Who Are the "Weak in Faith?" (Part 2)
Image
Relief with sacrifice to Asklepios (c. AD 320)
Sometimes the Weak Brother is Right
In 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul wrote about idol meat. The one who avoided idol meat had a weak conscience. Romans 14 refers to meat-avoiding weak believers as well. Both passages warn the eaters that their eating could cause stumbling and destruction. Both argue for love over liberty. Both deal with standing and falling. However, though these passages deal with similar issues, the Corinthians were struggling with much closer involvement with idols.
In 1 Corinthians 8:1-7, the strong are said to have knowledge. Paul used two words for knowledge. First, γνῶσις, “knowledge,” is found in 1 Corinthians 8:1,7,10,11. The same word as a verb, γινώσκω, “I know,” is found in 1 Corinthians 8:2,3. Second, εἴδω, “I see” or “I understand,” occurs in four verses in 1 Corinthians 8:1 (know), 2 (know), 4 (know), 10 (see). These two words are somewhat interchangeable1. Romans 14:14a uses εἴδω, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus.” Romans 14 does not use γινώσκω.
The knowledge of the strong2 was this: Because there is only one God, they could recline at the table in the temple where meat was sacrificed to idols and eat. At the end of chapter 10, Paul discusses a different issue (eating idol tainted meat sold in the market), but in chapter 8 and most of chapter 10 the issue is meat eaten at the idol temple.
Paul says, (v.10) “For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple3, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?” The “strong” position of ch. 8 was reclining and eating in the temple (not just eating market bought meat). This is also seen in Paul’s use of the word εἰδωλόθυτα, which has been shown to refer to meat offered to idols and eaten in the presence of the idol4. The concern in 1 Corinthians 8:10 is that the weak might be emboldened to eat in the temple, not just the market.
There is some disagreement over whether eating in the idol temple was religious or secular. Garland says, “They may also have justified their actions by downplaying any religious ceremony … as a bunch of mumbo jumbo that had no spiritual effect on them whatsoever”5. Willis argues that such events were essentially secular6. Witherington refutes this by giving evidence that even in the adjoining rooms, the idol was present and a short ceremony honoring the idol would have preceded the meal7. However, engaging in a socially dictated religious ceremony doesn’t imply personal religious belief. As an example from popular culture, the baptism of Michael Corleone’s son8 comes to mind. The strong of Corinth seem to have thought in a similar way, as Paul demonstrates when he explains their knowledge.
The knowledge of the strong was a chain of ideas: An idol is nothing (8:4) since there is one God. Participating in an idol’s ceremony is worshipping nothing and means nothing. Therefore, it doesn’t violate the prohibition against having other gods. The weak, however, does not have that knowledge. He also holds to the doctrine of one God. He believes that the idol does constitute a sinful violation of “No other gods.”
Paul’s Extended Argument
Other than the fact that his “conscience is weak,” how does Paul depict the ethical position of the weak and the strong? Let’s look at Paul’s extended argument in 1 Corinthians 8-10:
- Paul warns about knowledge. It puffs up (8:1). It keeps one from considering that he lacks knowledge (8:2). Being known by God is better than having knowledge.
- Paul says the thinking of the strong is supposition. In 8:2, he says, “If anyone imagines that he knows something.” (ESV) That word for imagines is “δοκέω.” Paul uses it again in 10:12, “Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.” Paul did not use this word for the thinking of the weak in Romans 14:14 (he chose λογίζομαι). Paul’s respect for the weak seems to be greater than his respect for the strong.
- Using the Old Testament (10:1-18), Paul argues forcefully against temple-idol meat. We must note that Paul is making the argument of the weak.
- The objection of the strong in Paul’s audience is inevitable and Paul expresses it for them: (v. 19) “What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?” Garland says, “Paul is conscious that his statements might seem inconsistent with what he wrote in 8:4, ‘that an idol has no real significance’ ”9. The question of v. 19 is written to expect a “No” answer10. Paul answers it, (v. 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.” Without admitting there are other gods, he says there are demons behind the idols. Paul is arguing that the strong are wrong and their “knowledge” isn’t very good thinking.
- Paul concludes: (v. 21) “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons.” We must see this in Greek, “οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον…” (“Not strong you are to drink…” The strong, if they follow and apply Paul’s argument, are “not strong.”
