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
Andrew: 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?
Well, I didn’t say “positive” (by choice); I said “clarifying.”
Dan: Why do they believe that is wrong? They have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is /defiling/.
Andrew: (1) Is that what the text is saying or is that an assertion of the conclusion you have come to? If it is your conclusion, (2) 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? (3) 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.
Answers to your ?s:
1) Yes, the text says it. Not explicitly, but it says it. The weak believe that idols must not be worshipped (the text says that eating defiles (v.7) them and that to encourage them to eat is to sin against Christ (v.12). Further, they are Christian (“the brother for whom Christ died,” v. 11), at least outwardly, which means they have expressed faith in God.
So they either believe that it is ok to worship Jesus and the idol, or they worship Jesus and believe they must not worship the idol. Clearly it is NOT the first option, since eating would make them stumble, be defiled, and potentially be destroyed.
2) Their former idolatry is not the reason they hold to worship-only-God. Their former idolatry tells them that the idol is “real”; offering to it is “really” offering to an idol. So their former idolatry gives them thoughts about the nothingness of the idol: the idol is the type of thing prohibited by the call to worship-only-God.
Again, to be clear, reading 1Cor 8, we only know that the weak think this - not whether the weak are right or wrong. Andrew, you think they’re wrong. OK. But right or wrong, the weak thought that the idol was a false god whose worship (sitting and food eating) must NOT be done.
3) Good point - this passage only discussed the qualms the weak had about TM-Eating. It does not SAY that the weak had the understanding that they avoided “worship of anything [but God].” Not sure why you want to make that point. That the weak viewed Corinth-idol reclining and eating as sinful. I find it highly doubtful that they would have worshipped an idol in Rome or anywhere else, though. How would they accidentally learn to worship Christ and refuse to worship the Corinth idol without learning that the prohibition of Decalouge Law #1 is against “all other Gods”? But anyway, yeah, from what we have from ch.8 leaves that possibility open.
Okay, lets slow down and look more closely at the text and what you just said.
Well, I didn’t say “positive” (by choice); I said “clarifying.”
So you are saying that the weak know the real truth about idols because of their past association with idols. You don’t see their perspective as something that needs to be transformed according to Rom. 12:2. Do you find it noteworthy that the “knowledge” of the Corinthians is a gift from God and is based on OT and apostolic teaching, but the perspective of the weak is based on their idolatrous experiences? This indicates to me that the strong are misapplying something that is true, while the weak need a renewed mind.
Again, to be clear, reading 1Cor 8, we only know that the weak think this - not whether the weak are right or wrong. Andrew, you think they’re wrong. OK. But right or wrong, the weak thought that the idol was a false god whose worship (sitting and food eating) must NOT be done.
You are assuming that sitting and eating = worship. It text only says that they believed eating the meat would defile their conscience. It does not say they believed eating the meat would be equivalent to worshiping the idol. Below I will show how it is more likely they thought that any association with idols was unclean. The text does not say that eating = worship or that the weak thought eating = worship.
Good point - this passage only discussed the qualms the weak had about TM-Eating. It does not SAY that the weak had the understanding that they avoided “worship of anything [but God].” Not sure why you want to make that point. That the weak viewed Corinth-idol reclining and eating as sinful.
You missed my point. The text says that the weak thought eating the meat was unclean, but it does not say that they thought it was equal to worshiping the idol. Perhaps they believed it was equivalent to worship, or perhaps they believed any involvement with idols was unclean even if it didn’t rise to the level of worship. At the bottom I will show how it is not equivalent.
The weak believe that idols must not be worshipped
That’s not what the text says. Everyone believes that an idol must not be worshipped, but the weak additionally believe that eating the meat was wrong also.
Why do they believe that is wrong? They have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is /defiling/.
Yes, the text says it. Not explicitly, but it says it.
That’s probably the most dangerous thing you’ve ever said. If it’s not written in the text it’s either an assumption or a conclusion. The text does not say that the weak believe eating and sitting is wrong because “they have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is /defiling/.” That’s either an assumption of yours or a conclusion of yours. The text says that when the weak eat it defiles their conscience because of their former idolatry.
