Weak Brethren X

"What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." (10: 19-21)

Though Paul does not use the term "weak ones," in these words, he nevertheless still has them in mind. In these words Paul extends his remarks made earlier in chapter eight, analyzed in previous chapters. In chapter eight, in talking about "idols," Paul said - "we know that the idol is nothing." Idols were only imaginary beings. Here he repeats his stance, affirming that the idol is nothing. He only adds this thought, however: there are "demons" (devils) intimately connected with the idols, with the images (icons) of the "gods." The idol (statue) was no living being, but only material or physical substance. However, behind the image was the demon.

It is "Gentiles," those who are not Christian, who "sacrifice" things "to demons." Those Christians who would do such a thing manifest that they have not been converted, that they do not have conviction about the Christian creed that Paul gave in I Cor. 8: 4-6.

Sacrificing to the heathen gods and demons involved a participation of the idolater in the essence of the demon gods. The idea of "joint participation" is included in the meaning of the word "fellowship" ("koinōnos"). A Christian is one who has come to have "that knowledge" which affirms only "one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ," and to see that the idols were but false imaginary gods, and that the demons were the inspirers of them in men's minds. It is absurd to think of "weak brothers" as being Christians, seeing they are said to regularly do what Paul says the "Gentiles" do. In chapter eight, in describing these "weak ones," Paul said "some with conscience of the idol eat food sacrificed to idols unto this day," indicating that it was the regular practice of the weak, just as now he says it is the regular practice of "Gentiles" do so.

"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."

Who is designated by the pronoun "ye" (you)? Is it not Christians who know that there is only one God, and that the gods of the heathen are false? Who know that it is expressly forbidden by God for them to involve themselves in idolatry?

What is the nature of this "cannot"? Does it denote an absolute impossibility? That it is never the case that one who has truly drunk the "cup of the Lord," and become a "partaker of the Lord's table," a real born again, converted, Christian, has at the same time, also drunk the "cup of demons" or been a "partaker of the table of demons"? Or, to put it another way, has a true convert to Christianity, from heathenism, ever relapsed into his heathen beliefs and practices? If Paul speaks in an absolute sense, then he would be affirming the impossibility of a true convert to Christ, who is drinking the cup of the Lord, and feasting at his table, ever participating in worship to other gods.

It could be that Paul is only speaking of a moral "cannot," saying to the Christians that they could not consistently, given their Christian faith and vows, involve themselves in heathen beliefs and practices. Paul's words are similar to Jesus' words - "you cannot serve God and mammon." (Matt. 6: 24) You cannot be both a servant of God and servant of mammon at the same time. If one is a servant of God, he is not a servant of mammon. If one is a servant of mammon, he is not a servant of God. If one gives religious service to idols and demons then he is not a Christian. But, the "weak ones" give religious service and devotion to the idols, and do it "with conscience of the idol."

When a pagan polytheist realizes the truth of the Christian creed, given by Paul, that there is "one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," and that the idols and gods of his previous devotions are false, does he realize it suddenly, by a divine revelation and conviction, or does he slowly see the error of his heathenism and gradually accept Christian monotheism? Does he begin with a minor conviction of Christian truth that slowly and gradually overcomes his heathen beliefs and practices? Can the person who is only fractionally convinced of the Christian creed, as are the "weak brothers," real born again Christians? A man can be a Christian who still retains a partial belief in polytheism? When Paul wrote the Thessalonian Christians, he said;

"For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God." (I Thess. 1: 9)

Notice that Paul did not say "you are turning from idols," which would be the way to express it if the church included many "weak brothers" who were not yet fully turned away from idols. Rather it is "you turned," at one moment of time, when you embraced the creed of Christians.

"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." (10: 25-33)

Paul tells the Corinthian Christians that they may, in good conscience, eat food bought in the marketplace that had been supplied by priests of the idol temples, with one exception. If eating such sacrificial foods harms the conscience of another, of one who is "weak," then such eating is forbidden.

There are clearly two different classes of people referred to by Paul in the above words. It is the same two classes already alluded to in chapter eight, the class of the "weak" and the class of the "strong." Further, in this citation, Paul clearly identifies the one with "weak conscience." He says - "If any of them that believe not," who is not a Christian, who is yet a pagan. It is the "conscience" of the "unbeliever" that is of concern to Paul here, which is one and the same with the "conscience" of the "weak." Those commentators who take the view that the weak conscience is the conscience of a Christian cannot do so in this context, however, because Paul calls them "unbelievers" ('them that believe not'), and no unbeliever is a Christian. This is absolute proof that the "weak ones" are the "unbelievers," or pagan religious people.

When Paul refers to unbelievers, he does not mean to imply that such unbelievers don't believe anything religiously, for they are idolaters and believe in polytheism, that there are "gods many" and "lords many." He is an unbeliever as it respects the Christian creed of I Cor. 8: 4-6, is not a Christian.

Paul then alludes to the practice of pagans inviting Christians to participate in the religious feasts of the pagan temples. Paul does not forbid Christians attending such feasts, but says if you be "disposed to go." He leaves it up to the conscience and choice of individual Christians to decide whether to visit an idol's temple. Paul would like, however, for the Christian to visit the idol's temple for good ends.

Paul says to the Christians in Corinth who choose to accept the invitation to visit and dine in the idol's temple, "whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake." Here Paul is concerned about the conscience of the Christians. A Christian's conscience has "that knowledge" which acknowledges "one God, the Father, from whom are all things," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things," and is "strong" because of this knowledge; and rather than having, as the heathen, a "conscience knowledge of the idol," have a "conscience knowledge" of Father and Son.

A Christian is not a "double minded" (James 1: 8) person as it respects monotheism versus polytheism. He is not divided in his faith and devotions, giving some to the Christian God and some to the idols. By definition, then, a "weak brother" is one who is "double minded" in his conscience, faith, and knowledge. Yet, if the "weak brothers" are represented as being Christians, then obviously such double mindedness is no hindrance to becoming Christian. A person who lacks full knowledge and faith in one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, may be called "Christian"? One may be a "half-hearted" believer in monotheism and in the gospel and be Christian?

Paul is speaking to all the members of the Corinthian church, in these words. He speaks of them all in terms of being of the class of the "strong," and not in the class of the "weak." They are all addressed as possessing "that knowledge," as having renounced paganism, as having knowledge that God has placed no restrictions on diet, nor offered diet as a means of being reconciled to him. They are all viewed as having consciences strong in the knowledge of Christ.

Twice Paul says "for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," in support of the Christian "right" or "liberty" to eat all kinds of food, without restriction, a proposition stated elsewhere in Paul's epistles. It may have been a common saying among the Corinthian Christians. This "liberty" concerned freedom from specified restrictions. The Christian knows that God has not required diet restrictions as a means of obtaining his favor and fellowship. Paul says to the Christians who choose to "sit at meat in the idol's temple," who accept the invitations of heathen to attend religious ceremonies and banquets, that they should partake of whatever is set before them on the table, and to eat it in good conscience, unless the server, an unbeliever, a pagan, announces to you that the food has been sacrificed and dedicated to an idol, in which case, you will "eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake...Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other."

Here Paul sets up a dichotomy of consciences. There is, on one hand, the conscience of the Corinthian Christians, the "believers," and on the other hand, the conscience of the one who "believes not," the heathen temple worshipper. One is "weak" and the other is "strong." One possesses "that knowledge" essential to being Christian, but the other lacks it. Thus, Paul is constrasting the conscience, not of weak Christians versus strong Christians, but of Christian versus pagan. This is also further revealed by the use of "but" and "other." "But" denotes a contrast of opposites and "other" is "heteros" which does not mean "other of the same kind" (homos or allos) but "other of a different kind." According to Strong, "heteros," when referring "to quality," means "another: i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind, different." The dichotomy is between Christians (believers) and non-Christians (unbelievers), and not between two kinds of Christians.