- Note what Paul says to the strong at the beginning of chapter 10. “For I do not want you to be ignorant” (10:1, NIV). In Greek, “Οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν” (“But I don’t want you to be without knowledge.”) What follows (10:1-18) is precisely what the weak brother thinks: Idolatry is forbidden and idols are idolatry. The strong need the vital knowledge Paul gives in ch. 10, not the weak. This is why Paul (8:2) warns the strong that they think they know, but they do not yet know as they should. And in 10:12, if anyone thinks that he stands, he should take heed lest he fall.
Re-examining the “Knowledge” of the Strong & the Thinking of the Weak
To summarize, let’s re-examine the “knowledge” of the strong and the thinking of the weak.
The “knowledge” of the strong
Premise 1: There is only one God; these idols are not false gods (they are nothing).
Premise 2: It is forbidden to worship false gods.
Therefore, The prohibition doesn’t apply to our idols.
The thinking of the weak
Premise 1: There is only one God; idols are false gods.
Premise 2: It is forbidden to worship false gods.
Therefore, The prohibition does apply to idols in our city.
First, is the reasoning of the strong logical? The strong in Corinth could say that the weak is committing a logical fallacy: Because “gods” in Premise 1 is a false god and what is forbidden in Premise 2 is real gods, the idolatry prohibition doesn’t apply to Corinthian idols.
The weak might reply: Then what was the point of God prohibiting idolatry in the first place? What did God want? Clearly, from Moses to Achan to Daniel, God wanted it applied to the idols of the day, even though they were never “really other gods.” So the thinking of the strong would mean that all Old Testament instances of idol avoidance were not really necessary and all Old Testament instances of idolatry would not have been sinful if the people had just remembered that there is only one God. If the prohibition against idolatry ever applied to anything, it applied to the idols in our city.
The response of the strong to this counterargument, while important, goes beyond the point of this paper.
Paul uses “suppose” for the thinking of the strong, warns him about the dangers of “knowledge,” tells him he might actually be “without knowledge,” corrects the knowledge he does have, and finally tells him that he is “not strong” to sit in that temple and eat idol meat. The “strong” is gradually encouraged to become “weak.” Is Paul trying to weaken the faith of the Corinthians? No. We are in need of re-thinking what Paul meant by “weak in faith” and “conscience is weak,” because the weak position can be the faithful, knowledgeable, and right position.
Notes
1 They are used this way in v. 2, and in vv. 4-7.
2 Paul doesn’t call them “strong.” They’re “strong” by being counterparts to the “weak.” Here, Paul calls them the ones “with knowledge.”
3 The Greek text says, reclining in an idol’s temple.
4 Ben Witherington, Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton, Tyndale Bulletin, 44:237-254.
5 David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003, pp. 356.
6 W. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth. The Pauline Argument in I Corinthians 8 and 10, Chico, Scholars Press 1985, p. 63.
7 Ben Witherington, p. 242-5.
9 Garland, p. 479.
10 The word “No” in Paul’s reply (v. 20) is added. This might be because the question was phrased to expect a “No.” V. 20 can be translated, “But I say, that…” (KJV). Is Paul answering it “yes” or “no”? I believe that the question in v. 19 is presumed by Paul to be on the lips of the strong—it is their question, so they expect the “no” answer. Paul himself doesn’t really see it as a “No.” If so, it should read like this:
v. 19: What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything!?
v. 20: But I AM saying that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons.
Dan Miller Bio
Dan Miller is an ophthalmologist in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He is a husband, father, and part-time student.
- 20 views
I am heading off to Family Camp this AM and can’t get into much discussion. I still think it is significant that Paul doesn’t use the word “strong” to describe those with knowledge, but that will have to wait till I have some time to address it.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don, I think you are pointing out something significant. The trouble is that it’s tough to attach meaning to something that Paul didn’t say.
Don has argued in the past that the way Paul deals with the meat disagreement in Romans (follow your conviction either way) and the way he deals with the meat disagreement in 1 Cor 8-10a(Don’t Do It!) are so different that the passages should not be seen to be utilizing the same ethical tools.
I see it as Paul utilizing the same ethical tools for different issues. I think that since Paul is going to say, “Don’t Do It!” to the temple-idol-meat, ch. 10, perhaps he doesn’t want to use the term “strong” for them in ch. 8. But also perhaps Paul thought of them as the strong and just didn’t mention it. In Romans, he went the entirety of ch. 14 without using the word “strong” in reference to the strong.