Paul stops short of saying that the weak are sinning when they sit and/or eat. They are ruined and their conscience is defiled (unclean). That’s strong language, but Paul reserves the word “sin” for those who encourage his brother to defile his conscience. So when/if a weak brother sits and eats is he sinning and worshiping an idol? No, he is not sinning nor is he worshipping the idol, but he is defiling his conscience.
Look again at the word “to defile” “moluno.” Worshipping other gods or idols is not simply defiling. Worshipping idols is a transgression, evil, lawlessness, rebellion, disobedience; it is not simply “unclean.” In I Cor. 8:7, the conscience is defiled (passive mood), so it is not saying that the weak are actively defiling something, but that when they eat their conscience is (passively) defiled. The Septuagint uses this word in Zech. 14:2 to say that the “The city will be captured, the houses looted, and the women defiled,” again in the passive mood. Are the women sinning in being defiled? No, it is an uncleanness, but not sin. In I Cor. 8:11, again the brother is ruined (passive mood) by sitting and eating. It doesn’t say that he is ruining himself or transgressing the law of God. When the weak brother eats, his conscience is defiled and he is ruined, but it doesn’t say that he is worshipping idols or sinning.
You seem to be going beyond the text and saying that sitting and eating doesn’t just defile their conscience, but it is sin and idol worship too. But Paul’s use of the words “defiled,” “ruined,” and “sin” indicate the opposite.
Dan: Well, I didn’t say “positive” (by choice); I said “clarifying.”
Andrew: So you are saying that the weak know the real truth about idols…
I said “clarifying.” Based on how you took it, possibly not the best word.
What I mean it clarifies is how the weak view TM-Eating. For the sake of progress in this discussion, I’ll be willing to say they view it as “sinful participation with idols.”
Pagan Corinthians bought meat in the market and served it to their guests at their home. In my view, even there, they would do it with a type of “worship.” They did it thinking the meat offered to Asclepius would be “healthier” - possibly healing of ailments, possibly less likely to make you sick. It is a form of participation with and belief in the idol.
-=-=-=-=-
Dan: Yes, the text says it. Not explicitly, but it says it./
That’s probably the most dangerous thing you’ve ever said. If it’s not written in the text it’s either an assumption or a conclusion. The text does not say that the weak believe eating and sitting is wrong because “they have come to believe that worship of anything but the one God is defiling.” That’s either an assumption of yours or a conclusion of yours. The text says that when the weak eat it defiles their conscience because of their former idolatry.
Be careful not to be insulting. Making conclusions from Scripture is a good and necessary thing. Do you have access to a book on hermeneutics? Of course we can debate peacefully about the logic of those conclusions, which I think is what we are doing here.
-=-=-=-
In your next couple paragraphs, you assert: 1) “Defile” is passive, “so it is not saying that the weak are actively defiling something…” 2) The weak don’t necessarily believe TM-Eating is “worship” or “sinful” - only “defiling.” So..
1) “Defile” is passive. And “their conscience” is the grammatical subject.
Passive voice does not mean inactivity. “Their conscience” is being acted upon grammatically. That DOES NOT imply that the weak himself would be an innocent party like the poor rape victim you bring up. The eating is active (“τινὲς… ἐσθίουσιν” - “some… eat”). Eating, their conscience is defiled. “Defiled” is grammatically passive in English and Greek. But in both, it is the action of the weak that defiles their own conscience.
After naming some idolatry and sexual sins, Leviticus 18:24 says, “Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you.”
Psalms 106:38-39 “And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.”
2) The weak don’t necessarily believe TM-Eating is “worship” or “sinful” - only “defiling.”
You’re inappropriately splitting hairs here. The weak believed that TM-Eating was sinful and wrong.
Revelation 3:4 “Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy.” And Revelation 14:4 “It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb.”
Was TM-Eating “worship”? Again, for the sake of progress in this discussion, I’ll be willing to say they view it as “sinful participation with idols.”
Dan, I’m getting mixed signals when you frequently ask me to look more closely at the text, then say I’m splitting hairs. I think Paul is being precise when he uses the different words “defiled,” “ruined,” and “sinning.”