There can be little doubt that the "conscience" that is of concern to Paul, in the above scenario of a Christian being offered things sacrificed to idols, is that of the "unbeliever." Yet, though commentators admit that the case here is one of unbeliever versus believer, or pagan versus Christian, they will not admit it being the same case in I Corinthians 8. It seems clear that Paul is not, however, setting up a new dichotomy in these words, but extending his remarks on the same one introduced in chapter eight. It seems clear also that Paul views the "conscience" of this idol worshipper, or unbeliever, as being the same conscience as those designated as "weak" in chapters eight and nine.

Paul asks - "why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" And, "why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?"

Why should the liberty and rights of Christians not be always asserted and insisted upon? Because of a love and concern for the salvation of one's neighbors and brothers, for his coming to see the errors of his pagan beliefs, and to see the truth of the gospel, and "turn to God from idols to serve the living God." Because he is concerned about his "conscience," which is impotent, defiled, deceived.

Sometimes Christians are "damned if they do, and damned if they don't" The rule for Paul is love and concern for winning the weak and lost. How does it look to them? How will they interpret it? Will it hinder or help them? Will it serve as a means in "gaining" them or in losing them? Will it harden them against Christ, or attract them to him? Will it "wound" and "offend" his weak conscience, or heal and purge it? Will it please and glorify God or give cause for God to be "evil spoken of"?

Paul advises: "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."

"If you eat," that is, "if you eat meat sacrificed to idol," either in or out of the idol's temple, when no mention is made of it being so by the unbeliever, then eat it "to the glory (praise, thanks) of God," do all with an focused eye on "gaining the weak" (I Cor. 9: 22).

Paul says:

"Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God..."

When Paul says "give no offence," he means no unjustified offence. Paul certainly knew that most men will judge the "preaching of the cross" as "offensive." That kind of offence the Christian cannot hinder. It is inevitable due to the depravity of man, as Jesus said - "it must needs be that offences come" (Matt. 18: 7). The kind of "offending" Paul condemns is the kind he has been speaking about in the preceding chapters, in the context of stumblingblocks.

It is interesting how Paul refers to three groups he does not want offended by his conduct. They are "the Jews," and "the Gentiles" (nations), and "the church of God." Paul has already identified "the weak" with pagan Gentiles, and here he puts them into a separate category from "the church." It is similar to his words in 9: 19-22.

Paul then says - "Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved."

Notice that Paul labors that all lost souls, of whatever category, including those of "the weak," may be "profited," or in order that "they may be saved."

Weak Brethren IX

"For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (vs. 10, 11)

In the previous chapter the above verses were analyzed. The "weak brother" was identified as being the pagan idolater. Paul warns the Christians, or the strong ones, against reinforcing heathens in their heathenism, saying that their conduct may be a means of keeping the idolater from becoming enlightened, or a Christian, and thus be a hindrance to his salvation, a means of him finally perishing.

It was further shown that Paul referred to these pagans, these weak ones, as "brothers," not because he viewed them as Christians, but because Paul wanted the Christians to feel a sense of brotherhood, in addition to neighborliness, in their attitudes and conduct towards the idolatrous heathen. It was shown that the Corinthians, like the Hebrews, called each other "brother," especially those members of the same idol temple. Paul did not want the Corinthian Christians to cease feeling a sense of brotherhood towards their former associates in the temple lodges. Just like Paul said to the Hebrews, "let brotherly love continue" (Heb. 13: 1), so Paul would say to these Corinthians, "let brotherly love continue" between you and your former pagan associates. Paul would advise that the Corinthian Christians, in relation to their heathen neighbors, to "count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (II Thess. 3: 15) They were not to look upon unbelieves as enemies, in much the same way Muslims look upon Christians, but as human brothers.

It was also shown in the previous chapter how "love for others" was the "prime directive," the chief characteristic, of Christians. This love for "neighbor" was to be seen as "fraternal." The "neighbor" was more than just one who lived near by, but a "brother," for "God has made of one nation all men," and "we are all God's offspring," all God's children, all members of the family of man, all brothers, as Paul taught to the Greeks in Athens. (Acts 17)

It is also interesting how Paul often links being "neighborly," in his epistles, with being "brotherly." For instance, Paul says, in Romans 13: 10, "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." Then, a few verses later, asks - "But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?" (14: 10) It is not possible to disconnect the concepts of neighbor and brother. Thus, the "weak brother for whom Christ died" means all the same as the "weak neighbor for whom Christ died." It is a statement about Christ dieing for lost people, not for a certain kind of Christian. Paul said, in Romans 5: 6, that Christ died for those "without strength," or for the "weak," or for "the ungodly," and he does the same in this verse. What Paul says to Christians, in relation to the weak, is true in relation to every lost person. Any Christian may ask himself - "am I being a hindrance to the salvation of any sinner, for whom Christ died?"

The same kind of question and answer may be given in the context of Romans 14, where Paul also deals with "weak brothers," and where he warns against "offending" the "weak brother." Does this imply that this "brother" who is "offended" is a Christian or one who was previously saved? Can only saved people be "offended" (Rom. 14: 21) or have their consciences "defiled"? No, for unbelievers are often offended against the Christian message, and against Christian attitude and practice.

The major concern of Paul in this chapter is to:

1. Uphold the Jerusalem mandate which said: “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols...” (Acts 15: 19,20)

2. Encourage Christians not to do anything to prevent weak neighbors and brothers from coming to Christian knowledge (not help confirm them in their idolatry).

3. To teach Christians how to be prudent "soul winners" by being careful how their activities are perceived by their lost pagan neighbors. ("Abstaining from all appearance of evil")

4. To explain the full depth of what it means to "edify" and "love" your neighbor and brother as yourself. (Or, what is true brotherhood)

5. To keep the "prime objective" always before the Christian brotherhood –– the salvation of all pagans and all idolaters from their false religion to the religion and faith of Christ.

Paul spoke of using "any means" necessary to win the lost. Was not one of those means the use of such endearing terms such as "brother"? Was this not one of those same reasons why he used the term "brother" when addressing non-Christian Jews? Would it serve as a means to save pagans in Corinth for the Corinthian Christians to suddenly quit calling them "brothers," especially when they had previously done so all their lives?

“But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” (Verses 12,13)

If commentators read these words and inserted the word "neighbor" every time the word "brother" is used, then there perhaps would not be so much misunderstanding about who are "the weak brothers." Though Paul first used the term "brother" for the first time, in this chapter, in the preceding verse, this verse is, nevertheless, the first instance of Paul’s use of the term "brother" coupled with the term "weak."

The first thing to ascertain, in this verse, is the precise "sin" of the Corinthian Christians against the "weak brothers." The context reveals that it comprises those loveless attitudes and acts of Christians towards the heathen and which reinforce him in his heathenism. The heart searching question of Paul to the Christians is - "will you save sinners, or condemn them, by your actions?" The "wounding" of the conscience of the lost is the hardening of their senses against Christ and Christianity, of "offending" them. In the Old Testament the wise king said - "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle." (Prov. 18: 19)

Paul said - "if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." Had he said "neighbor" instead of brother, the meaning would be the same. The particular kind of eating referred to by Paul is evident from the context. He has already spoken of the Christian dining in the idol's temple, and eating the meat dedicated to idols, in the presence of the heathen, and how the heathen may thereby be reinforced in his heathen beliefs and practices. Paul is saying that he will not eat meat offered in sacrifice to idols as long as heathen are around who might interpret his eating as a countenancing of paganism. Paul is also undoubtedly saying - "I will not even dine in a heathen temple, lest some heathen get the wrong idea." He is not denying that he had the "right" or "freedom" to so dine, but that it would not be expedient or edifying, would not tend towards the salvation of the heathen.

