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.
- 18 views
Okay, last time I looked we agreed on the meaning of “knowledge.” It’s the meaning of εἰδωλόθυτον on which we disagree. You seem to be saying that the example in v. 10 of eating at the temple defines (or exemplifies) the meaning of εἰδωλόθυτον in the previous verses. Let’s assume for a moment that’s true. So if “7-10 is one extended warning regarding the use of one ‘knowledge,’” then is Paul warning against only eating in the temple? Are you saying that this warning is not referring to any other meat-eating situations, only those involving eating in the temple?
If that is true, what is Paul’s unifying message in chs 8-10?
I ask because I genuinely don’t understand how this interpretation fits in the context of chs 8-10 or even Paul’s flow of discourse through the whole book.
Is eating in the temple a Christian liberty or not? If it is not an actual liberty but rather idolatry, how does that fit in the discourse?
On εἰδωλόθυτον:
We’re probably closer than you think. The word is “idol-things.” Ben W’s work says that it always means -or could mean- meat eaten in the temple. Regardless, Paul’s words are what guide us. And he explicitly says that he’s talking about TM-eating in ch.8.
So if “7-10 is one extended warning regarding the use of one ‘knowledge,’” then is Paul warning against only eating in the temple? Are you saying that this warning is not referring to any other meat-eating situations, only those involving eating in the temple?
Your first question: yes.
Your second question: this warning, in ch.8 - yes. But of course the passage applies to other issues. And Paul makes similar warnings about other situations in other passages (e.g., market meat in 10:25-30 and Romans 14).
If that is true, what is Paul’s unifying message in chs 8-10?
I’m not interested in discussing hypothetical doctrines that come out of wrong understanding scripture. If you don’t see that Temple-Idol-Meat-Eating is the knowledge of 1Cor8, then we part ways. Theologically, I mean. If you see that the knowledge of 1Cor8:1-10 is Temple-Idol-Meat-Eating then on to Point 2(or whatever is next).
I’m not asking how your conclusions fit within some concept of doctrinal orthodoxy (I agree that would not be a fair question).
I’ve tried to show how my interpretation fits within the context, and I’m asking you to do the same. I believe that is a fair and vital question to ask.
You said, “if you don’t see that Temple-Idol-Meat-Eating is the knowledge of 1Cor8, then we part ways.”
I thought we had already agreed that this is not the “knowledge” spoken of in I Cor. 8.
At first, you said, “Strong believers who have ‘knowledge’ that one can eat in the temple (as long as they consider the idol ‘nothing.’)”
Then I said, “the ‘knowledge’ is not that we can eat in the temple as long as we consider the idol as nothing. No, the ‘knowledge’ is that an idol is nothing and there is no God but one.”
***Those are fundamentally different and this may be the mistake that is the basis of what I believe is your misinterpretation.***
I thought you were agreeable to my explanation of the “knowledge.”
If you try to make this passage about the “knowledge” of the strong vs the “knowledge” of the weak, I think you are making a big mistake. There are not two competing knowledges, or even two competing applications of knowledge(s).
The strong have this knowledge, but have been using it in an unloving and unwise manner. The weak do not yet have this knowledge, and as such, are neither applying it nor misapplying it.
Then I said, “the ‘knowledge’ is not that we can eat in the temple as long as we consider the idol as nothing. No, the ‘knowledge’ is that an idol is nothing and there is no God but one.”
These are tied together, though, in the argument of the strong.
The “knowledge” itself is indeed that the idol is nothing and there is no God but one. But here in 1 Corinthians 8, that “knowledge” is being wielded by the strong to allow them to eat in the temple.
Could that same “knowledge” be used to argue that market meat was acceptable? Sure. But that’s not happening here.
We disagree also about Paul’s opinion of the “rightness” of that knowledge. As early as 8:2 Paul says, “2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.” Paul is hinting that their knowledge isn’t as great as they think.
(I think you hold that the “knowledge” of the TM-Eating group is necessarily a good thing. Is that right?)
If you try to make this passage about the “knowledge” of the strong vs the “knowledge” of the weak, I think you are making a big mistake.