I didn’t mean any insult, but it was meant to be a reproof. It is perfectly normal and necessary to draw conclusions from the text, but we don’t equate our conclusions with the actual text. (I have the Kaiser & Silva’s book on hermeneutics with me)
Okay, I won’t spend time replying to your objections since you stipulated. So let’s continue with the next 2 verses:
I Corinthians 8:8, Food will not make us acceptable to God. We are not inferior if we don’t eat, and we are not better if we do eat.
Verses 8&9 are at the heart of the main idea of the passage. It is a rebuke to those who were eating meat - that they are not more acceptable to God or better than those who do not eat. Nor are the abstainers inferior. As he said before, “knowledge puffs up,” and verse 8 seems to indicate that it had done so in their case. Probably some of them were at least somewhat prideful, but more likely, some of them were prideful to a significant extent for Paul to address it in this manner and at this length.
What does Paul mean by “not inferior?” According to BDAG:
5. to experience deficiency in something advantageous or desirable, lack, be lacking, go without, come short of
The abstainers do not lack something that the eaters have. Probably referring to 8a, he means that the abstainers do not lack any standing or acceptableness before God - they are not less pleasing to God. This seems to indicate that they eaters thought they were more pleasing to God or had greater standing before God on account of the exercise of their freedom and enjoying the food.
1 Corinthians 8:9, But be careful that this right of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.
First, “be careful,” or “take heed.” BDAG says,
5. be ready to learn about something that is needed or is hazardous, watch, look to, beware of,
…that “your right,” or “your liberty…”
(1. a state of control over something, freedom of choice, right)
“…in no way,” “does not somehow,” or “does not at all…”
“…become a stumbling block to the weak.”
(2. opportunity to experience inward pain (take offense) or make a misstep, cause for offense, cause for making a misstep)
This stumbling block obviously refers back to their conscience being defiled and forward to their being ruined. Note that the text does not say the strong should avoid causing the weak to sin or to worship idols. It says that they should avoid causing inward pain (ruin) or a misstep (violation of conscience).
Therefore, I’d say it means this:
But take note and take heed so that your free choice does not in any way become a means of painful internal ruin or a violation of conscience for those who are weak in conscience.
Andrew: It is perfectly normal and necessary to draw conclusions from the text, but we don’t equate our conclusions with the actual text. (I have the Kaiser & Silva’s book on hermeneutics with me)
That is a fascinating statement. It is the core of Part 13. So later.
Andrew: Okay, I won’t spend time replying to your objections since you stipulated.
So we agree: (?)
The Weak of 1Cor8 think, “TM-Eating is ‘sinful participation with idols.’
Andrew: I Corinthians 8:8, Food will not make us acceptable to God. We are not inferior if we don’t eat, and we are not better if we do eat. … As he said before, “knowledge puffs up,” … Probably some of them were at least somewhat prideful, but more likely, …a significant extent …
… This seems to indicate that they eaters thought they were more pleasing to God or had greater standing …
I agree that it “seems” this way. I’ve not mentioned it because it isn’t explicit, but I would agree that it seems to be what Paul is saying between the lines. Also consistent with 1Cor5:1-2. The Corinthians were not only welcoming sin, but they were “puffed up” about that.
Andrew: This stumbling block obviously refers back to their conscience being defiled and forward to their being ruined. Note that the text does not say the strong should avoid causing the weak to sin or to worship idols. It says that they should avoid causing inward pain (ruin) or a misstep (violation of conscience)
So even though you agree that the weak think that TMEating is sinful, you still want to say that TM-Eating for the weak was in fact, not sinful, but only “defiling.”
I support careful attention to words. I just think that “defiling” is a word that indicates “sin” here. Paul uses it nowhere else, so its tough to be sure. As I said, it’s used by John/Jesus in Revelation.
Thayer’s: “of a conscience reproached (defiled) by sin, 1 Co. viii. 7”
ATRob.: “Old word molunw, to stain, pollute, rare in N.T. (1 Timothy 3:9; Revelation 3:4)”
G.Fee: “their past association with idols meant that a return to the worship of the god by eating in the deity’s environs would cause them to defile their relationship with Christ.” 1Cor, NICNT, p. 421
My opinion: This word “defile” is a Greek world equivalent of “koinos”-“unclean” (cf. Rom14:14, Mark 7:2). As I’ve said, historically, the debate in Corinth was between Christian Greeks who ate TM and Christian Greeks who abstained. Thus, a non-Jewish word used for their defiling. Whereas in Rome, the debate was between Jews who abstained and gentile Christians who ate. Thus, a Jewish word for defiling.