Being "offended" against Christ, the gospel, and the Christian community, is the opposite of being "won" to Christ, the gospel, and the Christian community. To be "offended" against the gospel is to lose one's soul, to insure one's soul ultimately "perishes." Paul is not here reflecting a desire to save weak Christians, but weak pagans.

Weak Brethren VIII

"For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 10, 11)

From the preceding chapter it was shown how "anyone" is "anyone in the world," and "thee" (you) is "you Corinthian Christians." It has also been demonstrated how the Christian is defined by his faith, or lack of faith, in the creed given by the apostle in verses 4-6. It was also shown how "anyone in the world" connects with the one who is "seeing" the Christian "sitting at meat in the idol's temple." Also, that the one witnessing the Christian dining in the heathen temple is a temple worshipper, one not a Christian, one who does not have "that knowledge" and conscience connected with the given Christian creed.

In the preceding chapter it was also shown how "dining" in heathen temples was a commonplace occurrence in Greek and Roman pagan society. Before their conversion, many of the Corinthian Christians "sat at meat in the idol's temple" as a regular "good-standing" temple member and worshipper. But, now that they had been converted, some of them continued their former associations with their heathen friends and former temple "brothers," by attending temple functions and feasts. These no doubt did so with the conscience faith that it did no harm, especially if one does not participate as a member, but as a visitor. Other Christians in Corinth, however, surely cut off all ties with their former pagan "brothers." These would "not be caught dead" in a heathen temple.

In the advice of Paul concerning Christians dining in heathen temples, and in a larger context, concerning how Christians should associate with heathen peoples, he does not condemn the practice of such dining, but rather cautions care in the practice. Paul wants the Christian who does dine with heathens, in heathen temples, to ask his conscience this question - "how will it look?" How will my presence and participation be interpreted by my pagan neighbors, by my former brothers of the temple lodge? How will it look to the church? How will it look to God? Paul asks - "shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols?"

Is "the conscience of the weak" the conscience of a Christian or a pagan? Obviously "the weak" is the same class as those who "see" (observe) the Christian dining in the heathen temple and eating sacrificial food dedicated to the idol gods. It is not the case of two Christians both being in the idol's temple and watching the conduct of each other, but of one heathen watching the conduct of one Christian. Paul is saying to the Corinthian Christians - "your weak heathen neighbors and brothers will be scrutinizing your conduct and what you do,in their temple, will either reinforce them in their heathenism or it will edify them by leading them to inquire into the Christian religion."

Paul is asking the Corinthian Christians to consider whether their participation in such idol feasts and festivities will serve to "enbolden" or encourage the idolater in his idolatry, or discourage it. This idolater is one who is "weak," or "without strength," powerless to overcome his addiction to idolatry, and has a "weak conscience." What is a "weak conscience"?

It is clear that Paul, in this chapter, and in the next two chapters, contrasts those who are weak with those who are strong. The weakness of the weak is in several areas. As has been shown in previous chapters, they are weak in nature, or abilities, and in the eyes of God, are weak in wisdom and knowledge, weak in wealth and status, weak in nobility or birth status, weak in titles and inheritance, and weak in conscience.

The real strong ones, in nature and ability, in wisdom, knowledge, in power, in real titles and lands, and the truly high born, the men of good conscience, are Christians. The conscience is weak and impotent because it does not possess the knowledge of Christ, or "that knowledge."

Paul says that heathen, or weak brothers, in witnessing Christian participation in heathen feasts, may 1) encourage the heathen in his idolatrous practices, and 2) act as a stumblingblock or hindrance to the the heathen becoming Christian, and 3) become a stimulus for the heathen to further "defile" his "conscience."

It is sometimes argued that these "weak brothers" cannot be lost pagans because the text says that their "consciences BECOME defiled." Such language implies, it is argued, that the consciences of these "weak ones" had previously been undefiled. But, this is false reasoning. Every sin or act of idolatry defiles a lost man’s conscience. To argue that "became defiled" must imply that the conscience was previously undefiled is not tenable. This would limit the words to only those who have undefiled consciences, and make them inapplicable to those with already defiled consciences. But, the truth is, every time a person with an existing defiled conscience, as the heathen possess, commits an idolatrous act, he further defiles his conscience. Paul's reference to the "weak" being "emboldened to eat" should not be interpreted to mean the emboldening to eat by one who has never done so before, but the encouraging him to do so again and again, a kind of positive reinforcement.

"And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?"

Paul has really already asked the Corinthian several questions that are similar to the one just now cited. He had basically asked them 1) Is your practice of eating food sacrificed to idols, in the idol's temple, encouraging and reinforcing the faith and practice of the heathen? 2) Is this practice leading to the conversion of heathens to Christ or hindering it? So, this next question is simply another way of phrasing the same question. Is your attitude and practice, towards your lost heathen neighbors and brothers, the result of love for them, the effect of an earnest desire for their salvation from heathenism?

This verse has become the location for particularly intense feuding among bible interpreters. In the context of the debate over who are "the weak brothers," whether lost pagans, or immature Christians, the argument is made that the identification of "the weak ones" with the term "brothers" proves that "the weak," and those with weak knowledge and conscience, are Christians, and not pagans. But, this is a "weak argument" (pun intended). When the cultural context of Corinth is fully considered, the use of the word "brother" by Paul, in relation to "the weak," serves not the purpose of designating "the weak" as "saved," "gained," Christians, but another purpose entirely.

Love Thy Neighbor

Throughout the epistles of Paul there is the constant enforcement of the rule of love. There is no abrogation of the command of God for all to "love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus himself taught that the "whole law" was summed up in the first two commandments, the command to love God supremely and to love one's neighbor as one's own self. (Matt. 22: 40) To the Roman Christians Paul wrote:

"For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Romans 13: 9)

And, James also, says the same.

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well." (James 2: 8)

In the context of Paul's instructions to the Corinthian Christians one hears Paul's statement about "charity" (agape love).

"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things." (I Cor. 13: 4-7 NKJV)

In the attitude of many of the Corinthian Christians towards the heathen there was manifested a lack of real love. The boasting of the Corinthian Christians, the air of superiority and importance that they showed towards those they judged as "ignorant" fools, unenlightened ones, the indifference and lack of concern for the salvation of their heathen neighbors, all showed how they were not fulfilling the basic will of God that says "love your neighbor as yourself."

Weak Brethren VII

"But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." (Verse 9)

The first thing to notice about these words concerns who is designated by the pronoun "yours." Does it not refer to all the members of the Corinthian assembly, to Christians? Does Paul not, by this language of direct address, identify all of them as being possessed of "that knowledge," and therefore, "the strong ones"? Does he not address, in the second person, those who know that "the idol is nothing," who have "no conscience of the idol"? When Paul speaks of "them that are weak," he speaks in the third person. Does this not show that the "weak ones" are not viewed by Paul as being part of the church, not part of the group designated by the pronoun "yours," but as a separate outside group. The contrast is between "you" (2nd person) and "them" (3rd person).

