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
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.
In general, the word “knowledge” can simply mean something that the viewer believes is true. That person can believe something true, false, partly true, or they can improperly understand something that is true. All that’s true, but that’s an a-contextual definition. I believe that some of what you said can be applied in this context
In I Corinthians, Paul is specifically speaking of the knowledge given by God to those sanctified in Christ Jesus. It does not, however, mean that those who have this knowledge are always right or correct. Paul states in I Cor. 2:16b, “But we have the mind of Christ,” but I don’t think he means that our mind is free of error or free of the effects of sin.
The problem is not the mind of Christ, the knowledge, or any of the other gifts from God. One of their problems was that they didn’t fully comprehend the knowledge that they had (1 Corinthians 8:2 “If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it”).
They knew the truth that “an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.” Therefore, they rightly recognized that they were free from the domination of idols, and had the rights and liberties of a free person in Christ Jesus. All that is true, but it is incomplete.
They were so fixated on the gifts from God and their personal rights and liberties, they overlooked the weightier matters of love for one another and building each other up. Furthermore, they neglected the serious temptation to fall into sin.
So why do you define “knowledge” that way that you do in this context? Also, do you think that Paul is using the word the same way throughout the letter or in various ways throughout the letter?
Andrew: In general, the word “knowledge” can simply mean something that the viewer believes is true. That person can believe something true, false, partly true, or they can improperly understand something that is true. All that’s true, but that’s an a-contextual definition.
What I want to do, and which I believe will help clarify this passage for you, will take a few steps:
1. Carefully define terms, with attention to what you and I believe “knowledge” means.
2. Carefully look at the text and take note of what we can about the situation in Corinth, with attention to what we can agree on and what we see differently.
3. Examine the text to evaluate which is consistent with the passage. (If we’re careful about this, the context will force us to define it as I do - that’s the answer to your “why?” title.)
We’re only on step 1 - defining our understandings of “knowledge.”
Andrew: One of their problems was that they didn’t fully comprehend the knowledge that they had (1 Corinthians 8:2 “If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it”).
That’s interesting because it sounds a lot like my statement: “I believe that with Paul’s usage of the term, someone can have “knowledge” and what they know … improperly understood in one or more of its terms so that it is used wrongly.”
In what way did they misunderstand their knowledge (in your view)?
>*Andrew: One of their problems was that they didn’t fully comprehend the
>knowledge that they had (1 Corinthians 8:2 “If anyone thinks he knows
>anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it”).*
>
*That’s interesting because it sounds a lot like my statement: “I believe
that with Paul’s usage of the term, someone can have “knowledge” and
what they know … improperly understood in one or more of its terms so that
it is used wrongly.” *
To “not fully comprehend” and to “improperly understand” can mean something that’s similar, or they can mean different things. Here’s an example of a different meaning:
A man thought his wife put an ordinary apple in his lunch box, but she really put in his favorite, freshly hand-picked, honey crisp apple.
A man thought his wife put an ordinary apple in his lunch box, but she really put in an orange.
The first did not fully comprehend, the second improperly understood.
Now both men were certainly wrong, but they were wrong in different ways. One did not grasp the full significance and extent of the gift; the other mistook one gift for another.
*In what way did they misunderstand their knowledge (in your view)?*
I wouldn’t say that they “misunderstood” in the sense that they mistook a false meaning for the true one. I Cor. 8:2 seems to indicate that they failed to fully comprehend the knowledge. That’s to say, their understanding did not extend as far as it should have.
As I said before,
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.
They knew the truth that “an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.” Therefore, they rightly recognized that they were free from the domination of idols, and had the rights and liberties of a free person in Christ Jesus. All that is true, but it is incomplete.
They were so fixated on the gifts from God and their personal rights and liberties, they overlooked the weightier matters of love for one another and building each other up. Furthermore, they neglected the serious temptation to fall into sin.