The other word in 1Cor8 is “stumble.” In Paul’s usage, to make a brother stumble is to trip him so he sins. It might be a sin against his conscience, but it is still correct to call it “sin.”
Rom14:20-23 “20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. “
Note that this passage is contextually very similar (weak/strong, food-conviction discussion). And Paul draws the line all the way from “stumble” to “sin.”
So, WE AGREE:
The weak thought, “TMEating is sinful participation with idols and defiling.”
DAN THINKS:
The weak were in fact sinning if they TM-Ate because to defile one’s conscience is sin.
HOWEVER:
I don’t think it’s necessary to pause to debate that “defile” = “sin.” If we can’t agree on that, then it’s enough to agree that the weak THOUGHT TMEating was sin.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
EDIT: if so, then we’re probably ready to compare these ideas with:
1. 1 Corinthians 10.
2. 1 Corinthians (“knowledge”)
2. NT passages.
3. OT passages.
Yes, I agree the weak thought sitting and eating was a sin. But there are a few necessary points to make in light of that.
1. As stated before I believe that having a weak conscience means that one’s faculty to distinguish right from wrong is impaired. So they are improperly determining it to be wrong because of the influence of their former idolatry.
2. I do not think that that the word “to stumble” is equivalent to sin, but it can (and in this context does) lead to sin as you indicated. I think that Paul further explains in Rom. 14:23 that if you make a purposeful “misstep” against your faith, then that is sin. The sin therefore, is a sin of acting against your conscience, not the sin of participation with idols. You said, “to defile one’s conscience is sin,” and I agree with the thought, but I think it’s more accurate to say that “to act against your conscience is a sin and results in a defiled conscience (since “defile” isn’t the active verb in this case). My point is that Paul’s not saying you shouldn’t encourage your brother to participate with idols, but that you shouldn’t encourage your brother to act against his conscience. Because if he does act against his conscience, that would be a sin. I think that represents the chain provided in Rom. 14:20-23.
3. Though I agree with the statement, it is important to note that this is not the main point of the passage. It is great to study these details, but we should not keep as our main focus the things that we can conclude based on what Paul does not say or on the secondary implications of his statements. The focus is on avoiding sinning against your brother and Christ through pride and lack of love in our choices. If we detach our interpretation from that main idea then our perspective will be skewed. By that I mean, the thoughts and beliefs of the weak are not the primary subjects of the discourse; the main subject is the “knowledge” and its proper application.
To keep that in view we need to look, at least briefly, at the conclusion of ch. 8.
1 Corinthians 8:12-13, Now when you sin like this against the brothers and wound their weak conscience, you are sinning against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to fall, I will never again eat meat, so that I won’t cause my brother to fall.
The meat-eaters who encourage their weak brothers to eat against their conscience are sinning against them and are wounding their weak conscience, and therefore are sinning against Christ. Note that it is the action of the eaters that wounds the conscience of the weak. Paul holds them accountable. In v.13, Paul boils it down to a simple expression – we are talking about FOOD here, people! What’s more important: food or your brother’s sanctification? The answer should have been be obvious to you. If a particular choice of food can cause my brother to fall, I’ll never choose that food again.
Before we get to ch. 10, we need to look at ch. 9. Can we agree that ch. 9 is about self-control and the advancement of the Gospel in the use of liberty and authority?
Andrew: Yes, I agree the weak thought sitting and eating was a sin. But there are a few necessary points…
1. …I believe that having a weak conscience means that one’s faculty to distinguish right from wrong is impaired. So they are improperly determining it to be wrong because of the influence of their former idolatry.
Sure, I’m aware of that. And I’m sure you’re aware that I believe having a weak conscience means that due to one’s thinking about God’s Law and the reality of life, one has concluded something to be wrong. The influence of former idolatry causes them to think that what was happening in the temple was really idol worship.
