Turning from 1Cor8 to 1Cr10 (Dan and Andrew)

Andrew, I think we can start with ch. 10. In your last PM you said:

1) There may be some basis for your interpretation, but it depends on chapter 10. For your interpretation to be true chapter 10 must indicate that the weak were correct and that eating in the temple is idolatry, because those things aren’t established in chapters 8-9.

2) While there is some basis for your interpretation based on chs. 8-9 those chapters do not preclude my interpretation, and the main emphases of those chapters actually indicate that my interpretation is more likely to be true. I’m not saying that chs. 8-9 show your interpretation to be wrong and mine to be right; I’m saying that so far (not yet looking at ch. 10) both interpretations are possible, but mine is more plausible.

I am in agreement with these and that is why I think we should go on to ch. 10.

As we go, I will explain how I see the chapter as Paul’s argument that in this case, the weak are correct and eating meat in the temple (TM-Eating) is wrong.

1 Corinthians 10 begins: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant…” KJV or “For I want you to know, brothers…” (ESV).

“Brothers” - Paul grants them the title “brothers.” Does that mean they are certainly believers? Does it mean they are correct in their position on the controversy at hand?

To the first question, we must say, “No.”

1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Here, Paul acknowledges that there are some who are (or were) called “brothers” and who may not be believers. Calling someone “brother” cannot mean more than: He has a credible profession of faith and we think he is a believer. It is possible that the group Paul is calling “brothers” in 1 Cor 10:1 is another group that will eventually show themselves not to be truly brothers.

To the second question, we must also say, “No.”

1Cor 6:5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?

“Brothers” clearly can do wrong. Thus, Paul calls them to obedience.

“Not…ignorant,” or “Know” - Greek: (ἀγνοέω agnoéō), literally, “without knowledge.” We’ve been talking about “knowledge” all along. Here Paul begins by saying that some of the Corinthians are in need of knowledge.

Discussion

Dan, you well refuted two points that I do not support. I also agree that Paul is not indicating that those Corinthians were “certainly believers” nor were they “correct in their position on the controversy at hand.”

A) I readily agree that Paul does not have supernatural knowledge of their true spiritual state, and that by calling them “brothers” he is not confirming their eternal life. However, by calling them “brothers” he is indicating his relationship and association with them. As we saw in ch. 5 and will see again in 10:21, a Christian’s association with others is significant. Is he calling them false brothers? Is he being sarcastic? I see no indication of that. So by calling them “brothers” (in Christ) he is indicating that they are not the idolatrous church members who call themselves “brothers” in chapter 5. Paul is not purging these people from the assembly, but is instructing them as brothers in Christ.

If you are implying that these Corinthians he is addressing in this section are false, idolatrous brothers like those mentioned in chapter 5, then he must be addressing a different audience from chapter 8 and, in fact, a different audience from that of the entire rest of the book.

B) I agree that the brothers are doing wrong and are in need of rebuke as I indicated in my commentary of chs. 8&10. But I do not agree that Paul refers to idolatrous church members as “brothers.” In ch. 5 he calls certain people “those who bear the name of brother,” implying that they use that name falsely and clearly teaches that we should not associate with such people (5:11). I’m sure you can appreciate the difference between calling one group, “those who bear the name brother” and another group “brothers.” That’s not splitting hairs; that’s a significant difference. By calling these Corinthians he is addressing as “brothers” he is indicating that he is, in fact, associating with them.

“Not…ignorant,” or “Know” - Greek: (ἀγνοέω agnoéō), literally, “without knowledge.” We’ve been talking about “knowledge” all along. Here Paul begins by saying that some of the Corinthians are in need of knowledge.

Yes, we have been talking about “knowledge” for quite a while, since chapter 1 actually. I don’t see your response to how I interpreted that mention of knowledge in 10:1.

Even the “brothers” of 1 Cor 5 are possibly true believers. Even in expelling from membership, we may hope and pray that their life outside the church will drive them to repent.

A different group? That would be an incredible strain. Still talking about idol-things. Still using “strong” language to describe them. Still talking about standing and falling. Still talking about “knowledge.”

Here, in 1Cor10, Paul is calling people to obedience (out of sin). We don’t disassociate because of sin. We disassociate because of refusal to repent.

––

re: 1Cor 1, perhaps you missed it, or I wrote it and forgot to post it. Anyway, we’ll get there in time.

Dan, you are making my point for me. Paul is clearly speaking to the same audience throughout the book and that is consistent with my interpretation that these Corinthians are rich in knowledge through Christ Jesus, but they are immaturely misapplying that knowledge without consideration for one another.

But if your interpretation is correct that the “weak” Corinthians were right all along that going to the temple is idolatry and that these “strong” Corinthians refused to listen, then they are, in fact, “those who bear the name brother” but are unrepentant idol-worshippers with whom Paul and the others must not associate. Therefore, according to your interpretation, the entire book is written to one set of church members, while verses 10:1-22 are written to the other set of church members with whom they must separate.

But if your interpretation is correct that the “weak” Corinthians were right all along that going to the temple is idolatry and that these “strong” Corinthians refused to listen, then they are, in fact, “those who bear the name brother” but are unrepentant idol-worshippers with whom Paul and the others must not associate.

We don’t call someone “unrepentant” because someone calls them to repent. I [and I’ll bet just about everyone else we can find] expect that the TM-Eaters heeded Paul’s warning and quit going to the temple.

Dan, perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying that the “strong” refused to repent after Paul gives them this warning. I agree with what you have said concerning calling others to repent and church discipline. But I want to look at the timeline of events according to your interpretation.

What I’m saying is that, if your interpretation of ch.8 & 10 is correct, then the “weak” Corinthians have been previously (before the letter was written) correctly telling the “strong” that going to the temple is idolatry. And in ch. 8, the “strong” didn’t listen to the “weak” and continued to go to the temple and continued to commit idolatry.

Therefore, if your interpretation is correct, then the entire book is written to the church members who must separate from idol-worshippers except for verses 10:1-22 that are written to the idol-worshippers themselves, which, we both agree, would not be consistent with the text.

You could object to my logic by saying that the “weak” never told the “strong” that they believed going to the temple was idolatry, that they were being tempted to violate their consciences in silence, and Paul’s warning here was the first time the “strong” are being called to repent. But going back to chapter 1, this book seems to be addressing multiple divisions and quarrels within the church, so I think it is more likely that there have already been verbal disagreements between the “weak” and the “strong.”

Church discipline is a process. “Taking the matter to the church” isn’t necessarily a one time event. There is a period of time in which the church calls for repentance. In this case, the matter was complicated by two things: 1) it is not an individual, but a faction of the church, 2) the strong think what they’re doing is ok.

Paul IS calling some of them brothers. He calls them to the Scriptures. He calls them to obedience. He calls them to respect the Table of the Lord, at which they are already eating.

–––-

No doubt about it- the weak and the strong debated this issue before this letter. Most commentators see Paul’s “8:1 Now concerning” phrase as an indication the these sections are responses to questions the Corinthians asked Paul.