If everything from God is meant to make us conformed to the image of His Son (which I believe to be true), they correctly understood that they were free from the power of sin and false gods, just as Christ is free. What they did not fully understand is that helping your brother to be conformed to Jesus is more important that your freedom. Furthermore, the fruitless exercise of your freedom is not worth the risk of falling into sin yourself.
To reflect back:
We agree that the strong “knew” something.
We agree that Paul is saying that they don’t understand it properly.
We disagree on the type of misunderstanding:
Dan: The strong are over-specific in their understanding of the “knowledge.” They take “nothing” to mean more than it really means. They say “honey-crisp” when really, it’s just “apple.” In Corinth, the strong say that an idol is “nothing.” And they mean “absolutely nothing.” But Paul only means, “An idol is not a God - there is only one God.”
Andrew: The strong are under-specific in their understanding of the “knowledge.” They are saying “apple” when Paul means something more specific: “honey-crisp.” In Corinth, the strong say that an idol is “nothing.” And they take that to mean “Absolutely nothing,” which is correct. But they fail to take it further and recognize the dangers to their friends.
–-
If that’s how you understand this, then we can move on to defining our differences on the next point of interpretation.
I agree with your reflection… except in 2 details so small that I hesitate to mention them, but we want to be precise and clear.
We agree that the strong “knew” something.
I think you are jumping the gun a bit to say “the strong” at this point in discussion of who has “knowledge.” I would say that Paul indicates that the Corinthian believers have this knowledge when he says, “We know that we all have knowledge (I Corinthians 8:1),” and “To God’s church at Corinth… by Him you were made rich in everything— in all speaking and all knowledge” (I Corinthians 1:2-5).
…But they fail to take it further and recognize the dangers to their friends.
I would simply add “…dangers to their friends (ch.8) and dangers to themselves (ch. 10).”
In Corinth, the strong say that an idol is “nothing.” And they mean “absolutely nothing.” But Paul only means, “An idol is not a God - there is only one God.”
I have 2 questions in light of your explanation of the Corinthians’ misunderstanding concerning idols and Paul correction. Does Jeremiah 10:1-10 teach BOTH that an idol is not a God - there is only one God AND that an idol is absolutely nothing?
Does Jeremiah 10:5&8 agree with what you call the “strong” Corinthian position?
Jeremiah 10:5 Like scarecrows in a cucumber patch, their idols cannot speak. They must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them for they can do no harm— and they cannot do any good.
Jeremiah 10:8 They [wise men and their kingdoms] are both senseless and foolish, instructed by worthless idols made of wood!
Sorry, I realized I should have clarified something better.
We agree that the strong “knew” something.
I think you are jumping the gun a bit to say “the strong” at this point in discussion of who has “knowledge.” I would say that Paul indicates that the Corinthian believers have this knowledge when he says, “We know that we all have knowledge (I Corinthians 8:1),” and “To God’s church at Corinth… by Him you were made rich in everything— in all speaking and all knowledge” (I Corinthians 1:2-5).
I should have added that while I believe all the Corinthians were taught the knowledge, I agree that the rebuke in 8:2 is specifically aimed at those who eat the meat. So while all had the knowledge, the meat eaters were the ones who thought they had the knowledge down pat but really didn’t fully comprehend it.
Andrew: I think you are jumping the gun a bit to say “the strong” at this point in discussion of who has “knowledge.” I would say that Paul indicates that the Corinthian believers have this knowledge when he says, “We know that we all have knowledge…
Interesting. After all our disagreement over this, we’re not so far apart.
Dan: W and S have different “knowledge.” That is, they understand differently.
Andrew: W and S have the same “knowledge,” but understand it differently.
Andrew: I would simply add “…dangers to their friends (ch.8) and dangers to themselves (ch. 10).”
I understand, though my view is slightly different.