Andrew: 2. I do not think that that the word “to stumble” is equivalent to sin, but it can (and in this context does) lead to sin as you indicated. I think that Paul further explains in Rom. 14:23 that if you make a purposeful “misstep” against your faith, then that is sin. The sin therefore, is a sin of acting against your conscience, not the sin of participation with idols….
I know you think that. I, of course, don’t think that “weak” = wrong. I think “weak” = “convicted to not do.” So the sin is of acting against one’s conscience, which made it the sin of participation with idols.
Andrew: …more accurate to say that “to act against your conscience is a sin and results in a defiled conscience…
Sure. The act of TM-Eating (for the one who believes it’s wrong) is sin and defiling.
Andrew: 3. …this is not the main point of the passage. … The focus is on avoiding sinning against your brother and Christ through pride and lack of love in our choices. If we detach our interpretation from that main idea then our perspective will be skewed.
Truth is truth. Even if Paul didn’t intend it as his main point, it is a logical precedent to his main point. Most importantly, it’s true. Whether it was the theme, or most important to ch.8 isn’t as important to me at this point than, Is it true?
-=-=-=-=-
Andrew: 1 Corinthians 8:12-13… The meat-eaters who encourage their weak brothers to eat against their conscience are sinning against them and are wounding their weak conscience, and therefore are sinning against Christ. Note that it is the action of the eaters that wounds the conscience of the weak. Paul holds them accountable. In v.13, Paul boils it down to a simple expression – we are talking about FOOD here, people! What’s more important: food or your brother’s sanctification? The answer should have been be obvious to you. If a particular choice of food can cause my brother to fall, I’ll never choose that food again.
Well phrased. I agree.
Andrew: Before we get to ch. 10, we need to look at ch. 9. Can we agree that ch. 9 is about self-control and the advancement of the Gospel in the use of liberty and authority?
Yes. In 1Cor9, Paul further develops the theme of lovingly not using one’s rights/liberties for the sake of brothers and ministry. Do you think we’ll disagree about anything there? I am going to assume not.
-=-=-=-=-=-
In my next post, I’d like to list the things we’ve agreed on. (double-check we agree) Then, I’d like to start a new thread for the purpose of testing those ideas.
Andrew, in this post I want to list what we’ve agreed on and what we understand but don’t like about the view of the other.
Where I’ve listed a “DIFFERENCE,” I am pointing out where we think differently.
We agree:
The Strong knows: “The idol is nothing.” But he doesn’t really understand his knowledge.
The Weak thinks, “The idol is ‘real’ - the meat is ‘really’ offered to the idol.”
We agree:
The Strong thinks, “The idol is absolutely nothing.”
- Andrew: The strong not only “thinks” it. He “knows” it - he’s right.
- Dan: The strong “thinks” those things - he isn’t necessarily right.
We agree:
The weak thinks, “The idol is not absolutely nothing.”
We agree:
The Strong thinks, “The nothingness of the idol means I can eat in the temple.”
We agree:
The weak thinks, “TM-Eating is sinful participation with idols and defiling.”
- Andrew: The weak thinks that because he has an impaired (“weak”) conscience.
- Dan: The weak thinks that because he believes that the idol is exactly the type of thing that the OT idolatry prohibitions were talking about.
Agreed, and I’d also like to add some points of agreement if I may. (Please correct me if I’m wrong, but most of these are quotes from you):
Agreed: 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.
Agreed: In vv. 7-10 Paul cautions against the indiscriminate use of liberty.
Agreed: The actual basis of our freedom is the work of Christ.
Agreed: Eating in the temple is not automatically equivalent to idolatry.
Disagreed: Dan: Paul did believe that T-M-Eating was idolatry in this case.
Andrew: The sin of the eaters was being a stumbling block to the weak, not idolatry
Agreed: The reason why the weak think the way they do is because of their former association with idols.
Disagreed: whether that’s a negative or clarifying influence.
Agreed: The explicitly stated sin in ch. 8 is the sin against your brother by becoming a stumbling block and encouraging him to act against his conscience (which is also a sin against Christ).
Agreed: The implicit sin in ch. 8 is purposefully acting contrary your conscience (which leads to a defiled conscience).
Agreed: In 1Cor9, Paul further develops the theme of lovingly not using one’s rights/liberties for the sake of brothers and ministry.
