Turning from 1Cor8 to 1Cr10 (Dan and Andrew)
Andrew, I think we can start with ch. 10. In your last PM you said:
1) There may be some basis for your interpretation, but it depends on chapter 10. For your interpretation to be true chapter 10 must indicate that the weak were correct and that eating in the temple is idolatry, because those things aren’t established in chapters 8-9.
2) While there is some basis for your interpretation based on chs. 8-9 those chapters do not preclude my interpretation, and the main emphases of those chapters actually indicate that my interpretation is more likely to be true. I’m not saying that chs. 8-9 show your interpretation to be wrong and mine to be right; I’m saying that so far (not yet looking at ch. 10) both interpretations are possible,
but mine is more plausible.
I am in agreement with these and that is why I think we should go on to ch. 10.
As we go, I will explain how I see the chapter as Paul’s argument that in this case, the weak are correct and eating meat in the temple (TM-Eating) is wrong.
1 Corinthians 10 begins: “Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant…” KJV or “For I want you to know, brothers…” (ESV).
“Brothers” - Paul grants them the title “brothers.” Does that mean they are certainly believers? Does it mean they are correct in their position on the controversy at hand?
To the first question, we must say, “No.”
1 Cor 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Here, Paul acknowledges that there are some who are (or were) called “brothers” and who may not be believers. Calling someone “brother” cannot mean more than: He has a credible profession of faith and we think he is a believer. It is possible that the group Paul is calling “brothers” in 1 Cor 10:1 is another group that will eventually show themselves not to be truly brothers.
To the second question, we must also say, “No.”
1Cor 6:5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?
“Brothers” clearly can do wrong. Thus, Paul calls them to obedience.
“Not…ignorant,” or “Know” - Greek: (ἀγνοέω agnoéō), literally, “without knowledge.” We’ve been talking about “knowledge” all along. Here Paul begins by saying that some of the Corinthians are in need of knowledge.
I still can’t seem to get my Greek fonts to display within the this editor, what do you use?
Can you read mine?
I just copy and paste out of Blue-Letter-Bible. Here’s the Greek word for “strong” in 1Cor16:13: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2901&…
Try copying the Greek word and pasting.
[Dan Miller] I get what you’re saying with “technically right.” But that sounds too conclusive. In 1Cor8 Paul calls TM-Eating “this right of yours.” yes, he’s acknowledging that they technically have a point. There’s a sense in which TM-Eating isn’t idolatry. However, there’s another sense in which it is participation in idolatry because it proclaims something about the idol, even if you don’t mean it. And so in the final analysis, Paul is saying “I don’t want you participating with demons”(20).
So, Dan, do you hold to “the weak” were Jewish Christians who didn’t quite understand fully because of their previous context? This is my position. The Gentiles *got it* much easier because they didn’t have the *baggage* (this is not the fault of the baggage but it is understandable). The strong Gentiles should be sensitive.
Though idolatry is demon inspired, yet, the idol is nothing. When the strong ate previously in the idol temple they were not actually fellowshiping with idols. I don’t think Paul means this though it sounds like it to our ears.
Further, principles can be gleaned from this section but not an issue such as alcohol consumption by Christians. That would be a misapplication in my view. The wine spoken about is idol wine (as in Daniel). The OT had no prohibition of foreign wine (the wine used in the Tabernacle was probably purchased from Moab or confiscated from them during Moabite conquest-Israel didn’t grow the grapes). The weak in Corinth didn’t drink idol wine but only acceptable (unoffered to idol) wine.
I can come back tonight or tomorrow to this discussion.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
So, Dan, do you hold to “the weak” were Jewish Christians who didn’t quite understand fully because of their previous context? This is my position. The Gentiles *got it* much easier because they didn’t have the *baggage* (this is not the fault of the baggage but it is understandable). The strong Gentiles should be sensitive.
I do not think that the weak were Jewish Christians. Why not? 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.
The Jews would not have “former association with idols. It is the gentiles who had that baggage.
And the Jews would not have even been allowed into the pagan temple. So the “weak” and the ~strong~ in Corinth were both gentiles.
So I do not believe that the gentiles *got it* much easier. AND (and here’s the vital part when considering my view) as we read 1Cor10:1-22, we find it is the “weak” TM-Abstainers who *got it* more than the TM-Eaters. The *right* answer was, Do not eat in the temple! “What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons” - Do not participate in demon worship!
Recall that the position of the “weak” was (1Cor8:7) the food is “really offered to an idol.” The idol is something (a demon). The offering is really offered.
The flow of Paul’s argument doesn’t seem to support your conclusions.