Andrew: while I believe all the Corinthians were taught the knowledge, I agree that the rebuke in 8:2 is specifically aimed at those who eat the meat. So while all had the knowledge, the meat eaters were the ones who thought they had the knowledge down pat but really didn’t fully comprehend it.
I think this effectively restates what you said before. I do find it interesting that you say, “they had the knowledge down pat.” This is in line with suggestions that the phrase, “An idol is nothing,” was part of the argument Paul knew the Eaters made (possibly in a letter to which 1 Cor is a response. That idea is consistent with, but not necessary for, both your view and mine.
––—
Next, let’s describe the viewpoint of the weak. Note I didn’t say “knowledge.” That’s because I don’t think that you would call it the “knowledge” and I’m seeking common terms.
As previously noted, I believe there is only one “knowledge” mentioned in the book of I Corinthians. The word “gnosis” (my Bibleworks Greek font doesn’t want to work in the editor) appears 10x in the book.
1:5; 8:1 (2x); 8:7; 8:10; 8:11; 12:8; 13:2; 13:8; 14:6
I Cor. 8:7 specifically address the knowledge in relation to those with a weak conscience. The text is difficult to translate into English. I mentioned before:
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 and the later uses of the word in letter, 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. They weren’t ignorant of this knowledge, but it was not “in” them in the sense that it had not taken hold. This is consistent with BDAG’s range of usage for “en”
#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 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.
Here’s what I mean by that: those Corinthian believers who are not gripped with the knowledge have not yet figured out how to reconcile or synchronize the knowledge they have received with their past idolatrous experiences.
They may think or say something like this, “My father was sick, so I prayed to the idol and then he got better. I know now that the idol is nothing, so how was my father healed?”
Or this, “One day we found our idol had fallen off its post, and that year we had a bad crop. Now, we know the idol is nothing, but then why did the crops fail that year?”
They know the truth, they’ve been taught the truth, but it’s hard to reconcile that with a lifetime of attributing providence to idols. For many believers, that synchronization is a process that takes time. You can learn the truth in a one-hour sermon, but it takes time to unlearn something you’ve believed your whole life – a thing that’s consumed your thoughts and behavior every day for as long as you can remember.
That’s what I Cor. 8:7 means when it says, “…some have been so used to idolatry up until now…”
Therefore, because their past life was filled with thinking about, talking about, and worrying about idols, in the area concerning the things sacrificed to idols, their conscience is weak.
What is conscience?
1. awareness of information about something, consciousness
2. the inward faculty of distinguishing right and wrong, moral consciousness, conscience
3. attentiveness to obligation, conscientiousness
BDAG believes that the reference in 8:7 refers to #2, “a weak conscience, indecisive because of being bound to old ways.” But they say a variant reading is #1, “in awareness that this is an idol 1 Cor 8:7a v.l.”
So they are weak in the faculty of distinguishing right and wrong because of their old ways (#2), or they are weak in their awareness that this is an idol (#1).
I would agree with BDAG that #2 is the best definition and would not agree with the variant reading (#1).
The word “weak” modifies “conscience.” So I don’t see how one can say that “weak” means “unable to eat meat,” because your conscience doesn’t eat. It speaks of an unable conscience, not an unable individual. Their conscience (the faculty that distinguishes right from wrong) is currently weak because they “had been so used to idolatry until now.” If one translates “weak” as “unable,” then you could say, their conscience is currently “unable” to properly distinguish what is right and what is wrong concerning eating meat offered to idols. But you wouldn’t say that their “conscience is unable to eat meat,” because the object would not be “to eat meat;” it would be “to distinguish right from wrong.”
They don’t have a problem of a lack of knowledge – they are rich in knowledge. They don’t have a problem with pride. They don’t have a problem with a lack of love. Their problem is reconciling this knowledge (which they do accept and believe) with a lifetime of idolatrous experiences (which understandably takes time). And therefore, during this time of reconciling apostolic doctrine with practical theology, they have a weak conscience (the faculty that distinguishes right from wrong) in the matter concerning eating meat offered to idols.