The letter is written to the church. Chs. 8-10 have 2nd person references to the strong because it is them he is correcting on this issue.

Ok, so let me see if I have followed you correctly: Chapters 1-7 is addressed to the entire church in general, including chapter 5, which tells them to separate from “those who bear the name brother” but are worshipping idols.

Then, starting in chapter 8, Paul specifically addresses those “brothers” who are idolatrous, and he is following his own teaching by starting the church discipline process with them. Is that what you are saying?

If so, here’s my problem with that understanding.

a) There is a big difference between calling a group “those who bears the name brother” and “brothers.” If I call you “my friend,” that’s vastly different from calling you “my so-called friend.” It’s not the same thing; you can’t say that he’s basically calling both of them “brother.” Paul is making a differentiation, so we need to recognize that differentiation and keep it ourselves..

b) I don’t see Paul changing his audience, even from the general to the specific. It is apparent that Paul is talking to the same group in ch. 5 as he is in chs. 8 & 10. Paul makes the same kind of condemnation of pride in 5:2 as he does in 8:1. Paul uses the same kind of argument of association in 5:6-11 as he does in 10:14-22. Paul is addressing the same group of people in both passages. In ch. 5, their problem is not that they are practicing sexual immorality, but that they are associating with those who do. In chs. 8-10, their problem in not that they are practicing idolatry, but that they are associating with those who do and with the demons.

In both cases, they are wrong and are sinning, and it is the sins of: 1) a fullness of pride in their knowledge, 2) a lack of love for their brothers, 3) a lack of discernment in properly applying the teaching they received, and 4) a lack of holiness by not separating themselves from those who are practicing immorality.

So, I don’t know where you get the idea that I think the “strong” are right. They are clearly wrong in many ways, and Paul is rebuking them. But I’m not calling the audience in ch. 5 people who practice sexual immorality, because that is not the problem Paul is addressing – he’s addressing their lack of separation from sexual immorality (as well as pride, etc.). Likewise in chs. 8-10, I am saying that they are wrong in many ways, and Paul is rebuking them. But I’m not calling the audience idolaters because that is not the rebuke Paul is making.

Let me focus on your a and b.

Andrew: a) There is a big difference between calling a group “those who bears the name brother” and “brothers.” If I call you “my friend,” that’s vastly different from calling you “my so-called friend.” It’s not the same thing; you can’t say that he’s basically calling both of them “brother.” Paul is making a differentiation, so we need to recognize that differentiation and keep it ourselves..

And yet, even the sexually-sinning “so-called-brother,” may have been a real brother. First, because expelling someone is still done with the hope he will repent (1Cor5:5). Second, because if 2Cor 2:1-11 is about the same man as 1Cor5:1-3 (as is very commonly thought), then his repentance shows him to be a “true-brother.” Even if it wasn’t the same guy, it was another man who would have been expelled for unrepentant sin, who subsequently repented. Church discipline isn’t saying, “You are not my brother.” Rather, “We don’t think you are our brother, and we expell you, but we pray you will repent and return.”

Regardless, that is about what we call Step 3. Paul is still encouraging Step 2. He is calling the brothers to repent.

Andrew: b) I don’t see Paul changing his audience, even from the general to the specific. It is apparent that Paul is talking to the same group in ch. 5 as he is in chs. 8 & 10. Paul makes the same kind of condemnation of pride in 5:2 as he does in 8:1. Paul uses the same kind of argument of association in 5:6-11 as he does in 10:14-22. Paul is addressing the same group of people in both passages. In ch. 5, their problem is not that they are practicing sexual immorality, but that they are associating with those who do. In chs. 8-10, their problem in not that they are practicing idolatry, but that they are associating with those who do and with the demons.

I’m not sure we need an audience change. The whole letter was for all of them. But here you and I have disagreement that we should note as we head into ch.10:
Andrew: the group that needs knowledge in ch.10, “their problem is not that they are practicing idolatry, but that they are associating with those who do and with the demons.”
Dan: the group that needs knowledge in ch.10, “their problem is that they are practicing idolatry.”

So we need to explore the Text and see what Paul is telling this group of TM-Eaters.

And yet, even the sexually-sinning “so-called-brother,” may have been a real
brother.

I completely agree. Paul is not saying whether or not the person is a true Christian or has eternal life. The context is association with that person. Paul associates himself with one group by calling them “brothers” and indicates a disassociation with another group by calling them “those who bear the name brother.”

I’m not sure we need an audience change. The whole letter was for all of
them.

We don’t need an audience change, there is no audience change. My point is that your interpretation necessitates an audience change when there is none. If your interpretation is correct then at one point he is addressing those who need to separate from idol-worshippers, and at another point he is addressing those who are currently worshipping idols.

It seems that we both agree that an audience change does exist in the book, therefore, your interpretation is inconsistent with the text.

The only sense in which there is an audience change is that when Paul is addressing arguments that existed in the Corinthian church, of course at some points one side will be tempted to point to the Text and say to their brother, “This is for YOU.” But really, it’s all for all of them.

In no way is this inconsistent with my interpretation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Moving into the chapter…

1Cor 10:1b-5 - Paul compares the experiences of the Israelites in the Red Sea and with the cloud to baptism, and the Manna and water from the Rock to Lord’s Supper. Interestingly, Paul says that the drinking from the Rock was drinking from Christ.

1Cor 10:6-10 - Paul says that the example of the Israelites is for us. How? That we might not desire evil (v. 6). Then he says, “Do not be idolaters as some of them were.” Not, “Do not tolerate idolatry.” Not, “Do not associate with those who are idolaters.”

1Cor10:11 “Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.”

Paul is connecting the idolatry sin of the Israelites to his present day. The teaching against idolatry is for us.

1Cor10:12 “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.”

This is a return to the “standing, stumbling, falling, stumbling-block” imagery Paul uses for good standing and falling into sin.

Who is it that thinks they stand? Who is Paul giving this warning to? The TM-Eaters. What is the warning?

1Cor10:13-14 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it. 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry.

The warning is “Flee from idolatry.” You think you can go in and eat in the idol’s temple? No! Run away!

The big difference is between rebuking current sin and warning from committing further sin.

Paul is rebuking their sin of pride and misapplication of knowledge without love for one another. And furthermore, he warns against committing idolatry because they are being tempted to do so.

I Corinthians 10:6 Now these things became examples for us, so that we will not desire evil as they did.

It doesn’t say that these things happened to teach us to stop committing the sin of idolatry. No, it is an example to us that we are not the ones who desire that evil. It is a warning, not a rebuke in this case.

I Corinthians 10:7 Don’t become idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and got up to play.

I posted a long comment explaining how the use of “ginomai” indicates that the phrase is best translated “become idolaters” rather than “be idolaters.” It doesn’t indicate a current state of being like “eimi” would do, but a state of becoming. Paul’s not telling them to stop being idolaters; he’s warning them not to become idolaters as they are being tempted to do.