The next thing to notice is the fact that Paul further identifies who is of "the strong ones" versus who is of the class of "the weak ones." Those who are strong, which includes Paul and the members of the Corinthian church, have "liberty," which those in the class of "the weak" do not possess. Paul says to the Corinthians - "your liberty," a liberty that belongs to you as Christians, as men of strength in the Lord. He does not say "this liberty that belongs to you as well as to those who are weak."

Paul here continues his condemnation of the boasting of the Corinthian Christians, a particular kind of boasting that they practiced against their idolatrous neighbors. The chief question becomes this, however: Was Paul condemning the boasting that one kind of Christian practices against another kind of Christian, or the boasting that Christians in Corinth were practicing against non-Christian pagans? It is not denied that many of the same principles of boasting are present in either case, in all kinds of boasting, but the context clearly shows that it is a Christian's boasting against his pagan neighbors that Paul is here particularly condemning. From the very start of this epistle Paul has been combating the various kinds of "boasting" (glorying, praising) of the Corinthians and here he addresses bragging of another kind.

It seems as if the Corinthians did not show much interest and zeal in making converts of their pagan neighbors, of turning weak ones of the heathen faith into strong ones of the Christian faith. When they would meet a neighbor who was still an pagan idolater, one not possessing "that knowledge," rather than witnessing to him with love and extending effort for his soul's conversion, they would instead "put on airs," be standoffish, and boast of their superior status as Christians. They saw themselves as a kind of privileged class with a limited membership, a kind of cult.

It was part of Greek culture for those of higher social status to "stand aloof" from those of inferior status, to "look down on" them, and to promote their own superiority. It was also part of Greek culture and religion to "flaunt" their wealth and status, to publicize their titles. The idea of "conspicuous consumption" was not unknown to the pagan Greeks and Romans.

No zealous Christian soul winner would ever think of meeting a lost soul, who is married to paganism, with the message "I am superior, God's favorite, and you are not," with the added idea, "and you cannot do anything about it." These proud Corinthians, however, do not seem desirous of saying to idolaters, "and you can be God's favorite too."

Paul warns against the "us" versus "them" mentality with regard to the heathen. He backs up his warning with instruction concerning the chief characteristic of Christian people, those who have the Spirit of God, which is that they "love." They love God supremely and their neighbors they love as their own selves.

A Christian who does not have love for his neighbor, and who does not see him as a "brother," is not a Christian in truth. It is impossible for the Corinthian Christian to "love" his neighbor if he does not deeply desire his neighbor's becoming Christian. The attitude of many of the Corinthian Christians showed a lack of neighborly and brotherly love towards their pagan acquaintances, viewing them more as enemies to be avoided and shunned rather than "brothers" to be won to Christ.

This lack of desire for the salvation of the weak, of those not Christian, by the Corinthians, is implied in several verses in Paul's first epistle to Corinth. Already notice has been paid to I Cor. 9: 22 where Paul spoke of his own zeal for "winning," and "gaining," and "saving," those who are lost, a zeal which was lacking in the Corinthian church. Other verses also imply an indifference on the part of the Corinthian Christians towards the salvation of their pagan neighbors. In the very chapter now being analyzed, Paul will ask the Corinthians to consider how their actions were bringing about the "perishing" of the weak brothers, as if it had not been considered by the Corinthians. Paul asks - "and through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish?"

Christian Rights & Freedoms

The Greek word for "liberty" ("exousia") denotes freedom to do as one pleases and freedom to do involves the "right" to do so. Paul warns Christians not to think that it is always best to "assert" their rights and freedoms, as Christians, but should often "forgo" them, especially if doing so aids in the salvation of the heathen. In two places in this epistle Paul warns that "expediency" trumps personal "rights," that the good of others is more important than personal rights.

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." (I Cor. 6: 12)

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." (10: 23)

By the phrase "all things are lawful unto me," he means "I have freedom in all things." He is also saying "I have rights." But, he argues that the assertion of one's rights and liberties is not always "expedient," and that the universal constant assertion of rights may actually, and ironically, bring a Christian a loss of freedom. Sometimes the assertion of personal rights and liberties will be harmful to one's neighbor, will not "edify" him.

Paul says that the Corinthians, who possess "that knowledge," and who have strengths, rights, freedoms, and titles, that others do not possess, may, by their boasting, and by their lack of zeal for winning lost pagans, and by their uncharitable asserting of their rights, "become a stumblingblock to them that are weak." What kind of stumblingblock? A hindrance to what? Is it a hindrance against weak Christians becoming strong Christians? Or, is it rather a hindrance against pagans becoming Christians? Surely the latter is correct, as the context demonstrates. The majority view affirms that this is a warning to the strong members of the church, a part of the church, against their attitude and treatment of the weak members of the church, the ones who have serious doubts about the truth of the creed of the apostle. Thus, the stumblingblock spoken of is interpreted, by the majority, to be a hindrance that strong Christians put in the way of weak Christians.

Involved in Greek and Roman ideas and definitions about "liberty" there was not only an inclusion of "rights" and "freedoms," but "titles" also. In previous chapters it was shown how "status" in the Graeco-Roman world was judged based upon the criteria of wealth, birth status, power, wisdom, knowledge, and how the divine and human judgment of such qualities was quite different. The criterion regarding "titles" was also mentioned.

The importance of "titles" in the Graeco-Roman world were much like the importance of "titles" in European feudal society. Titles involved "entitlements." People with "titles" were owed something, either money, respect, recognition, preferment, or superior rights and privileges.

Again, the standard for identifying the true people of "title" is one of contrast. God has his standard and man has his standard. Who are earth's real titled lords and kings? God says it is Christians, the ones who, in the eyes of the world, are viewed as without rights and titles.

Christians Dining in Heathen Temples

“For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” (Verses 10,11)

The pronoun "any man" (anyone) is third person. It either means "anyone in the church" or "anyone in the world." Is Paul concerned with how Christians may interpret the act of another Christian who is seen "sitting in the idol's temple"? Or, is Paul concerned about how "anyone in the world," especially the lost, interprets the presence of a Christian in an idol's temple? The latter is the case, and this the context clearly shows. When Paul says "if anyone see you who has knowledge," who is meant by the pronoun "you"? Is it not "you Corinthian Christians"? How can it be limited to only one portion of the church membership? Does not the language of the apostle show that the "weak" are ignorant of Christian knowledge? Does this language not also show that the one observing the Christian "sitting at meat in the idol’s temple" has no knowledge? "You who have knowledge" is a class of people contrasted with those who do not possess "that knowledge," that Christian knowledge. Further, "you Christians, who have knowledge, who visit and sit in the heathen temples," is second person, while "if anyone" is third person. The one "seeing" the Christian dining in a heathen temple is the one who does not have Christian knowledge, one who is a pagan idolater. Paul is asking - "if a heathen man sees you Christians sitting and dining in a heathen temple, what will he conclude from it"

Paul's reference to the Corinthian Christians "sitting at meat (dining) in the idol's temple" needs to be focused upon.

There was a great emphasis in the Greek and heathen temples on "fellowship," and "camaraderie," and "brotherhood" and "fraternity." Temple fraternities were often the very glue that held ancient Pagan societies together. The social, political, and religious lives of these ancient pagan societies were more closely intertwined than is now the case in the western world.