Andrew: They may think or say something like this [thoughts about the idol]
Beyond the Text.
Andrew: I don’t see how one can say that “weak” means “unable to eat meat,” because your conscience doesn’t eat. It speaks of an unable conscience, not an unable individual.
This is your conclusion based on your idea of what this passage is saying. I believe it is very natural for Paul to say that the conscience is unable to eat. After all, a person with a conscience conviction against eating is still physically able to eat. It is not their mouth that is unable to eat; it is their conscience.
I’m trying to look at the Text in detail so we can discuss this. In your last, you appear to be tired of that and just want to repeat your conclusion. If you want to look at the Text, I’ll be around.
Just give up. Your struggle has been valient and noble. Your patience is commendable. For your own sake, just give up trying to convince Andrew and spend that time with your family. I look forward to more of the series.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Beyond the Text.
If by “beyond the text” you mean not written in it, then yes, it’s not in the text. I defined my position to you, then I explained and illustrated that position. Of course my illustration is not in the text. I thought you wanted to understand my position, so I defined, explained, and illustrated it.
This is your conclusion based on your idea of what this passage is saying.
Yes, it is. And you have your conclusions based on your idea of what the passage is saying, but why will you not explain why you believe your conclusions?
I have asked you questions and you have ignored them. I have repeatedly asked you to explain how and why you have come to your conclusions, but you have ignored my requests and instead, asked me to define my position. So I gave you my conclusions, why I believe them, and have answered your questions when you posed them.
You are certainly not obligated to answer my questions. But I don’t see how you can say to me that, “the context will force us to define it as I do - that’s the answer to your ‘why?’ title,” if you are never going to explain the context to me.
You are certainly not obligated to try to convince me of your position, but how can you expect me to agree with your conclusions if you will never tell me why you believe what you believe?
How many terms do you expect me to define before you will answer my questions?
If you say that the reason you don’t explain why you believe your conclusions is because they are obvious, then okay, I’ll take that as your answer.
Andrew: How many terms do you expect me to define before you will answer my questions?
I want to let Paul answer your questions.
Andrew: I have asked you questions and you have ignored them. I have repeatedly asked you to explain how and why you have come to your conclusions, but you have ignored my requests and instead, asked me to define my position…
“How and Why” I came to my conclusions is carefully reading the Text. Let’s do that.
–—=-=-=-=-=-=-=–—
1Cor8:7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.
Andrew has pointed out that “this[/that] knowledge” could be translated “the knowledge.” The text of ch.8 doesn’t say whether the thoughts of the weak are what Paul would call “knowledge.” The weak have some disagreement with the strong. But it would be premature the thoughts of the weak as “knowledge.” Let’s refer to them as “thoughts.”
So what were the thoughts of the weak?
1. The weak “eat food as really offered to an idol” (8:7). The strong say the idol is “nothing”; the weak think it is real. What does “real” mean? We don’t yet know - your guess was reasonable, but not in the Text, as you agree.
2. The weak think that such eating is sinful- it “defiles” their conscience. So the “realness” of the idol means to them that they must not be involved in eating it’s meat. So their conscience, their inner voice of right and wrong, says that TM-Eating is wrong. Why do they believe involvement with idol worship is wrong? They have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is defiling.
––––—
P.S. You said that “whose conscience is weak” means their conscience is “ ‘unable’ to properly distinguish [right/wrong].” I get that. Common thought. I acknowledge you think that. Keep reading. I think you’ll agree it’s wrong in time…
Okay, I think we are frustrating each other through an unspoken disagreement on methodology.
Here’s how I perceive your method, briefly not extensively (and correct me if I am wrong):
1. Define each key term in the text using the information contained in the verse, the immediately surrounding verses, and the localized passage (chs 8-10).