I Corinthians 10:12-13 Therefore, whoever thinks he stands must be careful not to fall! No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to humanity. God is faithful and He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape, so that you are able to bear it.

The key is “temptation.” He’s not saying, “no sin has overtaken you;” he says, “no temptation has overtaken you.” Again, that’s a big difference. I hope you will recognize the distinction.

So Paul is rebuking their sin, but it is the sin of pride and lack of love for their brothers; and he warns them from falling further into sin (the sin of idolatry) because they are being tempted to do so.

In one sense you’re on the right track - One question we must ask is: if ch.10:1-22 is a rebuke of current sin of idolatry or of a potential future sin of idolatry.

You maintain that the sin of idolatry is entirely potential future. You support that with:
1. Paul instructs with the OT on idolatry so they would not desire sin.

ANDREW: It doesn’t say that these things happened to teach us to stop committing the sin of idolatry. No, it is an example to us that we are not the ones who desire that evil. It is a warning, not a rebuke in this case.

For your line of reasoning to be logical, there has to be a suspension of desire/temptation once a person has begun regularly committing some sin. In your view, once a man actively begins an affair with his secretary, he can no longer be said to be tempted by her.
That is nonsense. It is still reasonable to call him to repent and to not be tempted by her, even though he has already given in.

2. “the use of “ginomai” indicates that the phrase is best translated “become idolaters” rather than “be idolaters.” It doesn’t indicate a current state of being like “eimi” would do, but a state of becoming.”

1Cor10:7 Don’t become idolaters as some of them were…

ginomai is present imperative. The KJV makes it “Neither be ye idolaters…” There is nothing in this word that suggests we should see it as a warning of something that is not already happening.

If I hear you swear, I might say, “Don’t be swearing.”

3. Similar to #1, Paul warns of temptation and assures that no temptation has overtaken you…
Paul is assuring them that they can and should repent from the sin they are tempted by.

As we keep going, we’ll see that the Text is very clear and you don’t need to wrest words like ginomai to avoid what Paul is saying.

1. Paul clearly says that the Strong are eating in the temple. 1Cor8:9-10 “right of yours … you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple…” The controversy wasn’t whether they were eating in the temple. They were. The controversy was whether that eating was idolatry or not.

2. Paul clearly links eating with idol-participation…

1Cor 10:15-18 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: [10] are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

v. 15
I speak as to “wise” men; judge for yourselves…
This is not assurance that these men are perfectly wise, even though Paul calls them “wise.” He is saying, “I appeal to your wisdom. Think about this!”

What Paul is getting at here is that eating the Lord’s Supper is participation with Christ. Just as the Israelites who ate their sacrifices were participants in those sacrifices. Eating, in some way, equals participation with the sacrifice.

This gets at the real underlying question for the people of Corinth: Was TM-Eating active idolatry? Or could one go and eat and by not meaning it, not really personally engage in real idolatry?

Paul is implying that the answer in Corinth was: Eating = Participation. This means that the TM-Eating, which we already established was done by the strong in ch.8, was itself idol-participation. This is confirmed for us by the objection/question that Paul puts in the mouth of his target:

v. 19 “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” Before going on to Paul’s answer, we must note the substance of the objection that Paul places in the mouth of the Strong. Paul knows the Strong will be saying, “Wait a minute! An idol is NOTHING! You said that! Now you’re saying the idol is something?”

Paul’s warnings inform the strong. Andrew, you and I have agreed that the Strong needed knowledge - or at least to understand it better. You said that what the strong were in need of, knowledge wise, was to know that their TM-Eating could be dangerous to the weak. But I said that the TM-Eating was idolatry. (We also agreed that ch.8 expressed the danger of the TM-Eating to the weak and did not identify it as idolatry or non-idolatry.)
Now Paul is identifying TM-Eating as idolatry by saying “Eating = Participation.” And he knows the Strong will object by bringing up their reasoning for acceptance of TM-Eating: “An idol is nothing.”

1Cor10:19-22 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Remember the controversy revolved around these statements:
Strong: The idol is NOTHING.
Weak: The idol is nothing - but not absolutely nothing. What is offered is “really offered to an idol” (8:7).

So as we saw in 10:19, Paul knows that he is challenging the knowledge of the strong. “Do I imply that the idol is anything?”
Now he answers: (Remember the “No” is added by translation. It is not implicit in the answer. It is implicit in the question.) “I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.” That food had been sacrificed to demons. The food hadn’t been sacrificed to “absolutely nothing.” The strong were wrong in how they understood “The idol is nothing.”

v.20 “I do not want you to be participants with demons.” Paul has just finished explaining that Eating=Participation. Therefore, he is saying, “I do not want you to eat what is offered to demons.”
In v. 21-22, Paul directly challenges their “strength.” ~”Not you are strong to drink the Lord’s cup and the demon’s cup.”

Paul ends with “Are we stronger than he?” It is good to have strength - to have confidence to do things without self-condemnation. But Paul is saying that we should not be so confident that we don’t let God change our minds.

1) I’m not saying that there is or is not a suspension of desire/temptation to commit sin while one is committing sin. That’s not what Paul is addressing. The point is that the things that happened to the Israelites in the OT happened so that the Holy Spirit would use the teaching of those examples in the lives of believers so that they would be consecrated to Christ and not be the kind of people who desire evil like the Israelites desired it. These examples are a part of the sanctifying work of God in the life of the believer. So the visible absence of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and the presence of the desire for evil like that of the Israelites are indications of a lack of regeneration. Now we, as humans, don’t perfectly see evidences and we can make mistakes in church discipline. If someone is a continuous idolater who desires evil then we should still call him to repent, but we shouldn’t call him “brother” until he repents.

Here’s the point of contention. A) We can say that our brothers in Christ are in need of a better understanding of knowledge. B) We can say that our brothers in Christ are committing a sin of pride and need to repent. C) We can say that our brothers in Christ are acting in an unloving manner and by that are causing other brothers to fall into sin. D) We can say that our brothers in Christ are gripped by temptation. E) We can say that our brothers in Christ are associating themselves with sin and sinners by their participation with worldly practices.

But, we do not say that our brothers in Christ are sexually immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or swindlers. Why not?

A) Because those who are in Christ have the sanctifying teaching of the Bible (I Cor. 10:6)

B) We who are in Christ no longer are being led astray by dumb idols (I Cor. 12:1-3)

C) We who are in Christ partake in the Spirit and the edification of the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:12-14)

Those are just the reasons from I Corinthians and don’t include Titus 2:14; Eph. 2:10; Phil. 1:6; 2:12-13; Rom. 8:23-30; Col. 1:13; etc.

Paul doesn’t call idolaters his brothers nor his brothers, idolaters.

We don’t know who is or is not a true brother, but we do need to be careful about with whom we associate and call “brother.” Paul teaches and models this himself for us.

2)

1Cor10:7 Don’t become idolaters as some of them were…

ginomai is present imperative. The KJV makes it “Neither be ye idolaters…” There is nothing in this word that suggests we should see it as a warning of something that is not already happening.