There are other problems with trying to separate Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8-10. One is shared ideas that connect these passages.
Romans 14:1 - 15:9 1 Corinthians 8, 9, 10
“weak in faith” Romans 14:1 “weak in conscience” 1 Corinthians 8:7
About food restrictions Romans 14:2 1 Corinthians 8:1
Practice your beliefs with thanksgiving to the glory of God. Romans 14:6 1 Corinthians 10:30-31
Don’t cause a weaker brother to stumble into sin by your freedom. Romans 14:13-14, 21 1 Corinthians 8:9-11
We “know” all foods are clean. Romans 14:14 We “know” all idols are nothing. 1 Corinthians 8:4, 7
Don’t destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Romans 14:15 1 Corinthians 8:11
Food is not important in the kingdom of God. Romans 14:17, 20 1 Corinthians 8:8
Seek for the good of others. Romans 15:2 1 Corinthians 10:24
The scriptures give us warnings and examples. Romans 15:4 1 Corinthians 10:6
Christ is our example of giving up freedoms. Romans 15:7-9 1 Corinthians 11:1
Christ gave up freedoms for the sake of winning both Jews and Gentiles. Romans 15:8,9 Paul gave up freedoms for the sake of winning both Jews and Gentiles. 1 Corinthians 9:19-23Crowley, JD (2014-02-23). Commentary on Romans for Cambodia and Asia (ASEAN Bible Commentary Series) (Kindle Locations 9710-9738). Fount of Wisdom Publishing House, Phnom Penh. Kindle Edition.
I think Tobin and Reasoner had similar charts - I might look tonight at home.
The biggest problem with Don’s idea that Paul didn’t think of the eaters as “strong” is that Paul uses other terms that he should have equally avoided if that was he goal. He says that eating in the temple is their ἐξουσία (8:9), a word he uses for the “right” or “liberty” to eat & drink(9:4), marry (9:5), get paid for preaching (9:6). ἐξουσία isn’t used in Romans 14, so this doesn’t tie the passages together. But if Paul specifically avoided “strong” for the eaters, surely he would have avoided ἐξουσία. And he probably would have avoided “weak” for the conscientious temple-idol-meat abstainers.
Well, I think that the tendency is to think of the strong as spiritually mature, and indeed that is the way he uses it in Rm 15. He is encouraging the strong to join with him in bearing the weaknesses of the weak. (I think he also uses a new word for weak at this point here, but I haven’t time to check.)
I would think that those with knowledge in 1Cor think of themselves as spiritually mature. But Paul points out the tendency of knowledge to puff up. This “puffing up” perhaps looks wise and mature in its own eyes, but really isn’t.
The strength in Rm 15 is not because Paul has the right view of the meat issue along with the others who ate any kind of meat, as to the Lord (14.6, 14). The strength is that which comes from a person who sees the difference and yet is willing to make ministry to the weak more important than every possible exercise of his right view of meat. In other words, the strong are the spiritually mature, they have the right attitude and the right practice. They are self-forgetful and others oriented, seeking to build up the body of Christ, even if it means inconveniencing themselves.
As for the use of authority in 1cor 8.9, I will think about that one, but perhaps a preliminary answer - They were taking this right/authority, but they didn’t actually possess this right/authority. As we see later, what they were doing was wrong, so the word is being used from their perspective, not Paul’s. Does that make sense?
It is late at night at the KOA, the mosquitos are buzzing around, and we’ve had an auspicious beginning to Family Camp. Shared Nanaimo Bars with our American friends tonight. They didn’t last long.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]…In considering this, we need to distinguish between what it means to be “strong” and what being strong means a person ought to do.The strength in Rm 15 is not because Paul has the right view of the meat issue along with the others who ate any kind of meat, as to the Lord (14.6, 14). The strength is that which comes from a person who sees the difference and yet is willing to make ministry to the weak more important than every possible exercise of his right view of meat. In other words, the strong are the spiritually mature, they have the right attitude and the right practice. They are self-forgetful and others oriented, seeking to build up the body of Christ, even if it means inconveniencing themselves.
Rom 15:1 - We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.
If we are strong, then we ought to [love over liberty]. You can be strong and fail to live for others. So love over liberty isn’t what it means to be “strong.”
Like: if you’re a doctor, you should be kind to your patients. Well, there are unkind doctors. They’re still doctors. What makes you a doctor is a bunch of other things (completed training, licensure, etc.). Kindness was taught and encouraged in Medical School. But it was never tested for.