The temples of the pagans were places for regular gatherings by the members of the particular heathen temple. They were like today's fraternal "lodges," where worship was mixed with festivity. Close knit fellowships were formed in local communities and the local temple was the place where this fellowship was enjoyed. Each temple looked upon its members as "brothers." They were a family, a brotherhood, a fraternity. The weekly meetings of the brotherhood were often looked to with fond anticipation. Much revelry and feasting, amidst celebration of the idols, were designed to please the depraved flesh and spirit. These polytheistic people took their religion seriously, no matter how debauched it may appear to Christians. Who would not enjoy getting drunk, fornicating, feasting, and serving every divers lust and pleasure?

These Pagan Corinthians commonly referred to their neighbors, who were all members of various fraternities and secret societies, "initiates into the mysteries," as "brothers." Calling each other "brother" is not something unique to the Christian community. It was certainly commonplace among the Jews. The Apostles addressed Jewish audiences as "men brothers" (See Book of Acts). So too did the various Pagan assemblies, present in Corinth and throughout the Greek and Roman world, address each other. This is seen today in various "Lodges" and fraternities prevalent in society, like that of the "Freemasons," the "Oddfellows," etc.

In close knit societies, where daily life is regulated by a calendar of events designed to produce the greatest pleasure to the flesh, it is not uncommon for fellow citizens and neighbors to think of each other as "brothers."

Is it possible that Paul could be using the term "brother" in this chapter as "neighbor" or as a "fellow citizen"? Could he be using it as meaning "those who were your brothers formerly in the idol’s temple"? The question is this: will you Corinthians quit calling these neighbors of yours, who are not yet Christian (as you), and who still go (now, without you) to the regular meetings of the fraternity, "brother," because you have now come to Christian knowledge and salvation?

Weak Brethren VI

In the preceding chapters a verse by verse analysis of the first seven verses of I Corinthians chapter eight has been given. It has been shown that Paul contrasts Christian knowledge and conscience with pagan knowledge and conscience. No where in these verses is there any hint that Paul is contrasting two kinds of Christian knowledge and conscience. The contrast is between the conscience of those in the class of "weak ones," and the conscience of those in the class of "strong ones." Those in the weak class are defined as "not having that knowledge," which knowledge is defined by a creed that affirms that "there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things," and that "there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things." Such a standard defines who is a Christian and who is not. It was also shown how evidence of the usage of "asthenes" (weak or impotent) in the scriptures supported the view that those "without strength" (Rom. 5: 6) are those not saved. It was also shown how Paul affirmed the lost and non-Christian status of "the weak ones" when he said that they are those "not gained," or "not saved." (I Cor. 9: 22)

In this chapter citations will be given from two traditional commentators of the majority view and it will be shown how they are guilty of misinterpretation.

Reviewing the Commentaries

J.N. Darby

"Nevertheless every one was not, in fact, thus delivered from the influence of false gods on his imagination. They were still perhaps, in spite of himself, something to him. He had conscience of the idol, and if he ate that which had been offered to it, it was not to him simply that which God had given for food. The idea of the existence of a real and powerful being had a place in his heart, and thus his conscience was defiled."

All this is a good description of a pagan, but it could hardly be a description of a born again Christian, or of someone who has been baptized into the Christian faith. Darby affirms that "not every Christian in the Corinthian church" had been "delivered from the influence of false gods on his imagination." Why would he say such a thing? How could he identify a man who believes in the reality of the idol gods, to any degree, as a legitimate Christian? Such is, however, the extent commentators will go in upholding their false premise, that premise that affirms that the "weak brother" is a genuinely converted Christian. According to Darby, who represents the majority view, whether or not one has been "delivered" from the influence of idolatry is no criterion for judging who is Christian or not.

Seeing these consequences of their interpretation, many commentators will simply affirm that the "weak brother" has not been "fully" delivered from his polytheism and heathenism. Thus, as has been shown in previous chapters, the "weak" brother is interpreted to be one who weakly accepts and believes the apostolic creed, and yet still has some belief in the idol gods, and believes that service and homage to them is important. Is partly believing the gospel revelation enough for salvation? Can one be a Christian who does not possess full and firm conviction of Paul's creed? Absolutely not. Therefore, these "weak ones" are not Christians.

Darby says that these "weak ones," after being converted and avowing faith in the creed, "were still perhaps" thinking and believing that the idols were "something" real. Again, Darby is teaching, along with the majority of commentators, that such is the case with many Christians. These weak Christians, it is alleged, still have some faith in the reality of idols and gods. This is rediculous teaching.

Darby said that these weak ones, when seeing the idol, entertained "the idea of the existence of a real and powerful being," this heathen idea having "a place in his heart." This is the biblical description of a Christian? Of one who possesses "that knowledge"? The belief in the reality of the false gods and idols "had a place in his heart"? On the contrary, a man who has such a "conscience" of idols, who believes in them, and offers sacrifices to them, is not a Christian!

On verse 7, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown commentary (JBF) says:

"Howbeit--Though to us who "have knowledge" (1Co 8:1, 4-6) all meats are indifferent, yet "this knowledge is not in all" in the same degree as we have it. Paul had admitted to the Corinthians that "we all have knowledge" (1Co 8:1), that is, so far as Christian theory goes; but practically some have it not in the same degree."

When JBF adds "in the same degree," they add to the word and lead astray. Paul, however, is contrasting those who either have, or don't have, "that knowledge." He is not contrasting those who have "that knowledge" to a high (strong) degree with those who have it to a low (weak) degree. The words of Paul represent a contrast between the "haves" and the "have nots," between Christians with "that knowledge," and non-Christians who do not have "that knowledge." Those who have "that knowledge," says Paul, do not believe that diets have anything to do with a man's standing with God, that food is "indifferent." Yet, in I Corinthians 8-10, it is only "the weak ones" who believe that sacrificial food to the idols was a means of finding favor with the gods. Commentators who seek to identify such "weak ones" with the converted, with Christians, with those who possess "that knowledge," do so without any grounds in the context to do so, and are forced into adding words to the text to support their false interpretation.

Further, JBF states that "Christian theory" teaches that all Christians possess "that knowledge," but that it is not true in actual fact, or in "practice." What horrendous misinterpretation is this! Certainly by "Christian theory" is meant "Christian doctrine on what constitutes one a Christian, or saved person." For instance, one could say - "Christian theory affirms that those who will be saved believe in Jesus." But, to add, "but this is not true in actual fact, or in practice," is to affirm that it is not actually the case that all who will be saved are believers in Jesus.

JBF wrote:

"Some Gentile Christians, whether from old association of ideas or misdirected conscience, when they ate such meats, ate them with some feeling as if the idol were something real (1Co 8:4)..."

Again, it is amazing that any evangelical bible commentator would affirm that someone who believes in the reality of gods and idols is a Christian. Why would anyone think that Paul is describing someone other than a pagan? When a person eats religiously dedicated food and believes in the reality of the god to whom it is dedicated, that man is not a Christian. Further, Paul has thus far given no reason for identifying the "some people" under consideration as anything but a pagan, certainly not a Christian. JBF looks at the phrase - "this knowledge is not in all," and reads "this knowledge is not in all born again Christians in the church at Corinth." Also, JBF reads the phrase in this manner - "this knowledge is not in all to the same degree." But to add "to the same degree" adds to the text and changes the meaning of the apostle. Also, Paul has already said that "those who have that knowledge" are they who do not believe in idols, and do not believe religious diets have anything to do with obtaining God's favor. Therefore, to affirm that some of these who have "that knowledge," albeit in a weak degree, are people who believe in idols and religious diets, is to contradict the words of Paul.