If I hear you swear, I might say, “Don’t be swearing.”

I recognize that this is the way it has been translated by some, and I’m saying that they would have better said, “neither become ye idolaters…” I’m not saying that it is future; it is clearly present, but the verb means “to become” not “to be.”

A more accurate example would be if you saw me with a group of people and the other people in the group were swearing, you might say, “don’t become a swearer.”

3)

As we keep going, we’ll see that the Text is very clear and you don’t need to wrest words like ginomai to avoid what Paul is saying.

Dan, you said that you wanted to dig deep into the text. Reading the Greek and consulting a lexicon is not wresting words. I know you don’t like what it says, but I have carefully explained why it means “become” not “be.” If you can show me how I read the Greek or used the lexicon incorrectly then please show me.

1. Paul clearly says that the Strong are eating in the temple. 1Cor8:9-10 “right of yours … you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple…” The controversy wasn’t whether they were eating in the temple. They were. The controversy was whether that eating was idolatry or not.

I agree.

2. Paul clearly links eating with idol-participation…

I agree. But I think we don’t not agree on what “participation” means or entails. They were associating themselves with idols and those who worship them. If you are saying that participation = idol-worshipping or offering the sacrifice themselves, then I do not agree in this case.

I find it interesting that you took the ESV and NIV translation over the KJV (and others similar) in this case. Note that it does not say “participation in worshipping idols” in any translation. It says simply partnership/fellowship/sharing/participation with demons. Okay so, they are with demons doing what? Worshipping? No, the next verse indicates: eating and drinking at the table. Again, going back to I Cor. 5:11 “do not even eat with such a person;” the problem is associating with those who are in open rebellion against God.

Now Paul is identifying TM-Eating as idolatry by saying “Eating = Participation.”

Paul is identifying TM-eating = association with demons (fellowship with, partnership with, sharing with, participation with) because that is what is being addressed here. You made a big leap from association with idols to the sin of idolatry itself. That’s the leap you never substantiated, and that’s the leap that isn’t in the text.

Let me make that point in another way: association with idols is not the same as idolatry and worshipping idols – and I’ll use Paul’s own argument to demonstrate that.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread.

Would you say that all who eat at the Lord’s table are Christ-worshippers? Are they “in Christ” because they eat with the church? No, it’s possible for someone to be there and eat, but not actually be worshipping or be in true union with the members of the church. Paul is not saying that all who eat at the Lord’s table are true Christians, nor is he saying that all those who eat at the temple are idolaters. The point is association. Those who eat at the Lord’s table are identifying and associating themselves with Christ and with those who worship him. Likewise, those who eat at the temple are participating and associating themselves with the idols and those who worship them.

A couple things…

1. Andrew, have you read Part 10? I’d like to hear your comments on what I say about 2 Kings 5.

2. I was reflecting on this long exchange with Andrew and I realized something. In the past, I have tried to get some members at SI to do some role-playing to help understand these texts. I wanted to have one or a few take the “weak” side of a Biblical issue and argue for it as the “weak” of 52 AD would have argued. It didn’t work, which disappointed me. Over time, everyone wanted to take a moderate position and not stick to what the Jew in Rome would have thought.

But Andrew, you have taken the cause of the “strong” TM-Eating brother in Corinth and argued it strenuously. That’s something I’ve always wanted. So thanks for that!

…we, as humans, don’t perfectly see evidences and we can make mistakes in church discipline. If someone is a continuous idolater who desires evil then we should still call him to repent, but we shouldn’t call him “brother” until he repents.
Here’s the point of contention. A) We can say that our brothers in Christ are in need of a better understanding of knowledge.
b) We can say that our brothers in Christ are committing a sin of pride and need to repent. …
But, we do not say that our brothers in Christ are sexually immoral, greedy, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or swindlers. Why not?
A) Because those who are in Christ have the sanctifying teaching of the Bible (I Cor. 10:6)
B) We who are in Christ no longer are being led astray by dumb idols (I Cor. 12:1-3)
hmmm… Saying, “You are not ‘brother’” is expelling. It’s the same thing. The same step.

I believe that we should not expel for sin (regardless of what the sin is). We expel for unrepentant sin.

You seem to believe that for certain sins, you would expel (say “Not Brother”) before even calling the person to repent and allowing for him to do so? Do I read you right?

Dan, I did read part 10, and I’d say that there are similarities to the case of Naaman. But we don’t have as many details in that case as we do with the Corinthians, so we don’t know exactly to what extent they are parallel.

I’ve also enjoyed this debate. I don’t often have the opportunity to talk about the Bible and theology in English, so I’m glad I could do it in this forum.

I don’t really feel like I’m taking up the case of the strong Corinthians since I (and Paul) disagree with them in several ways. I found myself in a similar position recently with regard to John Piper. Piper said several things recently with which I disagree, but some people went further and called him a pacifist. Now I disagreed with Piper, but I know that he’s not a pacifist. So I found myself “defending” him and “taking up his case” even though I disagreed with him.

[apward] I don’t really feel like I’m taking up the case of the strong Corinthians since I (and Paul) disagree with them in several ways. …
Ok. I hoped so. I also admit that the Strong (TM-Eaters) have a point, “even if small and dangerous.”

So perhaps we should explore exactly in what ways you would judge the TM-Eater and in what ways I would vindicate him.

1Cor10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.

In this passage, I would look at “flee from idolatry” and tend to see Paul prescribing a movement from idolatry. Like “Flee the south!” means that the person is starting in the south. Thus, he’s in idolatry and needs to move away from it. I suspect you’re treat it like tag: “Flee from the boy who is chasing you (but hasn’t caught you).”

[apward (A few posts up)]

Now Paul is identifying TM-Eating as idolatry by saying “Eating = Participation.”

Paul is identifying TM-eating = association with demons (fellowship with, partnership with, sharing with, participation with) because that is what is being addressed here. You made a big leap from association with idols to the sin of idolatry itself. That’s the leap you never substantiated, and that’s the leap that isn’t in the text.

Let me make that point in another way: association with idols is not the same as idolatry and worshipping idols – and I’ll use Paul’s own argument to demonstrate that.

1 Corinthians 10:16-17 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread.

Would you say that all who eat at the Lord’s table are Christ-worshippers? Are they “in Christ” because they eat with the church? No, it’s possible for someone to be there and eat, but not actually be worshipping or be in true union with the members of the church. Paul is not saying that all who eat at the Lord’s table are true Christians, nor is he saying that all those who eat at the temple are idolaters. The point is association. Those who eat at the Lord’s table are identifying and associating themselves with Christ and with those who worship him. Likewise, those who eat at the temple are participating and associating themselves with the idols and those who worship them.

You ask some careful questions here.

Would you say that all who eat at the Lord’s table are Christ-worshippers? Are they “in Christ” because they eat with the church?