However, I will leave you to your views. My focus has been in the OT and Biblical Theology so I come to this discussion without in depth preparation. I of course read to NT and try to stay current in ideas but it is not my forte at this time.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Alex, I understand if it isn’t your area of study. I assume when you say, “The flow of Paul’s argument doesn’t seem to support your conclusions,” you refer to the conclusions I listed in my last post. (Because I don’t think you’re claiming to have read and disagreed with the series in general.)
Let me just focus on one of those: The thought process and conclusions of the “Weak” of 1Cor8 are substantially the same as Paul’s thought process and conclusions in 1Cor10. Specifically,
- That which is offered to idols has really been offered to something evil.
- We must not eat in the idol’s temple.
Do you disagree with that?
Dan, I clicked on your PM and lost the post I was preparing here. It is a bit frustrating since I, unlike most, am a 2 finger typist. I am a carpenter by trade and now 65, there is not very much hope for me elaborating extensively through text.
Anyway, neither point is as hard and fast as you state it. Paul doesn’t state it as you do.
1. Simply, Historical Biblical Theology from the OT needs to be referenced to Paul’s “what they offer, they offer to demons”
2. A meat meal was very much prized in those days historically. However, due to possibly severely hurting others conscience, Paul instructs strict avoidance.
A little free time was had today, mostly I spent it here. I am booked up for the next couple of weeks so forgive me if you don’t see my face (I am speaking metaphorically of course and not referring to the avatar on this site). Language and communication is fraught with potential misunderstanding therefore a cautious approach needs to be taken without being too dogmatic. This thread seems to have too much dogma in it.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Alex: there is not very much hope for me elaborating extensively through text.
Hopefully this won’t take long.
Alex: Anyway, neither point is as hard and fast as you state it. Paul doesn’t state it as you do.
Look first at my claims regarding the viewpoint of the weak of 1Cor8:
- That which is offered to idols has really been offered to something evil.
- 1Cor8:7 “But some… eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.”
- We must not eat in the idol’s temple.
We could argue about the phrase “through former association with idols” -(were they Jews or gentiles?), so I left that part out. Paul says explicitly that “eating” for them was “as really offered to an idol.”
(And surely you agree that the Weak were concluding that Temple-Meat-Eating was wrong.)
[Dan Miller]So, Dan, do you hold to “the weak” were Jewish Christians who didn’t quite understand fully because of their previous context? This is my position. The Gentiles *got it* much easier because they didn’t have the *baggage* (this is not the fault of the baggage but it is understandable). The strong Gentiles should be sensitive.
I do not think that the weak were Jewish Christians. Why not? 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.
The Jews would not have “former association with idols. It is the gentiles who had that baggage.
And the Jews would not have even been allowed into the pagan temple. So the “weak” and the ~strong~ in Corinth were both gentiles.
So I do not believe that the gentiles *got it* much easier. AND (and here’s the vital part when considering my view) as we read 1Cor10:1-22, we find it is the “weak” TM-Abstainers who *got it* more than the TM-Eaters. The *right* answer was, Do not eat in the temple! “What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons” - Do not participate in demon worship!
Recall that the position of the “weak” was (1Cor8:7) the food is “really offered to an idol.” The idol is something (a demon). The offering is really offered.
Returning to your previous post:
1. You said that it was a Gentile problem because Jews didn’t have former associations with idols. You need to demonstrate that this is a strictly technical term since association doesn’t limit the type of relation. A Jew’s association may have been negative.
2. You said that Jews were not allowed in Pagan temples. Again, you need to vigorously support this with detailed historical proof.
Here is my problem with these two points: The Jews were not a mono-block (again this is not my present forte and I am going on memory of previous background research some time ago). Jews came in all states of observance. Further categories of folks came into the mix also such as *converts to Judaism*, and *God Fearers*. I do not deny that some of these weak people were Gentile but such as sharp distinction as you make seems very unwarranted.
Another separate point. Look at the history of how the section was taken historically by other Christians. If you arrive at a novel viewpoint, a red flag should appear in your mind.
Do you have an unrecognized bias? The heart is deceitful above all things, who can know it? What is driving your study on these *weak*? Have you made a purpose statement? Why the spilling of all this virtual ink? This is hardly a burning issue we don’t have this as a current problem. The meat I buy is safe from concern. I think I get the general application of this section today.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Alex: I still deeply disagree with your outlook.
I’m not sure any reader can be sure that you do. You have not made any attempt to state what you think the plain sense is, much less point to 1 Cor 8.
I have been quoting directly from the passage.
-=-=-
From an earlier post:
Alex: 1. You said that it was a Gentile problem because Jews didn’t have former associations with idols. You need to demonstrate that this is a strictly technical term since association doesn’t limit the type of relation. A Jew’s association may have been negative.