Those who believe in the idols and sacred foods are ever spoken of in the third person, by the apostle, and he never includes any of the members of the Corinthian church in that class spoken of in the third person. Also, when he speaks in the second person, when addressing the members of the Corinthian church, he never speaks of them as not having "that knowledge," or of being "weak."

JBF wrote:

"'unto this hour'--after they have embraced Christianity; an implied censure, that they are not further advanced by this time in Christian 'knowledge.'"

Where in the text is there any indication at all that those who eat things sacrificed to idols, with a belief in the reality of them, were ever Christians? It is amazing that most commentators cannot see their gross misinterpretation. Where in the language of the apostle does Paul ever identify any member of the church at Corinth as a continuous practicing idolater? Does not Paul address all the members of the church at Corinth as possessing "that knowledge"? But, clearly, those who don't have this knowledge are those outside the church, are not Christians, but pagans. Paul never speaks in the first person when speaking of these weak ones, these "idiotes," these who do not know, but always in the third person, as being of a different class than Paul himself or the Corinthian believers.

JBF implies that a man can become a Christian even though he still has faith in idols, and continues to offer sacrifices to them. According to this theory, becoming a Christian does not remove a man's heathenism, for that is only removed later in Christian life, when the Christian has become "strong."

JBF continues:

"their conscience . . . is defiled--by their eating it "as a thing offered to idols." If they ate it unconscious at the time that it had been offered to idols, there would be no defilement of conscience. But conscious of what it was, and not having such knowledge as other Corinthians boasted of, namely, that an idol is nothing and can therefore neither pollute nor sanctify meats, they by eating them sin against conscience (compare Ro 14:15-23)."

How could any commentator affirm that Christians, those who have accepted the truth that "there is one God, the Father," and "one Lord, Jesus Christ," and who knew that the idols of the pagans were "nothing at all," and that eating food to them as such would be sin, and a repudiation of the Christian faith, could be yet said to "eat" the idolatrous sacrifice with a knowledge that the idol represented a real god, is bewildering.

Christians do not have weak consciences. They do not have consciences that are defiled by heathen knowledge and religion. They have consciences that possess "that knowledge." JBF states that these idolaters do "not have such knowledge as other Corinthians boasted of," and yet claims they are nevertheless Christians. JBF affirms that some Corinthians had "that knowledge" but others did not have it. But, one is, by definition, not a Christian if he does not confess the creed given by the apostle.

“But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” (Verses 7, 8)

By the pronouns "us" and "we" are designated people in general, that is, what a person eats, religiously, does not affect his standing with God. This idea is contrary to the beliefs of pagans, however. They believed that the idol gods granted favors based upon food sacrifices and ritualistic diets. Paul is stating knowledge that he attributes only to Christians. To argue that some "weak Christians" also believe pagan ideas about food offered to idols is to gravely misstate things. Again, it is clear that Paul is contrasting Christian knowledge and faith with pagan knowledge and faith.

A continuation of a verse by verse analysis will given in the next chapter, beginning with verse 9.

Weak Brethren V

“Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” (Verses 7, 8)

In properly interpreting these next verses, it is most important to first determine who is meant by "every man" ("everyone"). Does he mean "not in everyone in the church at Corinth," or "not in everyone in the world"? If the former, then Paul would be affirming that there were some members of the church in Corinth who did not have "that knowledge," did not know that there was "one God, the Father, from whom are all things," and did not know that there was "one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." But, clearly this cannot be the case, for one cannot be baptized, cannot be a Christian, a member of the church, who does not know, believe, and confess the creed given by Paul in verses 4-6. Clearly Paul means "there is not in everyone in the world that (Christian) knowledge..." Only some in the world possess the knowledge expressed in the given creed, and conversely, some do not. It is special, particular, knowledge.

There is no doubt that there are many people who hear Christian teaching but who never believe it or become converted to it. Sunday schools, bible classes, and regular church worship services, contain such people. These are learners, and disciples, but are not yet converted, not yet Christians. Some of them, in some respects, are "initiates," people who are "not far from the kingdom" (Mark 12: 34), but who have not yet entered.

The church at Corinth, like all Christian assemblies, had many non-Christians who attended Christian meetings and heard the teaching and saw the activities of Christians. Paul alluded to these visitors in his letter to the Corinthians. He asked the members of the church - "how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest?" (14: 16) The "unlearned" in the Christian faith are "weak brothers," though they are not Christians, not yet "gained," not yet "saved."

"For some with conscience of the idol..."

Who are these "some"? Some in the church, or some in the world? This is a most important question in properly identifying whether the weak are saved or lost, Christian or non-Christian. No one disputes that the "some" mentioned by the apostle are "the weak brothers." The dispute concerns whether they are Christians, converts to the creed given by the apostle, and whether these "some" are weak members of the church at Corinth. Does Paul mean "some born again Christians"? Is he contrasting two kinds of saved Christians or two kinds of people, saved and lost, Christian and non-Christian?

Clearly, these "some" are the same as that group who do not possess "that knowledge," that Christian or salvation knowledge, and are therefore unsaved, ungained, unconverted. Here is precisely where the majority view begins to err in interpretation. It identifies these "some" as "some in the church at Corinth," rather than "some in the world." They teach this, without any contextual reason, and rather, against the context, and they are then stuck with the repugnant conclusion that affirms that one can be Christian without possessing "that knowledge." But, how can one be a Christian, or convert, and yet still have what are called "scruples" about paganism and idolatry? Just how "weak" is such a "Christian"? Is he a "convert" who, nevertheless, is in serious doubt about his monotheism and about the person of Christ? Full conviction of the creed of verses 4-6 is not necessary for membership in the church of Christ? Apparently not, if the majority view is correct. The work of commentators dealing with the logical consequences of their interpretation draws attention.

Some err in properly defining what is meant by having a "conscience of the idol." Those who want to designate "the weak" as genuinely saved Christians will describe them, however, as a class of semi-converted Christians, who only partly believe the creed of the apostle, who have weak convictions for the creed. These interpreters will affirm that the word "conscience," as first used in the verse, ought to be translated differently than how it is translated when used in the second instance in the verse.

The Greek word for "conscience" is "syneidēsis" and simply means a "joint knowledge" (Thayer) and is uniformly translated in the KJV as "conscience." It involves being "conscious" in mind and thought, being aware of one's awareness, knowing that one knows, particularly as it relates to being responsible for being and doing, to ethics and morality. "Conscience" represents either 1) the faculty of discerning right from wrong, or 2) the actual discerning of right and wrong.

The NIV translates "some with conscience of the idol" as "some people are still so accustomed to idols." The NIV translators felt compelled, for some reason, to translate the Greek word, not by the word "conscience," as they did in the latter part of this verse, but by the words "still so accustomed to." That is a bad, and biased, translation. It is a biased translation, given in order to affirm that "the weak" are converted members of the church at Corinth. But, this definition makes no sense, especially if we apply it to the second time the word "conscience" is used in the verse. Paul says "since their conscience is weak." Does he mean their customary practice, or habit, is weak? That is nonsense. Conscience involves knowledge and recognition, a moral or spiritual awareness. There is the further idea of "participation" in the knowledge peculiar to "conscience." When interpreters give two different definitions of a single word in the same sentence, something is truly amiss.