No, but they are doing what ought to be seen as Christ-worship. And eating is improper for them to be doing if they are not “in Christ.” It is a lie. Question back at you:

Would you say that all who sing “How Great Thou Art!” are God-Worshippers?

In this passage, I would look at “flee from idolatry” and tend to see Paul prescribing a movement from idolatry. Like “Flee the south!” means that the person is starting in the south. Thus, he’s in idolatry and needs to move away from it. I suspect you’re treat it like tag: “Flee from the boy who is chasing you (but hasn’t caught you).

That’s not quite what I would say either. A boy chasing you does represent some of the temptation aspect, but it doesn’t accurately illustrate the relationship.

I’d say that it’s more like if you had friends who do drugs and you like to hang out in their basement but don’t do drugs yourself. I’d say, “flee from drugs,” “flee from substance abuse,” or “flee from addiction.” Right now they are near it and associated with it, but they should stay far from it instead of being near to it. So I wouldn’t say that they are in idolatry but near idolatry – in either one of those cases you would tell the person to flee from it. That verse alone doesn’t tell us whether they are in it or are near it – it could be either – so we have to look at the context to see which one it is.

Would you say that all who sing “How Great Thou Art!” are God-Worshippers?

I would not call them all God-worshippers.

“…these people approach Me with their mouths to honor Me with lip-service— yet their hearts are far from Me, and their worship consists of man-made rules learned by rote…” (Isaiah 29:13)

“Their worship” was not true worship. Worship without the heart is not real worship. But that’s a slightly different question than the one Paul is addressing; eating and drinking in someone’s house is different from singing the praises of that person. I would put that particular issue closer to the case of Naaman.

So I wouldn’t say that they are in idolatry but near idolatry – in either one of those cases you would tell the person to flee from it. That verse alone doesn’t tell us whether they are in it or are near it – it could be either – so we have to look at the context to see which one it is.

I’m with you.

–—====–—

How Great Thou Art

I’m with you on this, also. Yet I would say that there is a sense in which God can and does get glory even from the worship of those with an unbelieving heart. As others hear it and the beauty of it encourages their appreciation and worship of God, God is glorified by the song and its effects, though still not the heart of the singer.

We have turned from Paul’s example of worship through sacrifice to our worship in song. I think we agree that singing a song of worship might not be true worship (some sense, at least).

So, I ask you what would you say to this: A member of your church is a professional singer. She sings in church. She comes to you and tells you she has been offered a contract as a back-up singer on an album. She was excited, because her family needs the money. But it turns out the album explicitly glorifies sexual hedonism and is contemptuous of God and His morals. She says she is thinking of taking the job. She intends to sing, but not mean it. It’s just words and if she doesn’t mean them, then she isn’t glorifying hedonism any more than an unbeliever glorifies God by singing “How Great Thou Art.”

Okay, that’s a good example. The situation has some differences, but I would use principles from I Cor. 5 & 8-10 in talking to the singer about this.
1) We can see from I Cor. 5 that a believer should not be involved with sexual immorality. But what if a believer is singing a song that portrays it positively?

2) It’s not the same, but similar to a believer eating in the temple. I wouldn’t say that singing positively about sexual immorality is itself sexual immorality, but it can be sin for several other reasons.

a) If you are associating with unrepentant sexually immoral people who call themselves Christians (I Cor. 5).

b) If by your words or behavior you are encouraging fellow Christians to sin (I Cor. 8).

c) If you are associating yourself with (participating with) those who rebel against God in their act of rebellion (I Cor. 10).

I’d say that the case you presented of publicly recording the positive portrayal of sexual immorality would violate at least b and c.

There are lots of ways to make this situation more complicated: What if the song itself doesn’t mention or promote sexual immorality, but the lead singer is well known for being sexually immoral?
What if the song doesn’t mention sin, is sung by fellow believers, but was written by someone know for promoting sexual immorality in other contexts?
What if the song promotes what is good, is sung by fellow believers, is written by a believer, but the producers and record label executives are open promoters of sexual immorality?

I think that it is exactly these kinds of sticky situations that Paul is addressing. In chs. 8-10 Paul isn’t primarily addressing idolatry itself or calling their behavior idolatrous, the issue is how should a Christian behave (in relation to our brothers and to Christ) while living in an idolatrous society? The details and temptations are contextually different for us today, but the principles apply. How should a Christian live in an idolatrous society, a greedy society, a sexually immoral society? Because the American culture is idolatrous, greedy, immoral, etc. We can’t live pridefully or selfishly, but must live focused on our love for one another and focused on glorifying God in whatever we do.

P.s. And if we don’t always act appropriate as Christians (in relations to brothers or to Christ) while in an idolatrous society that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve committed the sin of idolatry itself. We may have sinned against our brother and against Christ, and need to repent of that sin. But Paul does equate the sin of idolatry to the various potential sins of acting inappropriately in relation to an idolatrous culture.

Taking another example from the text: in the case of eating in someone’s home in I Cor. 10:27-28, Paul says not to eat the meat if someone tells you that it is sacrificed to idols. But what if you do eat it in that situation anyway? Is that a sin? Is it the sin of idolatry or another sin or both?
I would say that it would be a sin, but not necessarily the sin of idolatry. What do you think?

I could have made the album a tribute to satan or some demon. But then it would not have been a believable story about our society. Maybe yours, but then the part about backup singers and an album wouldn’t have fit. We live in a society that glorifies sex, money, power, etc. and is largely disbelieving in spiritual things. One thing I was careful about in the story was this:

explicitly glorifies sexual hedonism

I wanted to ask: does her participation mean she is worshipping hedonism? That’s slightly different from “Does she engage in hedonism?”

Another way to ask this is, “Does ‘glorifies’ equal ‘worships’?”

You’ve answered a slightly different question: “I wouldn’t say that singing positively about sexual immorality is itself sexual immorality…”

This reflects either your different way of viewing the act of the TM-Eaters or the difference between my example and TM-Eating (or both).

In the case of glorifying hedonism through song, there is a sin (illicit sex) and then a different sin of glorifying that sin (the singing). Are there two sins with regard to TM-Eating?

Worshipping hedonism? I don’t know if that’s a useful or logical phrase. Hedonism is a false philosophy or a way of life, not really a false god. It’s like saying, “is she worshipping gluttony?” The question doesn’t really make sense if you are using the word “worship” in the same way as “worshipping God” or “worshipping an idol?”
One can try to argue that a person can make an “idol” of a particular sin, but I wouldn’t say that in the context of this question. Engaging in or espousing hedonism is really just selfishness, or one can argue, worshipping yourself. If you take that kind of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then you could say every sin is the sin of idolatry. Failing to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength could be said to be the sin of idolatry if we love anything else more than we love God. But that’s not the sense in which the word idolatry or the sin of idolatry is talked about in this context.

In the case of glorifying hedonism through song, there is a sin (illicit sex) and then a different sin of glorifying that sin (the singing). Are there two sins with regard to TM-Eating?