2. You said that Jews were not allowed in Pagan temples. Again, you need to vigorously support this with detailed historical proof.
Even though my now 12 Part series is long, I have not had space to list all the data I’ve had available. For instance, in Ben Witherington’s Not so Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton, p. 7 (p.243 in the journal),
“Care was taken that no strangers, foreigners, or in some cases no non-Romans were present to contaminate the proceedings.15 It is thus possible that Paul may have seen the act of pagan sacrifice from afar, but he would probably not have been allowed to scrutinise the process closely much less what followed in the temple or its adjacent buildings thereafter. The worshipper would normally invite family and friends to the sacrifice, not least because there would be a good deal of meat to be eaten up, and only the most wealthy of Romans had meat as a regular part of their diet. It was a luxury item, for the most part.”
Here’s a few quotes from David Garland’s 1 Corinthians commentary:
They cannot have been Jewish Christians, because they would not be described as “until now accustomed to an idol” (8:7) - Garland, 1 Corinthians, p. 381.
-=-=-
You also seem to disagree with my understanding of the viewpoint of the weak of 1Cor8:
That which is offered to idols has really been offered to something evil.
We must not eat in the idol’s temple.
Again, Garland:
The knowers “know” that idol food is nothing but ordinary food hallowed by some empty hocus-pocus. The weak, however, regard it as idol food, sanctified and dedicated to the God. -Garland, 1 Corinthians, p. 380.
You recommended Thiselton’s commentary - I’ll probably give you quotes from that tomorrow after it arrives.
-=-=-
Most of your earlier objections fall under the category of Consider historical theology and it’s a red flag if you disagree. I agree with what you’re saying. But consider this footnote from Fee, NICNT 1 Corinthians:
For centuries the answer was that Paul is responding to an internal problem in Corinth between the “weak” and the “strong” over the question of marketplace food, since much of that food would have been previously offered in sacrifice to pagan deities… The basic problem, then, was considered to be marketplace food, to which Paul responds by first addressing the “strong” and invoking the stumbling-block principle (8:1-13; cf. 10:30-11:1)… Finally, as something of an aside, he concludes by prohibiting temple attendance (10:14-22).
This answer, however, was filled with nearly insuperable difficulties… [See the footnote, because he lists these difficulties in detail.]
I agree that novel views should be a red flag - but traditional views can be wrong.
When you say that those Corinthians who ate in the temple were “strong,” that is your assumption based on your interpretation of Rom 14, and I Cor. 8-10. But the text doesn’t actually call them “strong,” which is consistent with my interpretation that they are immature.
The ESV rendering of I Cor 8:7 reminded me of something important. The ESV says “association with idols” in 8:7, but Paul uses a different Greek word to describe this former idolatry in I Cor. 8:7 than what he uses to describe the association/partnering with demons or idols in I Cor. 10. I thought that was important to note.
My response is that actions communicate - not as precisely was words, but they still communicate. Note what Paul says about Lord’s Table participation…This is my point. Eating and drinking communicate. In the case of the Lord’s Table, they proclaim the death of Jesus. Paul specifically uses the Lord’s Table to teach them what participation means…The fact that participation-eating was a proclamation of something is Paul’s words. HE uses what the Lord’s Table eating is to inform the Corinthians about what TM-Eating is.
I agree, Paul compares eating at the table in the temple to eating at the Lord’s Table. Furthermore, Paul explained the main thing that the action of eating at the Lord’s table communicates: proclaim the Lord’s death till he comes. And I agree that the act of eating in the temple also communicates something. What were the Corinthian Christians communicating by eating in the temple? Association, fellowship, communion! Were they communicating worship or glorification? No, as I demonstrated before, they had clearly stopped worshipping idols and were not participating in the idolatrous ceremonies in the other room. You didn’t reply to my explanation of how Paul shows that they were communicating their rejection of worship of idols, but that they are still associating themselves with the idols and those who are actively engaged in the process.
When you say that those Corinthians who ate in the temple were “strong,” that is your assumption based on your interpretation of Rom 14, and I Cor. 8-10. But the text doesn’t actually call them “strong,” which is consistent with my interpretation that they are immature.
I agree that it’s consistent with your interp (and also mine). I haven’t gone back and looked, but I’m thinking we both called them strong in our discussions. But I would agree that perhaps we ought not call them that - if for no other reason than that Paul didn’t.
Possible titles:
“Strong”
- Andrew: Paul doesn’t call them that because they also are immature.
- Dan: Paul doesn’t call them that because while they claim to be strong (to have the right to TM-Eat), Paul plans to tell them that they shouldn’t so think of themselves. “Not strong you are to … Are we stronger than God?”)
“Knowers”
(I just got Thiselton’s commentary and he used this term.)