Just to confirm - I do think that ch.8 and 10:1-22 do indeed compare the “knowledge” of the strong and the “knowledge” of the weak. And Paul ends by advocating the “knowledge” of the weak. Thus the title of this paper: Sometimes the Weak Brother is Right
You have yet to demonstrate that Paul presents an “argument of the strong” vs an “argument of the weak.” I know that is part of the basis of your interpretation. But I don’t think it is a valid presupposition.
Look again at I Corinthians 1:4-7.
I always thank my God for you because of God’s grace given to you in Christ Jesus, 5 that by Him you were made rich in everything— in all speaking and all knowledge— 6 as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you, 7 so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Compare that to 1 Corinthians 8:1-2.
About food offered to idols: We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. 2 If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it.
Paul is not “hinting that their knowledge isn’t as great as they think.” The knowledge itself is not wrong, but that they themselves do not yet fully comprehend it or apply it correctly.
Paul does not present 2 competing sets of knowledge. He only presents one knowledge, that which is given to us from God by Christ Jesus. Knowledge is not the issue, the issue is a lack of comprehension and application in love.
It’s really difficult, in general, to show someone something when it’s obvious, but they don’t see it. I guess I’ll try a little, but, we’ll see. At some point you and I will become tempted to think that the other is stubborn…
I’m going to try to make some statements that surely you will agree are true.
- The strong “knows” that the idol is nothing.
- The weak does not have “that knowledge.”
- The strong thinks that because of #1, food offered to it is offered to nothing.
- The weak EITHER (has a lack of knowledge on the question of what the idol is) OR (has different knowledge from the strong).
Do you agree with those so far?
Dan, if you think something is obvious, but have difficulty showing it to someone else, that may be an indication that it is actually a presupposition rather than an interpretation derived from exegesis of the text.
1) The strong “knows” that the idol is nothing.
No, Paul says that “we have all knowledge” and that “we know an idol is nothing in the world and that there is no God but one.” He is not presenting an opinion or argument on behalf of a particular faction. He is expounding upon the knowledge that we have from God by Christ Jesus. When you say that it’s “the strong” who have this knowledge and are presenting an argument based on this knowledge, you are reading into (eisegesis) the text.
2) The weak does not have “that knowledge.”
Interestingly, in Greek, “the knowledge” is actually the subject of the sentence; it is not in everyone. Note that v. 7 does not say that their weak conscience is defiled when they eat meat sacrificed to idols because they don’t have the knowledge or because they disagree with it. No, it is because of their former habits that their weak conscience is defiled when eating. Paul is not presenting an alternative knowledge or argument, he is indicating that a person’s conscience has been influenced by their culture and habits before regeneration.
3) The strong thinks that because of #1, food offered to it is offered to
nothing.
Paul switches from “we” to “you” in vs 8-10. He is not indicating that his own knowledge is different from the Corinthians, but that their behavior (based on the knowledge) is different from Paul’s and is a potential stumbling block to the weak.
4) The weak EITHER (has a lack of knowledge on the question of what the
idol is) OR (has different knowledge from the strong).
An awkward literal rendering of I Cor. 8:7a is, “but not in every man, the knowledge.” You can see the word order influence especially in the KJV: “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.”
In light of I Corinthians 1:5, “that by Him you were made rich in everything— in all speaking and all knowledge.” I would say that the knowledge (“we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one”) was provided to them and taught to them, but had not yet taken root. Obviously they weren’t ignorant of this knowledge, even according to your interpretation they would be aware of it. So it was not “in” them in the sense that it had not taken hold. This is consistent with BDAG’s range of usage for the Greek “en” (the editor doesn’t like my Greek font at the moment)
#4. marker of close association within a limit, in
a. fig., of pers., to indicate the state of being filled w. or gripped by something.
So no, I wouldn’t say they lack the knowledge nor do they have a different knowledge. But they are not yet filled with or gripped by that knowledge because of the influence of their former idolatrous habits.
Andrew, in nearly every one of your posts you accuse me of reading into the text or making presuppositions. But it is you that do these. You are so sure that “having knowledge” equals “being right” that you refuse to read the text of Scripture.
8:1 Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. 2 If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
Inverse to Paul is mourning the Corinthian Supras that’s knowledge or think they do that they don’t know what they ought to know.