"Some with conscience of the idol eat it (religious food) as a thing sacrificed to idols..." Is this not a clear description of a polytheist and an idol worshipper? How can anyone think that Paul is describing a Christian in these words? Paul is surely describing the pagan worshipper in Corinth. The idols and "the gods" were accepted as real deities and daily life reflected this belief system of the pagan conscience. These pagans, who possess a "consciousness" regarding gods and idols, "unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol..." These weak ones, pagan brothers and neighbors to the Corinthian Christians, says Paul, are still practicing regularly their heathen religion, saying "unto this hour." Such language is not suitable to be applied to the so-called weak Christian, the one who supposedly still has "scruples" about his former pagan religion, for these, as is acknowledged by all, would only occasionally backslide into such a former way of thinking, and participate, therefore, in offering a sacrifice to an idol judged as real. But, the idolater Paul refers to is one who is continuing regular practice of his paganism. He says they "until this hour eat it as a thing sacrificed to idols." Does this not mean that the weak one eats it with a faith and conscience in the reality of the idol? How can this person be said to be a Christian?

Paul does not speak in the second person when speaking of those who offer sacrifices to idols from having a conscience of the idol, but in the third person. If Paul thought the weak ones were members of the church of Corinth, he would speak to them in the second person. Paul did not say "but some of you, with conscience of the idol, eat it unto this day with an awareness of the idols."

Some who argue for the majority interpretation, regarding the identity of the "weak brothers," will seek to speak of how the weak Christian does not have "the same degree" of knowledge as the more mature, well-grounded, Christian. But, Paul does not speak of degrees of Christian knowledge in these verses, as if contrasting saved people, but in opposites. Paul never uses the words "weaker" or "stronger," comparative words, but always uses opposite words, as "weak" versus "strong."

"and his conscience, being weak, is defiled." The Greek structure shows that the word "weak" is not an adjective for "conscience." Paul is not saying - "and his weak conscience is defiled." The conscience is what is defiled. But, whose conscience? The conscience of the "weak one." His conscience is weak because he is weak in his nature. The weakness of the idol worshipper reveals itself in weak knowledge and conscience, and in its defilement. Notice again how Paul continues to speak to the church of Corinth in the second person but of the weak ones in the third person.

Further, Paul does not mean to say that the idolatrous act was a single act of defilement, as if a temporary mistake of an unstable Christian, when he says "their conscience is defiled," but means "once again their conscience is defiled," for the conscience of the pagan is defiled further every time he offers sacrifice.

Wrote Dr. Nanos (emphasis mine):

"It is the impaired ones' sense of what is right that is ironically "strengthened" to continue to perceive things incorrectly (v. 10), to continue without the knowledge that could keep them from destroying themselves (vv. 7, 11).

And while he addresses his instructions to the knowledgeable, it is less clear that he addresses the impaired, that they are even part of the encoded or the actual audience Paul envisages will hear the letter read; rather, he writes about the impaired, and the impact of the behavior of the knowledgeable upon them.

If the impaired are simply the polytheist idolaters of Corinth, then they will be impacted by the consequences of the behavior of the knowledgeable if the knowledgeable heed Paul's letter, as well as if they do not. But Paul's language does not require that the impaired are being addressed, or even among the knowledgeable when they meet to hear this letter read. The constant third person references to them suggest that they are not."

Dr. Nanos points out how "the weak" are "the knowledgeable" while those who are "strong" are those "without knowledge." He also shows how Paul addresses the church as composed only of those who are strong and knowledgeable, and not as a mixture of weak and strong, of those who have Christian knowledge and those who do not. The ones who know, who are not weak, are addressed in the second person, but those who do not know, who are impotent and lacking Christian knowledge, he addresses in the third person.

Dr. Nanos writes:

"Their "impaired" sense of what is right will ironically be "built up," that is, they will be "edified" or "strengthened" to continue the course on which they have spent their whole lives, instead of challenged by the fact that Christ-believers are willing to abandon even the pretense of worshipping their many gods and lords (v. 10). They are brothers and sisters for whom Christ died, but they would not be reached with that message if the Christbelievers lived according to the rights they suppose themselves to have, regardless of the consequences for those who do not share their knowledge."

Dr. Nanos correctly observes how the distinction is between those who have Christian knowledge and those who do not have it. It is not a distinction between Christians who know in great degree and Christians who know in less degree. He also correctly observes that the behavior of Christians, who possess the knowledge of "one God, the Father," and of "one Lord, Jesus Christ," may keep a "weak brother" from abandoning his paganism. It is not that the Corinthian believers keep a brother Christian from reverting back into paganism.

Dr. Nanos wrote:

"What is significant is that the "impaired ones" are so labeled because they do not share in the "knowledge" of Christ-believers that there is no god but the One; hence, their "sense of what is right" is "impaired."

However, Paul's comment here need not mean that the impaired were not already doing the harmful thing at issue, which most interpreters understand to be implied. Building up need not signify the same thing as starting from scratch. The point is that they are strengthened in resolve to do it."

The context of Paul's words are clear and it is bewildering how most commentators miss this.

Wrote Dr. Nanos:

"What is the "ruin" Paul fears will result for the impaired if they witness Christbelievers eating idol food? Although the "ruin" or "destruction" is self inflicted by the impaired one in 8:11 ("he will cause himself to be ruined"), it is the knowledgeable who "strengthen" them to choose that course for themselves, who thus cause them to "stumble" in the direction of self-destruction, who "sin" against them, who "wound" their "sense of what is right" (vv. 9-13). At least several possibilities can be imagined to describe what Paul envisages:

1) Idolaters may fail to understand that Christ-faith makes exclusivistic claims for the One God and Christ over against the claims of any other gods, since it appears to incorporate eating of food offered to other gods. Hence, the message of good in Christ is not being proclaimed as it should be, and cannot effect the changes Paul believes should result from proclamation of this news (cf. 14:22-25). The knowledge of the One that can save the impaired is being obstructed by the very ones who have themselves already benefited from understanding that message.

2) Idolaters may not take the message of Christ-faith seriously, that is, on the exclusivistic and superiority terms that it claims against other gods and lords, such as the worship of the One God alone, and the message of salvation in Christ. Idolaters may conclude that even those who profess faith in Christ and the One God do not want to risk the wrath of the gods, or any of the other socio-economic, physical, and psychological consequences that polytheists might expect to result from neglect or abstention of various rites, or from opting out of the social networks within society that participation in these rites entails. That would likely lead to the a priori dismissal of the claims of the message of good in Christ. The message of good is thus being compromised, corrupted by its messengers.

3) If idolaters did understand and take their exclusivistic claims seriously, and recognized that they claimed to have something superior to that which idolaters uphold to be true, then idolaters may regard those who profess it to lack integrity: they are hypocrites, arrogant troublemakers, or simply foolish. There is little force to their confession of faith in God and Christ to be exclusive of and superior to other gods. For these Christ-believers fail to live up to the truths proclaimed when they still participate in idolatrous rites, and eat idol-related food they have otherwise renounced to be inferior. This is different than being regarded to be foolish because of believing in the message of a crucified lord, and behaving consistent with that confession in the face of resistance, which Paul expects and experiences for his faithfulness to the message. If idolaters conclude that Christ-believers are hypocrites, they will likely dismiss the message of good in Christ out of hand as lacking integrity.

4) The Christ-believers' faith might be perceived to incorporate the worship of other gods alongside faith in Christ. If any polytheists are interested in Christ-faith for themselves, they may conclude that they can add the One God and Christ to their pantheon, in keeping with the common practice in Greco-Roman culture of incorporating new gods. This would appear to be fully compatible with their polytheistic sensibilities, based on observing the behavior of those who proclaim this news. Ironically, the "superstitions" of their idolatrous family members, friends, neighbors, fellow association members, and social and political contacts, will all be confirmed, not denied. They will be caused to stumble, taking the form of merely adding God and Christ to their idolatrous way of life. The already impaired are thus rendered unable to know that which the knowledgeable know, and are being destroyed by continuing to live in idolatry. From Paul's implied point of view, if the knowledgeable eat food that idolaters (i.e., the impaired ones) regard to be sacred, it will confirm that it is indeed sacred, and the idolaters will be ruined as a result.