Agreed: 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.
While I agree with this, it might confuse things. We’ve found in our discussions that there is ambiguity in there. And I think that the sides in Corinth interpreted “idol is nothing” differently. (Strong:”Absolutely nothing,” Weak:”Nothing worth respect/honor/worship.”)
Agreed: In vv. 7-10 Paul cautions against the indiscriminate use of liberty.
Yes. And perhaps we should define “liberty”? Liberty = the right to do something
Agreed: The actual basis of our freedom is the work of Christ.
The cause-basis, yes. But there is a sense in these passages of a logical-basis, which is our thinking about Biblical teaching and life. Does that make sense? WHY is X my liberty? Because of the work of Christ. HOW do I know X is my liberty? By thinking about how Biblical teaching applies to my life.
Agreed: Eating in the temple is not automatically equivalent to idolatry.
Disagreed: Dan: Paul did believe that T-M-Eating was idolatry in this case. The sin of the eaters was at least being a stumbling block.
Andrew: Paul did not did believe that T-M-Eating was idolatry. The sin of the eaters was being a stumbling block to the weak, not idolatry
Yes, I think so. I added the little text to make them more parallel. Good?
Agreed: The reason why the weak think the way they do is because of their former association with idols.
Disagreed: whether that’s a negative or clarifying* influence.
Agree. But I add that I’ve been confusing with choice of terms. I’ll stick with “clarifying,” but you might help me by suggesting a better term once you understand what I mean. So I’ll add * to clarifying to express I’m not totally satisfied with the term.
Agreed: The explicitly stated sin in ch. 8 is the sin against your brother by becoming a stumbling block and encouraging him to act against his conscience (which is also a sin against Christ).
Agree.
Agreed: The implicit sin in ch. 8 is purposefully acting contrary your conscience (which leads to a defiled conscience).
No - I believe that the sin of the weak is TM-Eating contrary to conscience. We differ, I think, on what is meant by “standing,” “falling,” “stumble,” and “stumbling block.” I take these to mean “not-sinning,” “sinning,” “sin,” and “an encouragement to sin.” So I see the sin (the weak TM-Eating) in ch.8 as explicit and real. By “explicit”, I mean the Text says it’s sin to for the weak to eat. By “real,” I mean that his conscience isn’t necessarily “mistaken.” NOTE: the conscience can be mistaken. But it can also be correct in that what we conclude is wrong actually is wrong. Or perhaps it’s better to say that the conclusion of the mind observes that it is actually wrong, though still only for oneself.
That response was probably too long. Sorry. The point here is to agree and I’ve just gone on about something I know we disagree on…
Agreed: In 1Cor9, Paul further develops the theme of lovingly not using one’s rights/liberties for the sake of brothers and ministry.
Yep.
So there’s a few we can add to the list.
I believe that when Paul says “fall,” he means “fall into sin.”
“Fall” is stated, but “into sin” is not stated. The first is, by definition, explicit. The second is, by definition, implicit.
So I agree that when the weak act against their conscience it is sin, but it is implicitly stated that way. Meanwhile, the sin of the eaters is explicit – Paul outright calls it a sin. There is only one thing in the passage that Paul calls “sin;” that’s the explicit sin. Any other sins would necessarily be implicit. Just because a conclusion logically follows doesn’t mean it’s explicit, that’s the definition of implicit.
My point is that Paul had a reason for stating one explicitly and one implicitly. One is explicitly addressed and condemned; the other is a secondary point and implicitly mentioned. I agree with you that both are true, but Paul is emphasizing one.
The text does not explicitly say that when the weak eat they are sinning. As you mentioned before, there is a chain: if they eat it is a stumble (an act against their conscience), and when they stumble it is a fall (into sin).
Paul has a reason for saying it this way rather than calling it an explicit sin as he does with those who encourage the weak to eat in contradiction to conscience.
The text does not explicitly say that when the weak eat they are sinning. As you mentioned before, there is a chain: if they eat it is a stumble (an act against their conscience), and when they stumble it is a fall (into sin).
I’m not sure how important this debate is, but I want to clarify what I meant by a chain from ‘stumble-fall-defile’ to ‘sin.’
I see these as all language for “sin.” e.g….