I’m sure everyone, including myself, hold to some presuppositions of which they are unaware. But that is not one of mine.
[Dan Miller]Andrew, in nearly every one of your posts you accuse me of reading into the text or making presuppositions. But it is you that do these. You are so sure that “having knowledge” equals “being right” that you refuse to read the text of Scripture.
I do not believe in nor have I ever stated the position you think is my presupposition. I’ve never said “that ‘having knowledge’ equals ‘being right,’” and I certainly don’t believe that it’s true. So I don’t know how to respond to that criticism.
I don’t see how the underlined section refutes my position since I specifically addressed it and it doesn’t contradict what I have already said. Clearly the Corinthians did not know the knowledge as they ought to know it. That’s part of the basis of my interpretation of the text, not a refutation of it.
Perhaps you are confused by the English rendering with a near demonstrative “this knowledge.” Perhaps you think it is in comparison to some other knowledge. But the Greek doesn’t provide a near or far demonstrative, it uses the definite article (v. 11 uses the possessive pronoun “your knowledge,” which is still consistent with I Cor. 1:5). The passage doesn’t speak of “this knowledge” vs “that knowledge.” The passage doesn’t speak of 2 different sets of knowledge, but 1 knowledge, which they do not know as they ought to know.
I hate to say it, Andrew, but it’s difficult for me to believe that you’re not just pulling my leg at this point.
Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding everything you write. If I am, maybe Bert or Don will come and point out how I should understand what you’re trying to say.
Well I’m sorry you feel that way about it Dan. If I have been unclear at any time, I apologize. I believe that my questions and criticisms of your position have been fair and necessary.
I have tried to show what I believe to be an accurate interpretation based on the context of the discourse and the entire book of I Corinthians, and to appropriately raise objections to your interpretation in a manner reflective of respectful brotherhood in Christ.
How does one attempt to correct a brother when one believes he has erred in an important (but not fundamental) area? Respectfully, humbly, fairly, appropriately, Biblically, and without condescension. That’s what I’ve tried to do. I ask for your forgiveness if I have unknowingly erred myself or acted in an unworthy manner.
[Dan Miller]Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding everything you write. If I am, maybe Bert or Don will come and point out how I should understand what you’re trying to say.
well, quite frankly, you are much more patient than I am. I gave up on reading Andrews posts on this thread after the first two or three. He seemed to me to be unwilling to see obvious points from the beginning, so I lost interest.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
No, Andrew - nothing to forgive. Online forums are not the best forum for trying to discuss these types of things. I’m sure we would do far better in person.
I have said from the beginning (Part 1): “A word of caution. The weak brother presented here is very different from what you might have previously learned. Most readers will find it new and unusual. Don’t try to fit it into your previous understanding of the “weak.” It might help to assume that you are being asked to understand that the “weak” brother is the good guy.”
This view I’m presenting is a sea change. There’s no doubt about that. There are many things that I believe are understood wrongly in the view I’m sure you were taught. Not just a few things. To understand only a few is to make a judgment based on a mix of my ideas and other ideas. Of course that doesn’t work.
I’m happy to discuss this, but we have to begin with some me common understandings.
1. No more eisegesis talk. Again, my view is a sea change for you. So when we look at one verse, you will OF COURSE think that it doesn’t fit with all the other things you understand about lots of other verses. As we go, we are going to each think that the other is reading each verse in the way he is because of his understanding of the other passages. Just accept that. When (if!) we ever get to the other passages, I pray that you will be humble enough to see the message God wrote here for us. And I’m sure you pray the same for me.
2. Save irresolvable differences until later. When we disagree over how to read one verse, we MUST note one another’s reading of that verse and go on, trusting that when we get to other verses, those other verses will correct how we understand this one. We MUST say, “Ok - I see you read this differently than I do. Let’s keep note of each of our readings and later we’ll see which fits better with more parts of this passage.”
3. Terms - we’ve got to be careful with terms. As an example: a Calvinist often uses the term “election.” And by it, he means “unconditional election.” If he asks a Arminian, “Do you believe in election?” The answer should be “Yes.” But the Calvinist should not walk away claiming his friend believes in Election in the same way he does. The Arminian means something different by the term than the Calvinist does. I think you and I are doing that a lot. Each must each allow the other to use terms the way they understand them. Of course it’s helpful if the Arminian says “conditional election.” And the Calvinist says “unconditional election.”