2. Once each term is individually defined, look at the relationship among the terms in the passage (8-10) and come to the interpretation of the entire passage.
3. Verify that interpretation with the rest of Scripture
Using that methodology I think I would still have some disagreements with you, but they would be fewer and on a smaller scale.
One disagreement we would still have is the thoughts of the weak. You are right in saying that Paul doesn’t provide for us their thoughts (the thoughts I provided are only an illustration of what I conclude their thoughts may be). But Paul does tell us why they think the way they think – it is “through former association with idols.” I think Paul is indicating that their past idolatry is influencing them negatively, but you seem to believe that it is giving them some kind of accurate clarification concerning the “nothingness” of idols. You seem to be implying that they have a more accurate view of idols than the meat-eaters because of (not in spite of, but because of) their former idolatrous practices. That seems to be the opposite of what Paul is saying.
Even using the above methodology, we would have that disagreement and some others. But here is a brief example my methodology (discourse analysis) using similar terminology:
1. Identify each sub-point (a complete thought) of the author in the text using the information contained in the verse, the immediately surrounding verses, the localized passage (chs 8-10).
2. As you determine each sub-point, verify its meaning with the rest of Scripture in an expanding circle (staring with the book, Pauline lit., NT, then the Bible as a whole).
3. Once each sub-point is determined, look at the relationship of the sub-points in the passage (8-10) and come to the interpretation of the entire passage.
4. Verify that interpretation with the rest of the book, then the rest of Scripture.
[It’s probably beyond the scope of our discussion to talk about the difference between defining a term and identifying an author’s sub-point, so I’ll skip it. But if you want more info on it I’d be happy to send you a .pdf on discourse analysis.]
When you define “knowledge” (gnosis), for example, you do a good job of defining the term according to your step #1, but I don’t think you go on to verify that definition on the info given in the book as a whole. And I think that part is necessary. Paul uses the word in multiple parts of the book and it’s important to see how he uses it in those places.
Next I think you overlook an important step in checking with other Scripture as you go along, and not just at the end (I thought you did this in the Romans passage, so I was surprised to see you did not do it here). For example, I think that when you look at the “knowledge” that “an idol is nothing” it is good and necessary to look at other passages of Scripture that speak to that exact same issue. Jeremiah 10:1-10 gives us this teaching. Someone obviously taught the Corinthians the OT (Paul, Apollos, others, or probably all of the above) because Paul expects them to be familiar with the Passover (I Cor. 5:6-8), the laws in Deuteronomy (I Cor. 9:9), the Exodus and time in the wilderness (I Cor. 10:1-11), with the Israelite sacrificial system (I Cor. 9:13; 10:19), and creation (I Cor. 15:45-49). So when Paul and the Corinthians say that “an idol is nothing” in I Cor. 8, it is good and necessary to see how the OT defines an idol’s nothingness. And Jeremiah defines it the same way you say the meat-eating Corinthians mistakenly define it.
Finally, I don’t see where you have shown that your interpretation of the text in chs 8-10 is in accordance with context and flow of entire book of I Corinthians. Now perhaps you have done this but have not provided it in the articles because of a lack of space, that’s fine, you can never fit in everything (or perhaps you provided it and I overlooked it). But I think it is necessary to be able to show how the interpretation of a passage fits within the context of the book.
I cannot say that your interpretation does not fit in I Corinthians because I have not seen your presentation of it. All I can say for now is that I don’t see how your interpretation fits in the context of the book. When or if you enlighten me, then I will be able to evaluate it.
Andrew: Here’s how I perceive your method…
I’m sure we agree that contextual word usage is more important with more proximity. Passage, book, author, NT, whole Bible.
Here’s what I’m trying to do:
1. Look at the terms and people in ch.8 WITHOUT claiming more than the Text says.
2. Take note of the different ways Dan and Andrew understand the meaning of these terms and thoughts of the people.
3. Compare those different understandings with what Paul says in the rest of this passage (8-10), all of Paul, the NT, the Bible.