I’d say that in the case of eating in the temple there are at least 3 sins to be concerned about:
1) Idolatry: worshipping a false god (which the Corinthian Christians weren’t doing anymore “such were some of you” I Cor. 6:9-11)

2) Encouraging your weaker brother to sin by encouraging to act against his conscience (ch.8)

3) Eating and drinking (associating/participating/partaking) with demons (ch.10)

One can try to argue that a person can make an “idol” of a particular sin, but I wouldn’t say that in the context of this question.

Right. See Colossians 3:5.

I’d say that in the case of eating in the temple there are at least 3 sins to be concerned about:

1) Idolatry: worshipping a false god (which the Corinthian Christians weren’t doing anymore “such were some of you” I Cor. 6:9-11)

2) Encouraging your weaker brother to sin by encouraging to act against his conscience (ch.8)

3) Eating and drinking (associating/participating/partaking) with demons (ch.10)

I agree with your categories. But I would name them slightly differently:

1. Heart-Idolatry: TM-Eating with an attitude of respect/honor/expectation for the idol. (And I agree that the Corinthians Christians at least claimed not to be doing this.)

2. ditto

3. Participation-Idolatry: TM-Eating WITHOUT any attitude of respect/honor/expectation for the idol.

Let’s call #3 “Participation.” (we agree on that)

-=-=-

So we’re back to our basic question: Is Participation idolatry? I say there is a sense in which it is and a sense in which it is not. I think you just say “no it’s not.”

This is why I made the Singer question (“the album explicitly glorifies sexual hedonism”).

Worshipping hedonism? I don’t know if that’s a useful or logical phrase.

You didn’t protest when I said, “glorifies hedonism.” I think that glorify and worship share a lot of meaning. One can speak in praise of an act without actually doing that act. At least the act of praising and the act of doing are two separate acts.

So the question remains: Is the singer glorifying hedonism by participating in singing lyrics that do so?

Is the singer glorifying hedonism by participating in singing lyrics that do so?

It depends on what do you mean by “glorifying hedonism.” The way I would take that is “ascribing great value to hedonism.” Singing positively about it ascribes value to it even if you don’t value it in your own heart. So in that way, publicly singing positive affirmations of hedonism can be “glorifying hedonism” even if you don’t personally value it in the same way you are singing about it.
If the Corinthians were singing praises to the idol, then we’d have another problem. As I said before, the situation of singing about hedonism is slightly different from eating in the temple. As the article you quoted mentioned, eating and drinking in the temple was most likely done in a separate room from where the actual sacrificial ceremony takes place. If the Corinthian is participating in the sacrificial ceremony, that is, repeating phrases of worship, physically presenting sacrifices before the priests or before the altar, then they would be participating in idol worship. But that is not what Paul addresses in I Cor. 10:20-21. In those verses he says that you cannot be participants with demons – participating in what action? The action of eating and drinking at the table. That’s the participation he is referring to in this context: participation in fellowship by eating and drinking at the same table. This ties directly back to I Cor. 5:11, “do not even eat with such a person.” Paul is not saying that they are participating with demons in idol worship, but in fellowship in eating and drink at the same table.

It depends on what do you mean by “glorifying hedonism.” The way I would take that is “ascribing great value to hedonism.” Singing positively about it ascribes value to it even if you don’t value it in your own heart. So in that way, publicly singing positive affirmations of hedonism can be “glorifying hedonism” even if you don’t personally value it in the same way you are singing about it.

I’ll go with your definition: “ascribing great value to hedonism.” And I agree with your conclusion. She is glorifying hedonism. I’ll call this non-heart-glorification. The album’s songwriter is doing heart-glorification.

Regarding your last paragraph, I (of course) disagree. You link participation back to 1Cor5:11”do not eat with.” Ok-I get that part.

3 categories of possible sin: 1) Heart-idolatry 2) Skandalon 3) Participation. We’re talking about #3.

Here’s our disagreement as we go through the passage.

I think when Paul says, “Participation,” he means (at least) Non-Heart-Idolatry. You think Paul means Participation (which isn’t idolatry in any sense).

I think that “Flee idolatry” means, “Stop TM-Eating because it IS non-heart-idolatry.” You think that “flee idolatry” means, “Stop TM-Eating because you are so close to falling into idolatry.”

So: Is Participation non-heart-idolatry? That was the purpose of the Singer Story. She, like the TM-Eating Strong Corinthians, does her thing without meaning it. You said:

If the Corinthians were singing praises to the idol, then…

What I mean to say is that the TM-Eating Corinthians were, by their actions, ascribing value to the idol, it’s food, and it’s ceremony. You said,

As the article you quoted mentioned, eating and drinking in the temple was most likely done in a separate room from where the actual sacrificial ceremony takes place.

This is true, but the whole point of the article is that dining in those rooms would have been viewed as eating at the idol’s table (there were no tables in the main sacrifice area) and not secular. In fact, the article gives evidence that there were duplicate small idols in each room.

And go back to 1Cor10:

14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.

I want to emphasize that there’s a sense in which you are right: Paul would agree that the TM-Eating “strong” are not involved in #1-Heart-Idolatry.

But he is still very worried about “idolatry.” In the discussion of this worry, he uses Participation. Now, is this because Participation is in a sense idolatry? Or because it places one near to falling into idolatry?

The discussion following “Flee from idolatry” concerns that the strong were already doing. They were eating at the idol’s table. Paul links what eating sacrificial meat in the OT “said” about the person. Eating in the OT was engaging in God’s ceremony. It ascribed greatness to God through action. Eating at the Idol’s table ascribed greatness to the idol - not through words of worship, but through action that had meaning.

In other words, “Participation” with the Corinthian idols is in a sense comparable with “participation” in worship of God, both in the OT sacrifices and the NT Lord’s Table.

Paul knows that by saying this (vv.1-18), he is stepping on the toes of the Strong and making a very specific challenge to their view of “an idol is nothing. Thus, “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?

As I’ve said before, Paul explicitly says that the idol is NOT absolutely nothing. It’s demons. It’s not a God, but it’s not absolutely nothing. Then, ~”Not strong you are to drink demon’s cup and drink Lord’s cup.”~

Participation with idols in Corinth was a statement of worship. It was like singing illicit words. If you don’t mean the statement, then it’s non-heart-glorification (non-heart-idolatry); if you do mean it, then it’s heart-idolatry.

If your identification of heart-idolatry and non-heart-idolatry is true (though I don’t believe it is) then the same would be true of worship to God. Therefore, both heart-worship and non-heart-worship of the One true God would be a good thing and would actually be true worship of God. But they are not both true worship of God.

In your example of the singer, she is participating in the glorification of hedonism, but you have yet to show that the Corinthians are participating in the glorification of the idol. When you see the word “participating” you are jumping to the conclusion that they are participating in idol worship or idol glorification, but that is not what this passage speaks of. In this passage “participating with” someone is talking about association, fellowship, eating and drinking together, and sharing in the same table.