- Andrew:
- Dan: Actually, I think we agree here that neither side should be described as really knowing.
“TM-Eaters”
This is my preference. Paul is explicit the action they claimed the right to do was to recline in the temple and eat.
–==–
And I agree that the act of eating in the temple also communicates something. What were the Corinthian Christians communicating by eating in the temple? Association, fellowship, communion! Were they communicating worship or glorification? No, as I demonstrated before, they had clearly stopped
worshipping idols and were not participating in the idolatrous ceremonies in the other room. You didn’t reply to my explanation of how Paul shows that they were communicating their rejection of worship of idols, but that they are still associating themselves with the idols and those who are actively engaged in the process.
Later…
Dan: Paul doesn’t call them that because while they claim to be strong (to have the right to TM-Eat), Paul plans to tell them that they shouldn’t so think of themselves. “Not strong you are to … Are we stronger than God?”)
That sounds different from your previous definitions. Didn’t you say before that “strong” meant able to eat because of one’s faith/conscience? Now you seem to be saying that they only claim to be able to eat by their conscience. Are you saying that they were really violating their conscience all along and only claiming to be acting according to their conscience?
I don’t think that I have given a formal definition of Conscience.
Let’s see… Here goes…
The conscience is the human facility of the mind to either approve or condemn one’s own behavior according to one’s understanding of right and wrong as taught by one’s own recognized authority. It is fallible (we may follow the wrong authority or we may misunderstand and misapply the right authority), necessary (the conscience approves and condemns whether we invite it to or not), adjustable (we can train it by improving our understanding of right and wrong), and encouragable (I need a better term)(we can and should improve in our sensitivity to our conscience).
That probably needs work. Your questions:
Andrew: Didn’t you say before that “strong” meant able to eat because of one’s faith/conscience?
Maybe I said that. Let me clarify that this is a self-assessment. Look at 1Cor4:4 “For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me.” “Not aware of” if just the verb form of conscience. So NIV makes it, “My conscience is clear.” BUT Paul still admits that the assessment of his conscience is not a final court. Jesus will judge.
Now you seem to be saying that they only claim to be able to eat by their conscience. Are you saying that they were really violating their conscience all along and only claiming to be acting according to their conscience?
Here’s what I see Paul as saying…
8:9-10 “9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple…”
“Right of yours” = right that you claim to have. Paul is acknowledging that the TM-Eaters believe that it is ok to TM-Eat. So they would say they are strong in conscience to TM-Eat. And Paul labels the TM-Abstainers as “weak,” even though Paul plans to explain in ch.10 that they are right.
So when I say “strong means able to eat because of one’s faith/conscience,” I mean by the fallible self-assessment of your conscience. If the TM-Eaters said, “Paul, we are able to TM-eat in good conscience,” he would say, “yeah. I know that’s the conclusion of your conscience. And I appreciate why you think that (Idol is nothing). But hear me out because you don’t yet know as you ought to know.”
If that’s the way you look at the conscience then you should equally say that the weak Corinthians “claim” to be unable to eat by the fallible self-assessment of their conscience. If the conscience of the TM-eaters can be wrong, then the conscience of the weak Corinthians can also be wrong.
Moreover, and this is important, they can both be wrong. It is possible for both of them to be wrong for different reasons. Not only is that possible, it is evident from the text. The weak Corinthians are wrong in thinking that all meat-eating is idolatry. The meat-eating Corinthians were wrong by being prideful in their knowledge, and the temple meat-eating Corinthians were wrong by being a stumbling block to brothers and associating themselves with demons.
I don’t know how you interpret II Corinthians 6:14-18, but it seems to me that Paul is revisiting this very issue. Rather than exhorting them to stop their non-heart worship of idols, he reminds them not to associate with lawlessness and idols. Again he brings up the issue of association rather than the sin of idolatry itself.
EDIT - I see you posted while I was writing - so this isn’t a response to your last.
Andrew: And I agree that the act of eating in the temple also communicates something. What were the Corinthian Christians communicating by eating in the temple? Association, fellowship, communion! Were they communicating worship or glorification? No, as I demonstrated before, they had clearly stopped worshipping idols and were not participating in the idolatrous ceremonies in the other room. You didn’t reply to my explanation of how Paul shows that they were communicating their rejection of worship of idols, but that they are still associating themselves with the idols and those who are actively engaged in the process.
You draw a line between [association-fellowship-communion] with idolatry and worshiping idolatry. I find that line meaningless, but I admit that I have no idea how to erase it for you using the Text. Fortunately, I don’t think I need to. We can go forward with “participation.”