[Don Johnson] As for the use of authority in 1cor 8.9, I will think about that one, but perhaps a preliminary answer - They were taking this right/authority, but they didn’t actually possess this right/authority. As we see later, what they were doing was wrong, so the word is being used from their perspective, not Paul’s. Does that make sense?…Sure - some hold that “this right of yours” is sarcasm. If it is, then Paul’s choice to use “right” but not “strong” is probably based on the terms these brothers were using for themselves and not his own selection. (I don’t subscribe to this, but it’s out there.)
On “ought to”. I appreciate the discussion.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[G. N. Barkman]This is in response to Pastor Barkman’s comment on Part 1, but it depends on the 1 Corinthians 8-10 discussion, so I’ll put it here.Dan,
Thanks for the article, and all the good discussion it has prompted. I’m looking forward to Part 2. However, I must insert that anyone who thinks that Jews who trusted Christ would have no lingering scruples regarding OT dietary laws twenty years later hasn’t labored where I live. Believe me, some cultural traditions are harder to change than doctrinal issues.
In Ben Witherington’s paper, Not so Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton (p.243,250), he gives evidence that Jews (and women and all foreigners) would have been excluded from these pagan idol feasts. Therefore, while this is an issue that is based on OT teachings, it doesn’t involve Jews.
While Romans (and 1 Cor 10:25-32) deals with Jews and gentiles, 1 Cor 8-10a deals with gentiles who go to the temple and gentiles who conscientiously refuse. So this isn’t about Jews who have life-histories of dietary-law living who are too slow to give it up.
Dan,
Thanks. That is helpful.
G. N. Barkman
Andrew: Next, you wrote what I believe to be an erroneous assertion in saying, “The ‘strong’ is gradually encouraged to become ‘weak.’” Is that really Paul’s argument? You more fully defined this later saying, “The way that Paul reassures the weak is by pointing out the possibility of “weakening” of the strong.”
Andrew’s first quote is from Part 2. The second quote is from Part 3.
The way Paul deals with temple-idol-meat (1Cor8-10a, Part 2) is a little different from the way he deals with market meat (1Cor10b & Rom14, Part 3). I’ll address the first quote here.
On the issue of temple-idol-meat, yes, I believe that Paul wanted the strong to weaken. Let me see if I can show that from the text. What were the positions of the sides in Corinth as Paul describes them in 1 Cor 8-10:22?
Temple-meat-eaters: they believed that they could go into the temple, sit at the table with their friends and colleagues while the idol worship took place, and eat the offered meat.
Temple-meat-abstainers: they believed that it was sinful to go into the pagan temple and eat.
In ch. 8, we learn the reasoning of the temple-meat-eaters:
- There’s only one God; the idol is nothing but a stone or chunk of wood. v.4-6
- Since the idol means nothing, sitting there during it’s ceremony means nothing and there is no special significance to the meat due to the offering.
- So go ahead. Go in and eat.
What is the reasoning of the temple-meat-abstainers?
- There’s only one God; the idol is a false god. v. 7
- Idolatry is condemned. We must not not be involved in idol-worship.
- What is happening in the temple is idol-worship and is wrong. Do not go in and eat.
Agree so far?
No, I’m sorry but I don’t think that is derived from the text. You could say that Paul is presenting the “strong” arguments as you stated, but there is no “weak” side of the argument presented by Paul. I think you are reading that into the text. I think that throughout 8-10 Paul is stating actual liberties, but giving examples of when we should lay aside our liberties for the sake of others. He is not giving a point counter-point set of arguments.
You say, “On the issue of temple-idol-meat, yes, I believe that Paul wanted the strong to weaken.” Now you define “weak” as “unable by his faith” to eat the meat. But that is exactly what Paul says he is not saying, I Corinthians 10:28-29 “But if someone says to you, “This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it, out of consideration for the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake. I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another person’s conscience?”
The strong should not eat the meat, not because he has become weak or has become unable by his own conscience, but because of the weakness of the other person.
Note that the issue in ch.8,10:1-22 is a different issue from 10:25-30. That’s vital and often missed.
The first issue is eating in the pagan temple. The second is eating what is sold in the market.
There was disagreement about whether one could eat in the temple. I described above the reasoning of the weak and strong side of that.
In ch. 8, we have two groups:
Temple-meat-eaters: they believed that they could go into the temple, sit at the table with their friends and colleagues while the idol worship took place, and eat the offered meat.
