Paul deals with all of these topics in some detail, particularly in his first letter to the Corinthians. The stance he takes is complex and a bit confusing because his instincts are to allow “freedom in Christ” and not put his followers “under law” in a formal and legalistic way. On sexual matters he is quite strict and uncompromising, whereas on food and diet he tends to be openly liberal. With regard to “meat offered to idols” he had emphasized that “an idol is nothing” so that these sacrifices to “nothing” should be inconsequential to one who has the proper knowledge. He says one can eat whatever meat is sold in the marketplace without raising questions about where it came from—that is, had it been slaughtered on an altar in the temple of one of the Greco-Roman deities? Whether this would include meat from animals killed without draining their blood (“things strangled”) Paul never specifies, but one has the impression he was not stringent on that point. He tells the Corinthians that if they are invited to dinner at the house of a nonbeliever in Christ, to just go ahead and eat whatever is served, and presumably this could include meat from animals that had been strangled, or slaughtered at an idol’s temple (1 Corinthians 10:25–26).
He had taught his followers the general principle that “all things are lawful,” and the Corinthians quote this back to him, but he did not intend that to be applied to justify sexual immorality. He had to clarify and back off considerably on that point. Some of the Corinthians were apparently frequenting the brothels and Paul was quite outraged (1 Corinthians 6:15–16). Others, as we have seen, were attending festivals at temples and participating in the meals, in effect, as Paul puts it, “eating at the idol’s table” and thus essentially worshipping demons! (1 Corinthians 10:14–22).
In all of these areas Paul tries to walk a thin line between allowing freedom, considering the scruples of Jews and other God-fearers who might be stricter in their interpretations, while maintaining a strict standard against any kind of sexual immorality or involvement at local temples that might involve spiritual bonding with demonic forces. Paul expects that these principles, along with his basic moral catalogue of prohibited activities, which he derived from his Jewish background, would be an obvious minimum standard of behavior for “those in Christ,” but they did not even touch the new Law of Christ.
For this reason Paul was profoundly disappointed with all his churches. They never seemed to grasp what he believed was their heavenly calling—to be part of the glorified God-family—so that such petty minimal standards, either of the Jewish Torah, or the Noahide laws, would pale in significance before the spiritual Law of Christ. Paul mentions the term “Law of Christ” only two times in his letters—in 1 Corinthians and Galatians. These communities were his most fractured and troubled, and his frustrations and disappointment with both are evident. He told the Corinthians that living as a Jew under the Torah, or as a non-Jew “outside” the Torah, were of no consequence or interest to him—since he considered himself “under the Law of Christ.” He puts it to the Galatians as an exhortation: “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the Law of Christ!” (Galatians 6:2). He had just explained that only those “led by the Spirit” were no longer “under the Law,” and that if one practiced what he calls the “works of the flesh,” including such things as sexual immorality, idolatry, envy, murder, and selfishness, one would be excluded from inheriting the kingdom of God—in other words one’s newly engendered life as a potential glorified child of God would be aborted (Galatians 5:18–21).
The Law of Christ is not a list of precepts or prohibitions, but rather involved what Paul calls “walking by the Spirit.” Paul believed that only those who were