Paul was clearly saying that the act of eating was participation in with the idol, just like eating Communion is participation with Christ (and proclaims our faith in His death) and just like eating the sacrifice in the OT was participation in the sacrifice. Were the OT believers “worshipping” by eating? Do we “worship” when we partake in Communion? I don’t know - you want to say it’s not worship (on the basis of “clearly stopped worshipping idols,” which I have never agreed you demonstrated) - ok.
HOWEVER: Paul was clearly telling the TM-Eaters (I didn’t call them strong this time), who had “this right of [theirs] ” to TM-Eat, that TM-Eating was a significant act of participation with idols&demons - and that because of that it was wrong. Their TM-Eating was not participation with “nothing”; it was participation with demons - and as such it was wrong. Therefore, the idea that the “idol was absolutely nothing” was wrong. The phrase “an idol is nothing” is true, but only when understood correctly: “an idol is no god like our God - but it can still be something evil.”
This is my main point - In ch.8 we learn:
TM-Eating was done on the basis of “knowledge” that the idol was absolutely nothing. TM-Eaters claimed the “right” or “liberty,” to eat.
TM-Abstaining was done on the basis of viewing the “food as really offered to an idol.” This line of thinking meant their conscience was “weak.”
In ch. 10, we learn that
The idol isn’t nothing; it is something evil (demons).
The ch.8 thinking (the “knowledge”) of the TM-Eaters was WRONG.
Whether or not (we don’t know) they called themselves “strong,” Paul says they are unable “not-strong” to TM-Eat.
The ch. 8 thinking of the “weak” was right. What was being offered was really being offered to idols, with evil participation by all who ate, just as the weak thought.
You’re pushing me by saying that the TM-Eaters could still rightly claim their TM-Eating wasn’t “worship” of the idol. You push me to consider that “let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” means “watch out - you are close to falling because you’re putting yourself sooo close to idols.” And that “Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry” means run away from the idolatry that you’re sooo close to committing.” I have to say on those points, you might be right.
-=-=-=-=-
I’ll let you comment before going on. I’m still interested in hearing some arguments that you have not yet gotten a chance to spell out (1 Cor 1, OT). I think this would be valuable to me.
Okay, then I think the best thing for me to do is show why I believe Paul is clearly saying that they have already ceased worshipping idols (be it heart worship or non-heart worship).
1) 1 Corinthians 1:8-9 He will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 God is faithful; by Him you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Paul considers them to be brothers in the faith who are being progressively sanctified, will be ultimately glorified, and are currently in fellowship with Jesus. I don’t think Paul would say all that is true of them if they are also active idol-worshippers, especially in light of what he says in chs. 5-6.
2) 1 Corinthians 5:1-11 It is widely reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and the kind of sexual immorality that is not even condoned among the Gentiles— a man is living with his father’s wife… But now I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person.
Paul deals with public unrepentant sin within the church body from which they must separate. They must separate from the so-called brother who is practicing sexual immorality. He doesn’t speak to the one sinning, but to the members of the church who are associating with him. They must cease their association. To be consistent we must say that they must also separate from any so-called brother who practices idolatry. If there are any so-called brothers in Corinth who are practicing idolatry then they must not associate or eat with them either.
But Paul doesn’t treat the issue of eating meat or eating in the temple in chs. 8-10 the same way as he treats the issue of sexual immorality here in ch. 5. If eating in the temple is idolatry then those who do it are in the same position as the sexually immoral man here in ch. 5. But Paul treats them differently. Let me highlight the differences:
The sexually immoral man in ch. 5 :
a) isn’t addressed directly, Paul addresses the church not him,
b) is a “so-called brother,”
c) must not be associated with or share a meal with the church.
The temple meat-eaters in chs 8-10 :
a) are addressed directly by Paul,
b) are called “brothers,”
c) are currently sharing in the Lord’s table and are not prohibited from continuing to do so,
d) furthermore, instead of Paul telling the church members not to associate with the temple meat-eaters, he tells the meat-eaters not to continue associating with demons!
If Paul is really saying that the temple meat-eaters are committing idolatry, then he is not following his own teaching in ch. 5 of treating the sexually immoral and the idolaters equally by separating from both of them.
3) 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. 11 Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Some of the Corinthian Christians “were” idolaters, but are not any more. Paul’s point here is that they are clearly no longer idolaters. Not only were they “justified” they were also “sanctified.” It would be contradictory for Paul to say “some of you were idolaters, but you were washed, sanctified, and justified… and some of you are still idolaters without realizing it.”
That’s the difference between the sexually immoral man in ch. 5 and the temple meat-eaters in chs 8-10. Paul calls one a “so-called brother” and the other a “brother,” he doesn’t address one as a member of the body and the other he directly addresses – he doesn’t count a person who is practicing sexual immorality to be a member of the body of Christ, washed, sanctified, and justified. And if another so-called brother is practicing idolatry then Paul wouldn’t count him as a brother in the church either.