If the Corinthians were publicly refusing to worship the idols (I Cor. 6:9-11) and are likewise calling their idolatrous friends and family members to repentance and belief in the one true God, then it would be clear that they are not participating in the idol worship or glorification. The issue is fellowship and association with idolatry and those who are actively committing idolatry – that is clearly something a Christian should be doing. We don’t invite unbelievers to participate in the Lord’s table, not because we don’t want them to starting worshiping Christ, but because it is a symbol of fellowship and union with Christ and with other Christians. In the same way, a Christian should not participate in the meal at the temple’s table because it is a symbol of fellowship and unity with demons and the idol-worshippers.

I don’t mean to change the subject away from chapter 10 (please continue there if you have anything to add), but in your explanation of ch 8 concerning weak/strong did you mention any relationship to I Cor. 16:13-14 in the farewell address?

If your identification of heart-idolatry and non-heart-idolatry is true (though I don’t believe it is) then the same would be true of worship to God. Therefore, both heart-worship and non-heart-worship of the One true God would be a good thing and would actually be true worship of God. But they are not both true worship of God.

No, In order to be real goodness worship of God, it must be in spirit and in truth. But when it comes to worship of a demon, either form (heart-worship and non-heart-worship) is idolatry in some sense. So there’s two ways to sin here, but only it takes the heart and the life to truly worship God.

When you see the word “participating” you are jumping to the conclusion that they are participating in idol worship or idol glorification, but that is not what this passage speaks of.

Sitting in the idol-temple and eating what was offered to the idol - did that action communicate worship for the idol? I think it’s fairly obvious that it did. Paul’s extended argument that eating at these sacrifices equals Participation is an attempt to say that the outward act has a meaning that the strong were not coming to grips with. Eating what is offered is Participation with that offering and the one to whom it is offered.

Actions, like words (though not with the same clarity) have meanings. So if my wife and I decide together that (just cuz we’re weird and like to “see through” signs) we will use the phrase “You’re a steaming pile of crap” to mean “I love you.” And we use it that way for a while, really meaning our meaning when we say it. Then I say it to my mom, who isn’t in our our re-definition. She rightly takes offense.

Strong#1 and Strong#2 might go together to the temple and eat, agreeing that they don’t mean worship for the idols. Fine, they don’t interpret each other’s actions as worship. But what about everyone else in the temple? They all see them eat and interpret their actions (again actions have meanings) as meaning just what everyone in the culture thinks they mean - the worship of idols.

You can say, “But it wasn’t heart worship.” I agree. But it was still non-heart-worship, very like the singer is non-heart-glorifying sex.

I’m not alone. In the Discussion of Part 12, Alex gave us a link to a recent paper by D.A. Carson on “disputable matters.”

DA Carson, How, then, does the argument of 1 Corinthians 8 relate to the argument of 1 Corinthians 10:14–22, where it appears that the apostle Paul absolutely forbids eating the sacrifices of pagans, which is nothing other than participating in demonic worship? … in 1 Corinthians 10 what is prohibited is eating meat that is part of participating in any service or worship or cult or rite that is tied to pagan deities.

-=-=-

Question for you: If Paul wasn’t saying that Participation was idolatry in any sense, then why does his 1Cor10:1-18 polemic cause Paul to expect his reader to object, “Are you saying the idol is something?”?

…in your explanation of ch 8 concerning weak/strong did you mention any relationship to I Cor. 16:13-14 in the farewell address?

Here’s the passage:

13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love.

hmmm… The Greek word for “be strong” is “κραταιόω,” which isn’t used in 1Cor8-10 or Rom14.

The phrase, “στήκετε ἐν τῇ πίστει” does have words seen in Rom14:4. Both use “στήκω” for “stand.” And Rom14:4 also uses “ἵστημι” for “stand,” which is the word used in 1Cor10:12 “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” So I suppose this could be a final warning to watch your standing in the sense the Strong were being warned in 1Cor10:1-22. But it’s also likely he is just encouraging them to remain in the faith.

“In the faith” is a little different from Rom14:1 in that here in 1Cor16, the phrase includes the preposition. The phrase often appears to refer to the Christian belief.

Are you seeing something I’m missing?

Sitting in the idol-temple and eating what was offered to the idol - did that action communicate worship for the idol? I think it’s fairly obvious that it did.

I think you are assuming that the Corinthian Christians weren’t communicating anything to the contrary. I Cor. 6:9-11, Paul says that they have stopped participating in their sinful lifestyle. So imagine you have a friend who practiced hedonism, sexual immorality, lied and cheated in business, drank heavily, and participated in the idol-worshipping ceremony in the other room. Now he has stopped doing those things, meets regularly with other Christians, and is asking you to join him in repentance and faith in Jesus. Would you think that by eating with you in the other room in the temple that he is still worshipping the same god you are worshipping? I think you could say that it’s fairly obvious their actions they were no longer communicating worship for the idol.

Question for you: If Paul wasn’t saying that Participation was idolatry in any sense, then why does his 1Cor10:1-18 polemic cause Paul to expect his reader to object, “Are you saying the idol is something?”?

In I Cor. 10:16 Paul points out that when we eat and drink at the Lord’s table we are indicating fellowship/communion/association with Christ. And Paul anticipates their possible objection, “an idol is nothing, therefore we aren’t fellowshipping/communing/associating with anything at the temple, unless you are saying that an idol is something.” Paul says no, an idol really is nothing, but by eating and drinking at the idol’s table you are fellowshipping/communing/associating with demons. And you can’t have fellowship at both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.

He’s not saying that you can’t worship both the one true God and demons. That’s true too, but that’s not the issue Paul is addressing. He’s talking about fellowship and association by eating and drinking at the table.

I still can’t seem to get my Greek fonts to display within the this editor, what do you use?

I Corinthians 16:13-14 Be alert, stand firm in the faith, be brave and strong. 14 Your every action must be done with love.

“Be alert/watchful, stand firm in the faith” doesn’t use the same words, but does seem to refer back to I Cor. 10:12.

“be brave/like a man” I think refers back to I Cor. 9:24-27.

“Your every action must be done with love.” I think refers back to I Cor. 8:1 and ch. 13.

What does “be strong” refer to in the letter?

It seems that he is referring back to his address to those who have a problem with pride, not to those who are “weak” according to their conscience. So I wouldn’t say that he’s calling the weak in conscience to become strong in conscience. He’s telling the prideful to watch and resist temptation, to stand firm in the faith, to persevere (that’s how I take “like a man”), and to do everything with love (love for Christ and one another). But why does he tell them to “be strong” if the purpose of the passage was for them to become “weak?”

If Paul is using the categories weak/unable according to conscience and strong/able according to conscience, then wouldn’t some of Paul’s parting words be “… and don’t forget to be weak according to your conscience!”

But no he says, “be alert, stand firm in the faith, be like a man, be strong.” The idea being, be strong in the faith, as in mature, stable, secure. The farewell address seems to be more consistent with the traditional interpretation of weak/immature and strong/mature.