––-
Take “knowledge.” You seem to take this term in Paul to mean something like, “Eternal truths of the faith.” (Unless I’m totally missing you!) Whereas I take it to mean knowledge in the sense of “something that the viewer believes is true.” (If you say, “eisegesis” at this point, I’m done.) Why do I take that different view of “knowledge” than you do? You will see in due time.
So when Paul uses gnosis and eido, we read him differently.
Paul, v. 4 we know that “an idol has no real existence,”
Dan: Paul is expressing some common ground. He’s agreeing that an idol is nothing. But I take this to be like the Arminian saying, “Yes, we believe in election.” But he defines it differently from his Calvinist hearer and he hopes that in due course he will be able to express the sense in which he believes it. So even though Paul expressed the knowing in first person (“we know”), he does not agree that the thinking of the strong is really right in the sense that they are taking “nothing.”
At this point I am well aware that you and I understand v. 4 differently.
Dan: Paul agrees with the knowledge that the idol is “nothing.” But Paul agrees with it using his definition of “nothing” - not theirs.
Andrew: ________________
Okay, I agree to your three points of understanding. If you don’t like using the word “eisegesis,” then I won’t use it anymore. It can be somewhat of a loaded term or used as an insult, but that is not how I meant it.
I agree that your view is a “sea of change,” but I hope that you see that the “traditional” interpretation that you reject may not be the same as I am expressing. I know that you have researched this extensively, so I think you can agree there is a wide range of interpretation. So please don’t assume that I believe XYZ just because I’ve bought into the “traditional” interpretation.
I also cannot understand how you can say on one hand that this is a “sea of change,” and that “most readers will find it new and unusual.” Then on the other hand say that it is difficult to explain it from the text because it is so obvious. I’m sure that I have some difficulty in understanding what you believe, but I’m completely in the dark about how and why you believe it. I don’t see how you arrived at your conclusions – that’s what I want to know.
I think “knowledge” is a good place for us to more specifically define our terms. Of course, the word can mean many things depending on its usage and context. I wouldn’t say it’s an “eternal truth of the faith.” That’s closer to my definition than the definition you gave in this context, but I hope you can appreciate the distinction I make. BGAD says “1. comprehension or intellectual grasp of something, knowledge.” What are they comprehending or grasping in I Cor.? I believe that specifically in I Cor., Paul’s use of “knowledge” refers to “the gift of God to understand doctrine and principles of Christian living.” Here’s why I believe that:
1 Corinthians 1:4-7 I always thank my God for you because of God’s grace given to you in Christ Jesus, 5 that by Him you were made rich in everything— in all speaking and all knowledge— 6 as the testimony about Christ was confirmed among you, 7 so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Here we see that the “knowledge” is given from God and that the Corinthians were rich in it. Furthermore, in the rest of this letter Paul goes back and refers to these gifts that he mentions in the introduction. He goes on to talk about their speech, knowledge, and spiritual gifts such as prophecy and languages. What does Paul go on to say about these gifts? Do the Corinthians not really have them? No, they are rich in those gifts from God, but they misuse and abuse them. They squander them in quarreling, immaturity, over-emphasis, pride, and most of all, in a lack of love for one another.
Paul continues to link the gift of “knowledge” with the gifts of “wisdom from the spirit,” “understanding mysteries,” “prophecy,” “faith,” “languages,” and “teaching” (I Cor. 12:8; 13:2,8; 14:6). The problem is not that the Corinthians lacked any of these things; they had them richly, but they were exercising them without love.
Paul gives 2 qualifications when he expounds upon the knowledge in ch.8:
1. 1 Corinthians 8:1b “Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up.”
2. 1 Corinthians 8:2 “If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it.”
Note that for #1, he is not talking about “this knowledge” as in one particular opinion or perspective, but is speaking of knowledge in general. He echos this same principle when he speaks of another gift that the Corinthians have over-emphasized – languages.
I Corinthians 14:3-4 But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation. 4 The person who speaks in another language builds himself up, but he who prophesies builds up the church.