The same group of people he address in ch. 8-10 is the group he is addressing here in ch. 6 where he says some of you “were” idolaters, but now you are washed, sanctified, and justified in Christ Jesus. Paul’s point here is that they are no longer idolaters so they shouldn’t associate with so-called brothers who are idolaters. If he were to turn around and say that some of you are still idolaters then it would completely undo his whole argument in ch. 5-6.
4) 1 Corinthians 12:2 You know how, when you were pagans, you were led to dumb idols— being led astray.
I’m going in order that the verses appear in the text, so while I think points #2 and #3 are the most significant #1 and #4 are also important.
Here Paul again makes it clear that they “were” led to dumb idols in the past, but that is no longer the case. It wouldn’t make any sense for Paul to be saying the following throughout the letter:
a) He will confirm you to the end blameless and has called you into fellowship with Jesus…
b) don’t have fellowship and eat with so-called brothers who are idolaters…
c) some of you were idolaters, but not anymore; now you are washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit…
d) some of you are still idolaters…
e) you were being led to idols back when you were pagans.
One of those doesn’t fit, does it?
It makes a lot more sense to say the following, especially when we see that both the immediate and larger contexts are talking about association:
a) He will confirm you to the end blameless and has called you into fellowship with Jesus…
b) don’t have fellowship and eat with so-called brothers who are idolaters…
c) some of you were idolaters, but not anymore; now you are washed, sanctified, and justified by the Spirit…
d) don’t have fellowship with idols by where and what you eat…
e) you were being led to idols back when you were pagans.
If that’s the way you look at the conscience then you should equally say that the weak Corinthians “claim” to be unable to eat by the fallible self-assessment of their conscience. If the conscience of the TM-eaters can be wrong, then the conscience of the weak Corinthians can also be wrong.
Yes, I think I agree - in general. Though there is a third category. Paul calls “each” to be “fully persuaded in his own mind.” That means you might be fully persuaded “weak” or fully persuaded “strong” or you might not be done becoming fully persuaded. You’re unpersuaded. In this case, you’re technically “weak,” because
Moreover, and this is important, they can both be wrong. It is possible for both of them to be wrong for different reasons. Not only is that possible, it is evident from the text. The weak Corinthians are wrong in thinking that all meat-eating is idolatry. The meat-eating Corinthians were wrong by being prideful in their knowledge, and the temple meat-eating Corinthians were wrong by being a stumbling block to brothers and associating themselves with demons.
But - can there be any doubt in your mind that the “knowledge” Paul was delivering in 1Cor10:1-22 was for the TM-Eaters? (I know all Scripture is for everyone, but I think you know what I mean by “for.”)
While I agree that they both could be wrong, I do not believe that is true in this case. I think my previous post show why. The “weak” thought that what was offered to an idol was really being offered to idols. And about that, they were right. The idol was not a God - there is only ONE God. But it was an evil something - a demon. And “what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.”
So there were two questions about which Paul did not want the TM-Eaters to be ignorant:
Is the idol ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?
Answer: No it’s demonic.
Does eating what is offered involve you with whatever the idol is?
Answer: Yes. Thus, “I do not want you to be participants with demons.”
-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: 1Cor1-6,11-16
I’m going to start a new thread. I will go back and make use of these discussions later and I’d like them somewhat categorized.
Yes, I think I agree - in general. Though there is a third category. Paul calls “each” to be “fully persuaded in his own mind.” That means you might be fully persuaded “weak” or fully persuaded “strong” or you might not be done becoming fully persuaded.
Well, you are mixing the contexts here. Paul says that in Romans 14 because he is talking to mature believers rather than the immature believers in Corinth. Paul doesn’t call the temple meat-eaters to be fully persuaded in their use of liberty or for the weak Corinthians to be fully persuaded that it is idolatry.
But - can there be any doubt in your mind that the “knowledge” Paul was delivering in 1Cor10:1-22 was for the TM-Eaters? (I know all Scripture is for everyone, but I think you know what I mean by “for.”)
Yes, I Cor. 10:1-22 is addressed to the temple meat-eating Christians. Paul doesn’t address the weak Christians there because he already accepted the meat-eating argument that an “idol is nothing” and that they have a “right” to eat. Those two stipulations show that Paul considered the weak Christians to be wrong in thinking that eating the meat was idolatry.
If you go back over my old posts I talked about an idol’s nothingness and about their rights.
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.
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).