Temple-meat-abstainers: they believed that it was sinful to go into the pagan temple and eat.
In ch. 8, we learn the reasoning of the temple-meat-eaters:
- There’s only one God; the idol is nothing but a stone or chunk of wood. v.4-6
- Since the idol means nothing, sitting there during it’s ceremony means nothing and there is no special significance to the meat due to the offering.
- So go ahead. Go in and eat.
I think you agree with that much, right?
double for some reason.
Yes, I do agree with you on the summary of the temple meat-eating argument. But I don’t agree that this is an entirely separate issue from the meat in the market. Again, look at the whole context of I Cor. 8-10; the whole section is dealing with Christian liberties that should sometimes be laid aside for the sake of others.
I believe that Paul presents eating in the temple as a legitimate liberty, but that it is unwise to do so because you are voluntarily putting yourself in a very seductive position of temptation. Meanwhile it doesn’t edify anyone, but could be a stumbling block to others.
So I think the context (specifically I Cor. 10:9-13) indicates that it is a matter of temptation to idolatry. Paul does a risk/reward analysis on eating inside the temple: a high risk for sin through temptation with devastating consequences for you and other believers, and nil for edification. So sure, you have liberty, by why use it when only bad things for you can others can happen as a result? Which is summed up in the next verse:
1 Corinthians 10:23-24 Everything is permissible,” but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up. 24 No one should seek his own good, but the good of the other person.
On the issue of demons, Paul is not saying that Christians who eat at the temple are the ones worshiping demons, but that they are present when active demon worship is taking place and drinking from the same cup of those under the influence of demons. That is a dangerous situation for temptation. Why exercise your liberty to put yourself in that situation when nothing good can come from it, only disastrous results for you and others through temptation? You shouldn’t. I think that’s Paul’s argument.
JG, a missionary in GB and old member here started talking about sieves as tests of right and wrong.
- So one sieve would be, is the action explicitly forbidden?
- Next would be, Does your application of Bible principles cause you to conclude it’s wrong?
- Next would be, Will it hurt your brother spiritually?
- and so on…
If something doesn’t get through the first sieve, then in a sense, the other sieves don’t matter. But we can still talk about the reason the other sieves wouldn’t allow it to pass.
In ch. 8, Paul expressed the thinking of the strong. And some of the thinking of the weak. Then he cautions against temple-idol-meat on the basis of sieve 3 - harm to brothers.
However, in 1Cor 10:1-22, Paul was not talking about sieve 3 (harming a brother). He was talking about sieve 2. And I think he’s saying that Bible principles so clearly forbid temple-idol-meat that it’s practically sieve 1.
Look at these statements:
7 Do not be idolaters as some of them were ….
13 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.
18 … are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?
20 …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?
Paul is talking to the temple-idol-meat-eaters about their own sin of idolatry. They were participating with demons and provoking the Lord to jealousy.
So I see 8:7-13 as about why temple-idol-meat should be avoided because it’s dangerous to weak brothers. (We agree there). But I see 10:1-22 as about the sinfulness of temple-idol-meat for the strong themselves.
Dan, this goes back to the very first objection I raised with you. You can’t start with theological conclusions (like the principle of the 3 sieves) and use that as a basis for your interpretation of the text. Even though that’s a good principle, the interpretation must be derived from the context. Context is king. The context is talking about Christian liberties, their application, and when they should be voluntarily laid aside. Based on the context, I believe the passages are best interpreted as saying that in ch. 8 one should abstain from temple meat-eating because it tempts other to violate their conscience. And in ch. 10 one should abstain from temple meat-eating because it is a strong temptation to you for idolatry without providing any potential edification. Look back over the verses in ch. 10. The context is temptation.
“Don’t become idolaters” v.7 Why say “become” if they were already idolaters by eating in the temple? Because they are being tempted to idolatry.
I Cor. 10:13 clearly spells out that he is speaking in the context of temptation.
“I do not want you to be partners with demons!” v. 20 Why say “I do not want you to be” if they already are partners with demons. Clearly, Paul indicates that if they are currently partners with demons then they would not be welcome at church (v. 21). If they were presently practicing idolatry and worshiping demons then wouldn’t Paul be commanding them to repent or undergo church discipline?
The context indicates they should be laying aside a liberty because it is a very tempting situation with potentially disastrous consequences and no potential edification.
Discussion