Is Paul saying that their gift of languages is wrong? Of course not, but their use of languages, just as their use of knowledge, is done with over-emphasis and with a lack of love. Paul’s treatment of knowledge and languages is very similar in that they are both good and proper gifts from God, but are misapplied by the Corinthians in a lack of love for one another.
I think that when you say that “knowledge” is “something that the viewer believes is true,” that is true, but only minimally true. It’s like saying that “language” in I Cor. 14:2 is “when someone speaks in another language.” That’s true, but it’s not the full contextual meaning. If we look at only the word “knowledge,” apart from a context then your definition is a good one just like BDAG’s definition. But what “knowledge” is Paul talking about in this specific context?
Paul’s 2nd qualification of their knowledge is that those who think they “know” the truth and look down on others who they think do not “know” it, they themselves don’t fully grasp it either. That is to say, the “knowledge” itself is not the problem; the gift from God is not the problem. They are rich in the “knowledge” in that it is lavished upon them by the teaching of the prophets and apostles, but they don’t yet fully grasp it. They have the gifts from God necessary to understand doctrine and principles of Christian living, but they don’t yet fully grasp it and sometimes abuse it in a way that harms one another.
Paul expands on the knowledge he mentioned in the introduction when he discusses wisdom in ch. 2.
I Corinthians 2:9-10 But as it is written: What no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and what has never come into a man’s heart, is what God has prepared for those who love Him. 10 Now God has revealed them to us by the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the deep things of God.
This knowledge from God is not just helpful information like “a penny saved is a penny earned” kind of knowledge. The knowledge that he specifically defines in ch. 8 is extremely important.
1 Corinthians 8:4 About eating food offered to idols, then, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.
As I pointed out during our discussion on idols and witch doctors, it is vital for a new believer, who has been steeped in idolatry, to understand that an idol is nothing and has no power or control over their life. There is only one God, He is the Creator, and the one in control over the physical and spiritual realms. I don’t believe that to be only “something the viewer believes is true.” It is a vital teaching, revealed by God, and necessary for the maturity of formerly idolatrous Christians.
“There is no God but one.” I would consider that statement to be eternal truth.
“An idol is nothing in the world,” is a very important principle that logically extends from the eternal truth.
I don’t think that Paul defines “nothing” differently from the Corinthians. I don’t see him proposing alternative definitions. No where does he correct the expression of the knowledge. He doesn’t correct the accuracy of the statement. What he corrects is:
1. Their pride, which came from the knowledge without love (8:1).
2. Their lack of full understanding of the knowledge, which they believed they already knew (8:2).
3. Their behavior in application of the knowledge, which could be a stumbling block to the weak (8:9-13).
4. Their pride in application of the knowledge, which invites temptation to sin (10:12).
Now #2 in v 8:2 is important because it touches closely to your interpretation. Were the Corinthians correct? No, neither the meat-eaters nor the “weak” brothers fully grasped the knowledge. In 8:2 Paul indicates that those who thought they knew it didn’t really know it as they ought. And in 8:7 Paul indicates that there are others who do not have it (or more literally, it is not in them). Paul’s rebuke is against those who think they “know” because of their pride and lack of love.
Finally, chapter 9 fits perfectly between 8 and 10 because in it Paul gives examples to them of the proper use of knowledge. In fact, he had personally been an example to them all along, but they had not understood what he was doing nor did they follow his example.
You’re getting ahead of yourself. Part of your post is definition; part is support for that definition; part is explanation of how that definition fits in your scheme of understanding 8-10.
In this response, I want to deal ONLY with your definition.
Andrew: I believe that specifically in I Cor., Paul’s use of “knowledge” refers to “the gift of God to understand doctrine and principles of Christian living.”
Earlier I said that you are… sure that “having knowledge” equals “being right.”
You responded:
Andrew: I’ve never said “that ‘having knowledge’ equals ‘being right,’” and I certainly don’t believe that it’s true.
If Paul calls someone’s idea “knowledge” does that term indicate the person knows something that is true?
I believe that with Paul’s usage of the term, someone can have “knowledge” and what they know is either false or improperly understood in one or more of its terms so that it is used wrongly.
Discussion