Concerning their “right” or “liberty,” my point is that in a general sense Paul is granting that a Christian has a right or liberty to eat whatever, whenever, and wherever he/she wants. A Christian is not obligated to follow the old laws of not eating pork, not eating leavened bread during Passover, not eating in the home of a gentile, etc. Therefore, they have a right or liberty to eat meat that would have been previously considered unclean because of its type, timing, or location. Paul legitimizes this liberty in speaking about his own use of liberties (ch. 9), and the fact that at various times people wrongly considered Paul to be sinning when he was appropriately exercising his liberties (10:30). But that’s not the whole issue, not even the most important issue. Paul rebukes them for their pride in the unloving manner they use their liberties, and in their shortsighted thinking about associating themselves with idols. In their use of liberties they were only thinking of themselves – they weren’t considering their weaker brothers or the message they were communicating with their actions by associating themselves with the temple table and idols.
Paul agrees that a Christian can, in general, eat whatever, whenever, and wherever, but in doing so you can’t ignore the things that are more important than food – a) you can’t sin against your brother by encouraging him to violate his conscience, and b) you can’t have fellowship at both the Lord’s table and the table of demons.
The following verses serve to summarize the entire discourse on the subject, not just on part:
1 Corinthians 10:23 Everything is permissible,” but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything builds up.
1 Corinthians 10:31-33 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do everything for God’s glory. 32 Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God, 33 just as I also try to please all people in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Dan:
Andrew: Well, you are mixing the contexts here. Paul says that in Romans 14 because he is talking to mature believers rather than the immature believers in Corinth. Paul doesn’t call the temple meat-eaters to be fully persuaded in their use of liberty or for the weak Corinthians to be fully persuaded that it is idolatry.
Right, well, I was explaining my view there. I do believe that Paul was using “weak” in basically the same way in 1Cor8 as in Rom14. I agree that there was a difference in context between them. That is, the exact debated action was different. I believe that in Rome, meat was Market-Meat, with the “weak” having a legitimate, but not necessary conviction against it. But in 1Cor8, it was Temple-Meat, with the “weak” having a legitimate and *basically necessary* conviction against it.
1. Eating was “participating,” for other things.
In 10:16-18 Paul connected “eating” with participating in the realms of Lord’s Table and OT sacrifices. He said that to say that eating WAS participating.
2. That also goes for idols (demons).
1Cor10:20b-21 - I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
Could you eat without heart-worshipping? Yes. That is why the TM-Eaters had to be convinced that eating was “participating.” They thought they were uninvolved, even though they at at the idol’s table. We don’t agree on what “Participating” means. But we should agree that there was something the TM-Eaters were doing by eating that they didn’t realize they were doing.
You and I should agree on that much. Here’s where we disagree:
Dan: Eating = Participating = Idolatry (in a sense)
Andrew: Eating = Participating # Idolatry (in any sense) (Not equals)
Therefore, I proposed these terms: (Heart-Idolatry and NonHeart-Idol-Participation).
EDIT: note I edited the other thread’s post
My argument, is not against use of the phrase “nonheart-idol-participation” (though I don’t agree that that’s the best term). My argument is against your belief that it is idolatry (in any sense).
I’m not sure why you are focusing on the label rather than on your position that those Corinthian believers are actively committing idolatry. I’m showing you why (from Scripture) those Corinthians were not participating in idolatry.
If you want a label, I’d call them “undiscerning idol-associates.”
We just need a term. Paul said “participation.”
Is participation idolatry or not? That’s the point of our debate.
The word is translated as, “sharing,” “communion,” “fellowship,” and “participation.” Association isn’t a bad word either and I wouldn’t object to it per se. But I’m still going to say that it is idolatry in a non-heart sense.
Andrew: I’m not sure why you are focusing on the label rather than on your position…
Because if we are going to constructively debate, instead of just gainsaying, we need to have common terms.
Speaking of gainsaying, I don’t have a problem with explicitly defining our terms; my problem is that I put time and effort into explaining an important principle from the text, but you ignored all that and instead focused your reply on a term which doesn’t appear in the text. I find it frustrating that you don’t reply to the issue that I consider to be the crux of our disagreement.
I think it is both very important and very clear that the Corinthian believers have stopped participating in idolatry.
Please show me why you continue to disagree with me with regard to the text. Is there a fault in my exegesis or logic? How am I wrong? Why am I wrong?
Andrew: …but you ignored all that and instead focused your reply on a term which doesn’t appear in the text. I find it frustrating that you don’t reply to the issue that I consider to be the crux of our disagreement.
I think it is both very important and very clear that the Corinthian believers have stopped participating in idolatry.
I know that has happened. I have said briefly that I don’t take the 1Cor1 statement exactly as you do, but we haven’t discussed it. Still, to turn to ch.1 without first establishing what was said in ch.10 is pointless.