πίπτω - In Rom14:4 “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.” The weak is inclined to judge because 1) He thinks his brother is sinning 2) He thinks he should judge. Paul is correcting #2. But it still could be sin. And though he doesn’t answer to his brother, to his own master he still does “stand or fall.” These are words that mean “obey or sin.”
πρόσκομμα, σκάνδαλον - In Rom14:13 “no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”
λυπέω - Romans 14:15 “if thy brother be grieved with thy meat” This word refers to the sadness of guilt when one knows he has sinned.
All of these are talking about the “falling” of the weak when he eats, the same activity spoken of in v. 23:
ἁμαρτία - Rom14:23 “And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”
-=-=-=-=-
I’m still wondering why you’re pointing to a difference between “fall” and “sin.”
Let me ask you this: If the weak eats something, believing it’s wrong, is that sin?
I’m still wondering why you’re pointing to a difference between “fall” and
“sin.”
Let me ask you this: If the weak eats something, believing it’s wrong, is
that sin?
I’m pointing out a difference between “fall” and “sin” because Paul chose to use two different words for a good reason. I agree that it is “sin language” and I believe that if the weak eats something, believing it’s wrong, then it is at least the sin of contradicting one’s conscience. But my point is that Paul is making his own point; he’s demonstrating his place of emphasis.
Often, as you and I have been writing we underline or bold aspects of our writing to indicate where our emphases lay. If the writers of Scripture had done the same then those emphases would have been lost through making copies. But the writers expressed their emphases in various other ways like repetition, poetic language, and idioms. We agree that Paul speaks of 2 different sins in I Cor 8, but if we look closely at the language we can clearly see that one is emphasized and one is not.
1. Direct literal language vs idiomatic language: The sinning of the strong is literally called sin “hamartano” against the brother. Meanwhile Paul uses the idiomatic phrase “cause to fall” for the weak.
2. Active voice vs. passive voice: The sin of the weak is in active voice, meanwhile the sin of the weak is twice in the passive “is defiled” and “is ruined.”
3. Stronger language vs. weaker language: The sin of the strong is specifically called “sin against the brothers” and “against Christ.” That’s strong language that Paul only uses in reference to the sin of the strong. Certainly, all sin is ultimately against Christ, but Paul only mentions that in reference to the sin of the strong.
My point is that Paul’s point and Paul’s emphasis is on the sin of the strong against his brothers. If we do not recognize that emphasis or ignore it while interpreting the passage then our interpretation will be skewed. Our interpretation must emphasize that which is being emphasized in the text.
I’m not sure how important this debate is…
I think it’s very important. These are the details of the text that indicate to us Paul’s emphasis and main point in giving the discourse.
I realize that you’ve been studying this passage for quite some time. You have a lot of time invested in the study and in writing the many articles. You wrote this:
Thanks. I’ve put a lot of work into this passage over the last 25 years. I am hoping for two things in this series:
1. In the case that I’m wrong or partially wrong, I want confrontation and correction.
2. In the case that I’m right here, or better to say that the word has spoken clearly to us here, I want us to hear it further and spread it.
There are many places in your articles where I agree with you, but I do think that you have a skewed emphasis because you did not follow the emphasis of the text. I’ve spent this time talking to you because I think it is a valuable use to time for brothers to study and discuss these kinds of issues. Isn’t that that what “sharperiron” is about?
Andrew: I’m pointing out a difference between “fall” and “sin” because Paul chose to use two different words for a good reason. I agree that it is “sin language” and I believe that if the weak eats something, believing it’s wrong, then it is at least the sin of contradicting one’s conscience. But my point is that Paul is making his own point; he’s demonstrating his place of emphasis.
If you agree that TM-eating is sin for the weak, that’s great. I agree that Paul is emphasizing here in ch8 the sin of causing a brother to stumble more than the sin of the brother eating.
Andrew: Our interpretation must emphasize that which is being emphasized in the text.
I think I agree. But:
- Things that are true in the text are truth, even if they are not emphasized or the main point of the text.
- We must not de-emphasize any truth from the Text to the point of not holding it to be true or not applying it.
- I’m not sure I agree that things like the use of passive voice in Greek is a sign of minimalism or de-emphasis.
Discussion