on total abstention from alcohol were the guest of friends who did not share these principles. He would be well advised not to enquire too carefully about the ingredients of some specially palatable sauce or trifle, but if someone said to him pointedly, ‘There is alcohol in this, you know’, he might feel that he was being put on the spot and could reasonably ask to be excused from having any of it.”[8]
Robert Wilkins posed another issue: “Some modern fashions for women clearly violate this principle. For Christian women to wear seductive clothing anywhere but in the privacy of their own homes is to put a stumbling block in the path of others. That is not helpful behavior and hence it is to be avoided even though no verse may specifically forbid that particular fashion.”[9]
The Corinthians not only had a false view of Christian liberty but also of their bodies.
1. The Corinthians also were saying, “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them” (1 Cor 6:13-14). Perhaps the Corinthians were espousing dualism which advocates only the immaterial is spiritual and the material is sinful. The body is already sinful so immorality will not affect it. It like beating a dead horse. What difference does it make?
2. Paul rebuffed this false view.
a. The physical body is so important that God raised up the body of Christ and will also raise up our bodies in the future (1 Cor 6:14).
b. The physical body of the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit (6:15-20). The Conthians combined their false view of Christian liberty and their false view of the body to hinder their own spiritual growth by becoming addicted to immorality, and hinder also the spiritual growth of others who follow their example.
Believers have Christian liberty in questionable areas with three qualifications:
1. Can I practice this and continue to grow spiritually (Is it expedient?)
2. Can I practice this and not become addicted (Is it enslaving?)
3. Can I practice this and not hinder another person (Is it edifying?)
[1] Daniel Silliman and Kate Shellnutt, “Ravi Zacharias Hid Hundreds of Pictuers of Women, Abuse During Massages, and a Rape Allegation” in Christiantiy Today, February 11, 2021.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Harper’s New Testament Commentaries series. New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 145.
[4] Robert Wilkins, “Are All Things Lawful for Believers” in GES.
[5] Ibid.
[6] John Piper, Total Abstinence and Church Membership, (click to open) Sunday Evening Message, October 4, 1981.
[7] Norman Geisler. Criswell Theological Review-Volume 5, Issue 2, 2008
[8] F. F. Bruce, New Century Bible Commentary: 1 & 2 Corinthians (Harpercollins/STL; New edition (January 1, 1981), 100.
[9] Robert Wilkins, “Are All Things Lawful for Believers” in GES.