Andrew: [1Cor1-7,11-16 thread] But I don’t believe Paul is saying that they are participating in worshipping idols (either so-called heart-worship or non-heart-worship), or that they are participating in the sacrificial ceremonies.
This is what forces me back here to the ch.10 thread. I see your careful wording of “participation in the sacrificial ceremonies.” But I disagree.
Again, Paul’s point of bringing up OT sacrifices was the eating hem was participation in the sacrifice, even if the sacrifice was performed by a priest. Same for Lord’s Table; eating is participation in the body and blood of Christ, even though the body and blood are not really there at the table and even though the sacrifice happened years before.
Historically, the religious and social aspects of eating at the idol’s table were inseparable. But we don’t need that history lesson, because Paul explicitly says that TM-Eating was “participants with demons.”(20) And to sit and eat was to “partake of…the table of demons.”(21) “are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?”(18)
––
Ch.10 is clear that TM-Eating was participation in the idolatrous ceremonies, even if the main offering took place in another room. Does “participation” = idolatry? I know that you believe you can’t accept that because of Paul’s words in ch.1. I’m willing to acknowledge that we don’t agree on what participation is, but the TM-Eaters were participating in the idol’s ceremonies. If we can agree on that much, then we’re ready to turn to ch.1.
Again, Paul’s point of bringing up OT sacrifices was the eating hem was participation in the sacrifice, even if the sacrifice was performed by a priest. Same for Lord’s Table; eating is participation in the body and blood of Christ, even though the body and blood are not really there at the table and even though the sacrifice happened years before.
I’ve have to disagree with you there. Eating at the Lord’s Table is not participating in the sacrifice of Christ. If eating at the table is participation in the sacrifice then everyone who eats would be saved. Eating at the Lord’s table is a symbolic act that represents fellowship with the Priest, the altar, and with the others who also partake. Eating at the idol’s table is likewise a symbolic act of fellowship.
Eating at the table is not the same thing as offering a sacrifice oneself, giving a sacrifice to the priest for him to offer, or participating in the sacrificial ceremony. Eating at the table afterward is a symbolic act of communion and fellowship. By eating at the idol’s table, they are communicating to others that they have an association with the altar which they do not, in reality, have because they don’t believe in it and don’t participate in the ceremony. Just as an unsaved person who partakes in the Lord’s table is publicly communicating to others that they have an association with the sacrifice of Christ which they do not, in reality, have because they do not believe in it and it has not cleansed them.
I know that you believe you can’t accept that because of Paul’s words in ch.1. I’m willing to acknowledge that we don’t agree on what participation is, but the TM-Eaters were participating in the idol’s ceremonies.
Dan, I hope you can see by now that’s it’s not just one verse in chapter 1 that leads me to believe the things I do – it’s the whole book, from the first chapter to the last.
No, we can’t agree that they were participating in the idol’s ceremonies – the text is clear that they were participating in eating and drinking at the idol’s table. Your own source says that the sacrificial ceremonies occurred in a separate room.
Can you not see a distinction between Christ’s actual death and the later symbol of the Lord’s table? One is the actual mediating, atoning, sanctifying work of Christ, while the other is a symbolic declaration of fellowship with Christ, His work, and His followers.
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16, HCSB)
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16, ESV)
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (I Cor. 10:16, KJV)
Now, whichever way you translate “koinonia:” sharing, participation, communion, etc I think we can both agree (since we are not Roman Catholic) that it does not mean participation with the literal, physical body of Jesus. Therefore, the participation we have at the Lord’s table, the participation Israel had by eating sacrifices from the altar, and the participation the Corinthians had by eating at the idol’s table must be of a nature that is fundamentally different from the participation in the actual preceding sacrifice. I’m not saying that it is unimportant. The Lord’s table is significant, and so was the Corinthians’ eating at the idol’s table. But it is, by its nature, fundamentally different from participation in the actual sacrifice.
We must understand Paul’s words in context, but we also have to let him speak.
10:16 The cup… is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? [YES] The bread… is it not a participation in the body of Christ? [YES]
We need to correctly understand “participation.” But we must allow Paul to say that eating and drinking are participation with the body and blood of Christ. The “blood” is an obvious reference to the sacrificial death of Christ. Thus, we “proclaim the Lord’s death” in communion. Paul said that eating/drinking was participation in the sacrifice of Christ.
Now - you’re right, we’re not Roman Catholics (or Lutherans). I agree with you that the body and blood were NOT literally present. So we have to conclude that part of our understanding of “Participation” has to be that actual physical presence with the sacrifice is not necessary for Participation with the sacrifice to occur. Thus “Participation” does NOT necessarily mean engagement in performing the sacrifice.
Discussion