For instance, we have differently understood “idol is nothing.”
Andrew: nothing = absolutely nothing.
Dan: nothing = not another God; nothing deserving of worship, respect, or fear.
OT passages also teach nothingness of idols. Jeremiah 10, for instance. I have no problem with that. But Jeremiah 11 has multiple statements like, 17 “The Lord of hosts, who planted you, has decreed disaster against you, because of the evil that the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal.”
Andrew: …Paul doesn’t provide for us their thoughts (the thoughts I provided are only an illustration of what I conclude their thoughts may be). But Paul does tell us why they think the way they think – it is “through former association with idols.” I think Paul is indicating that their past idolatry is influencing them negatively, but you seem to believe that it is giving them some kind of accurate clarification concerning the “nothingness” of idols. You seem to be implying that they have a more accurate view of idols than the meat-eaters because of (not in spite of, but because of) their former idolatrous practices…
Great comment. I will agree that 8:7 says the cause is their former association with idols. Is it a “negative” or a “clarifying” influence? The Text doesn’t say. You should have stopped there. But you went on:
Andrew: That seems to be the opposite of what Paul is saying.
This assertion is beyond the Text of ch. 8.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Again, what were the thoughts of the weak in ch.8?
1. The weak “eat food as really offered to an idol” (8:7). The strong say the idol is “nothing”; the weak think it is real.
2. The weak think that such eating is sinful- it “defiles” their conscience. So whatever they mean by the “realness” of the idol, it causes them to conclude that they must not be eating its meat in its temple. So their conscience, their inner voice of right and wrong, says that TM-Eating is wrong. Why do they believe that is wrong? They have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is defiling.
OT passages also teach nothingness of idols. Jeremiah 10, for instance. I have no problem with that. But Jeremiah 11 has multiple statements like, 17 “The Lord of hosts, who planted you, has decreed disaster against you, because of the evil that the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal.”
Jeremiah 10 defines and illustrates exactly what the nothingness of idols means. That definition is not abrogated by punishing those who worship the idols.
Here’s how I summarize the passages:
idol = wood
idol = nothing
idol ≠ demon
idol ≠ other god (because there really is no other than One)
worship of idols = worship of demons
You may object to “idol ≠ demon,” but if an idol cannot speak, can do no evil, and can do no good (Jer. 10:3-5) that precludes the possibility that it could be a demon. Jeremiah 10 demonstrates that an idol is just a block of wood and precludes the interpretation that an idol is really a demon. But when one gives worship to an idol he is not giving worship to wood but to the demon who deceived him into worshiping something other than the One true God (I Cor. 10:20).
Is it a “negative” or a “clarifying” influence? The Text doesn’t say. You should have stopped there. But you went on:
>Andrew: That seems to be the opposite of what Paul is saying.
This assertion is beyond the Text of ch. 8.
I don’t see how you can say this. Are you really saying that we can’t know whether years of worshiping idols would have a positive or negative influence on someone? Do you think Paul needs to say that it is a negative influence? Paul addresses this specific issue in Romans:
Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God (Rom. 12:2).
We need to reject sinful cultural influence and renew our minds in order to properly distinguish what is good. Isn’t that precisely relevant to those whose consciences are weak because of their former idolatry in I Cor. 8:7?
Why do they believe that is wrong? They have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is /defiling/.
Is that what the text is saying or is that an assertion of the conclusion you have come to? If it is your conclusion, do you really conclude that the weak “believe that worship of anything but the one God is /defiling/” because of their former idolatry and not because of apostolic and OT teaching? Furthermore, in this conclusion you jumped from eating temple meat to “worship of anything.” This statement of yours assumes eating the temple meat is equivalent to worshiping idols (or at least that the weak believe it is equivalent). And that is an assumption that has yet to be demonstrated.
Discussion