Follow me for a second here because I don’t want you to misunderstand what I’m saying. Your interpretation is that there are 2 groups: weak/unable to eat and strong/able to eat. When I say that the issue is weak/immature and strong/mature I’m not re-describing those same groups of people as unable to eat/immature and able to eat/mature. I’m not saying that those who were eating were automatically more mature in the faith. Paul doesn’t describe the meat-eaters as either strong or mature in Corinth does he? He does in Romans, but not here. Why? Because in Corinth, those who were eating the meat were doing so as immature Christians. They were being prideful, they lacked love for their brothers, and when eating in the temple they were associating with demons. These were the marks of immature Christians who need rebuke and strengthening.

In I Corinthians Paul doesn’t say that the meat eaters were strong and need to bear the weaknesses and build up those who are weak as he says in Romans. In Rome, the meat eaters were mature and those who did not eat were weak/immature. In Corinth, the meat-eaters were clearly immature themselves. He mentions the weakness of those who do not eat, but he doesn’t address their issue in this letter as he does in Romans. That doesn’t mean that the weak were correct in thinking that eating in the temple was idolatry; it’s just not the issue he is addressing.

Forgive me if i don’t totally enmesh with this complicated dialog.

Paul acknowledges that “an idol is nothing” but at the same time actions may be misconstrued. Just as the primary message of the Lord’s Supper is proclaiming Christ, folks could be rightly confused with strong and knowing believers eating in an idol temple though it is “nothing.”

Maybe the hypothetical has been discussed, forgive my take in that case. Also, have you folks considered Dan. 1 was not primarily the types of foods (there was undoubtedly some too) but that they were all offered to idols. Notice the deep idolatry in changing the Hebrew names of the captives. I have viewed an extensive museum collection of Babylonian artifacts and it completely permeated that culture.

Back to Gentile Christians in Corinth. The strong were technically right but insensitive to what they were projecting with their freedom particularly located in an idol temple. Think of the Jewish Christians who were used to thinking about idols differently (Daniel’s precedent of purity from participation).

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

I di not mean that Gentiles were not eating in idol temples, they were. So it was not a hypothetical in that sense.

In my view, what is missing in analyzing this section (and many other sections of scripture) is both an clearer historical context and the *Jewish factor* in determining reference of Paul’s letter.

"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield

http://beliefspeak2.net

I will make use of these discussions at a later date, so for me it will be helpful if we categorize. So let’s leave 1 Cor 5, 16 for another thread.

Follow me for a second here because I don’t want you to misunderstand what I’m saying. Your interpretation is that there are 2 groups: weak/unable to eat and strong/able to eat. When I say that the issue is weak/immature and strong/mature I’m not re-describing those same groups of people as unable to eat/immature and able to eat/mature. I’m not saying that those who were eating were automatically more mature in the faith. Paul doesn’t describe the meat-eaters as either strong or mature in Corinth does he? He does in Romans, but not here. Why? Because in Corinth, those who were eating the meat were doing so as immature Christians. They were being prideful, they lacked love for their brothers, and when eating in the temple they were associating with demons. These were the marks of immature Christians who need rebuke and strengthening.

I bolded your questions in the middle. And I find your answers familiar. I’ll give mine, though.

Paul doesn’t describe the meat-eaters as either strong or mature in Corinth does he? Paul explicitly attaches “weak” to the “idol offerings are ‘real’; don’t be involved” view. 1Cor8:7-12. Note that Paul attaches “weak” to both the thinking process and the final conviction of No TM-Eating.

So were the TM-Eaters of Corinth “strong”? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that weakness-strength is always a spectrum, however you view it. If you view it as a spectrum of maturity [sic] , then Paul would be saying that there are the weak(immature[sic] ), and the medium-mature, who still have a lot to learn and grow.

I view weakness-strength entirely in terms of the self-assessed ability to do things conscience-wise. So you have varying levels of ability. Some can’t eat even what is in the market (the most unable). Some eat market, but not temple(medium). And some eat idol-meat in the temple(the most able).

Re-hashing those doesn’t resolve anything.

Paul said that TM-Eating was participating. I want to show that it is, in a sense (non-heart), worship. You objected that Participation isn’t worship or glorification, but only ‘association.’

In your example of the singer, she is participating in the glorification of hedonism, but you have yet to show that the Corinthians are participating in the glorification of the idol. When you see the word “participating” you are jumping to the conclusion that they are participating in idol worship or idol glorification,

My response is that actions communicate - not as precisely was words, but they still communicate. Note what Paul says about Lord’s Table participation:

1Cor11:25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

This is my point. Eating and drinking communicate. In the case of the Lord’s Table, they proclaim the death of Jesus. Paul specifically uses the Lord’s Table to teach them what participation means.

1Cor10:15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

The fact that participation-eating was a proclamation of something is Paul’s words. HE uses what the Lord’s Table eating is to inform the Corinthians about what TM-Eating is.

Forgive me if i don’t totally enmesh with this complicated dialog.

no problem.

Paul acknowledges that “an idol is nothing”…

I don’t agree that Paul acknowledges that in the same sense that the TM-Eaters were taking it. He ends by saying, “I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.” Paul is explicit that the idol is NOT absolutely nothing. The idol is nothing only in the sense that it is not a god in the same category as God. That category has ONE member. And only He deserves praise.

…Also, have you folks considered Dan. 1 was not primarily the types of foods (there was undoubtedly some too) but that they were all offered to idols. Notice the deep idolatry in changing the Hebrew names of the captives. I have viewed an extensive museum collection of Babylonian artifacts and it completely permeated that culture.

Yes! - and I did mention this in Part 1. My point there is that we make a mistake when we assume that all these issues are Strong-is-correct issues. Meat, Sabbath, marriage, money for ministry, etc., all these issues can be seen as having very legitimate applications on the “weak” side NOW in the NT. Consider two aspects of Scripture application: 1) The Rules of Scripture 2) How to apply those principles.

Many Rules have changed. But I submit that How to Apply hasn’t changed. In fact, if you look at the Sermon on the Mount, the How to Apply has only gotten stricter. Don’t murder?—>Don’t hate. No adultery—>Don’t Look. Pork is fine now (Peter’s vision). But Peter’s vision didn’t include idols. Idolatry is still just as wrong as in the OT. What about How to Apply? What evidence do we have that How to Apply idolatry has been changed? Idol-Meat is still as issue in Jesus’ letters to the churches in Revelation.

Back to Gentile Christians in Corinth. The strong were technically right but insensitive to what they were projecting with their freedom particularly located in an idol temple. Think of the Jewish Christians who were used to thinking about idols differently (Daniel’s precedent of purity from participation).

I get what you’re saying with “technically right.” But that sounds too conclusive. In 1Cor8 Paul calls TM-Eating “this right of yours.” yes, he’s acknowledging that they technically have a point. There’s a sense in which TM-Eating isn’t idolatry. However, there’s another sense in which it is participation in idolatry because it proclaims something about the idol, even if you don’t mean it. And so in the final analysis, Paul is saying “I don’t want you participating with demons”(20).