In each of these scenarios, the impaired can be understood to be strengthened in their misguided sense of what is right, failing to perceive "the truth" about idolatry, and thus Paul may conclude that the perpetuation of their impaired state as a result of the wrong behavior by the knowledgeable will lead the impaired to their ruin. All of these outcomes, including various combinations of them, would represent alienation from the message of good in Christ that Paul believes can be avoided if the Christ-believers refrain from eating idol food on behalf of the sensibilities of idolaters. He does not want idolaters to be "scandalized" by behavior not befitting those confessing the faith. He wants them to know the One God through Christ-faith. He wants his audience to follow his own example, for he would not even eat "meat" if the eating of any kind of "food" would cause the stumbling of some over the message of Christ (8:13); moreover, he adapts his presentation of the message to "everyone" in order that he might "gain" even "some" to be "saved" (9:19-23).

I thus conclude, in direct contrast to the consensus views, that the impaired ate idol food without any qualms; that is what idolaters do. Moreover, the knowledgeable most likely did not eat idol food, or dine at polytheist's temples, just as Christbelievers would not be expected to do. This point is accentuated all the more to the degree that we accept that these Christ-believers likely met as subgroups within the Jewish communities of Corinth. Although these former polytheists wondered if it would be acceptable to eat it, most likely for a host of the socio-economic and psychological reasons associated with remaining "in the world," in addition to the notion that it would demonstrate their faith proposition of indifference to idols, Paul herein sought to make it plain that they must not. It would perpetuate the impaired state of their idolatrous neighbors, rather than helping to bring them to faith in Christ, and it involved a relationship with evil forces that should be avoided at all costs (10:16-22). Paul reminds them what happened to Israelites who indulged in similarly mistaken logic (10:5-22, drawing on Num 25).

Paul's original audience knew what we cannot know; namely, whether there were any Christ-believers behaving in the way in which the impaired are described, or whether his descriptions and concerns naturally matched those of their polytheist families, friends, and neighbors. Are there any other clues either within or outside of chapters 8—10 that might support the notion proposed herein, that it was polytheistic brothers and sisters' sensibilities and outcomes in Corinth with whom Paul was concerned?"

Weak Brothers

1. Believe in “many gods”
2. Believe in “many lords”
3. Believe the idol is a real god
4. Believe “all things” are not “of him”
5. Believe “all things” are not “by him” (Jesus)

Strong Brothers

1. Believe in “One God” (the Father)
2. Believe in “One Lord” (Jesus)
3. Believe the “idol is nothing at all”
4. Believe “all things” are “of him”
5. Believe “all things” are “by him” (Jesus)

Weak Brethren IV

In the previous chapters it was shown how "the weak" are they who are unsaved, or non-Christian, while "the strong" are they who are saved, or Christian. Likewise, "the wise" are the saved and "the unwise" are the unsaved. Likewise, Christians are the truly elect, and non-Christians are the non-elect. Christians are rich and high born, while non-Christians are poor and low born. This was evident from the words of Paul in I Cor. 9: 22 as well as from other statements of Paul in the Corinthian epistles, as was shown in the previous chapters. These terms were not used to distinguish between two types of Christians but to distinguish between Christians and non-Christians.

It has been shown that "the weak" denoted the class of non-Christians, particularly pagans or polytheists, and that "the strong" denoted the class of Christians, those who "believe in one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, from whom are all things," as Paul affirms in the preface of this section of his epistle. It was shown how the terms wise, strong, noble, rich, are terms applied to people by both God and the heathen world, and God and the world each having a different standard, and each identifying opposing classes of people. That is, the ones that God designates as wise, strong, noble, and rich, are the ones that the world designates as foolish, weak, ignoble, and poor. It is the very thing described in the prophecy of Isaiah, where it is said:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5: 20 KJV)

It was also shown, in the previous chapters, how the very term "weak," in the original Greek, was more appropriate an adjective for the non-Christian than for the Christian, and in scripture was a term coupled with adjectives describing lost people. It would seem that the burden of proof is on the majority side of commentators to show how "weak" is not the common term, in scripture, for the one who is not a Christian. Further, if applying the term "weak" to immature Christians, in I Corinthians chapter eight, is the exception, then the burden of proof is on the advocates of the majority view to give contextual reasons for its being an exception to the rule. If the context is examined, however, it will become obvious that it cannot be shown that the "weak" brothers are viewed by Paul as being Christian.

In this epistle, Paul at times speaks strictly to the members of the church at Corinth, but, at other times, speaks generally to the entire community in Corinth, which was composed mainly by religious peoples, nearly all pagan or polytheists, or to the whole of mankind. This is true with all epistles addressed to churches. It is important therefore, in a verse by verse analysis of those sections of scripture, which deal with the "weak" and "strong" brothers (I Corinthians chapters 8-11 and Romans 14), that a person be careful to note the direct addresses given to particular audiences. It is also important to discover who Paul had in mind when he referred to that class of people called "weak," and who he had in mind when he referred to that class which he called "strong." What other descriptions does he give of each class? In this chapter a verse by verse analysis of I Corinthians chapter eight will commence.

"Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “we all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God." (I Cor. 8: 1-3)

It is important to identify who is designated by the various highlighted pronouns used by Paul in these initial words and in the whole of the chapter. What class of people is designated by these pronouns? Do all the pronouns designate only Christian members of the church at Corinth, or do they designate others? Do the pronouns ever refer to the world at large, or to all men?

The topic addressed by Paul concerned aspects of idolatry which the church had inquired about in its letter to Paul. It concerned the interaction of Greek Christians in Corinth with their pagan neighbors, or brothers. These first adult Greek converts to the gospel in Corinth were once pagans themselves. They had once embraced the pantheon of gods then worshipped by their Greek and Roman neighbors but had now become monotheists and believers in the lordship of Jesus Christ. They had come to believe that all the idols and gods of their pagan religion were not real beings, but only false imaginary gods. They had "turned" from polytheism to Christian monotheism like those in Thessalonica. They all had "turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God." (II Thess. 1: 9)

It is important to understand the former way of life for most of these pagan converts in Corinth to fully understand and appreciate the way Paul phrases many of his questions and statements in this chapter, how he addresses various audiences. This Corinthian pagan culture will be more fully examined as particular verses of this chapter are examined and when the question is addressed as to how Paul could call the non-Christian pagans in Corinth "brother." Those commentators who affirm that the "weak brother" is a Christian do so on the basis that the word "brother" is used in reference to them, and this is really their only argument of any weight. It will be shown, however, that this is insufficient evidence for affirming that "the weak brother" is in fact a saved man, or a Christian, especially in light of other things said about this person in the contexts, either of I Corinthians 8-11 or Romans 14.

It is important for us to determine who is meant by "we" and "all" in the opening verses of this chapter. Doubtless it includes Paul the writer. Who else is included? Only the members of the church in Corinth? When he says "we know that all possess knowledge," does he mean only Christians know this fact, or that only Christians possess knowledge? Is it "we Christians" or "we humans"? Is it "all Christians" or "all men"? Surely he means to say, as in common vernacular, "everybody knows that."

Paul thus begins his discussion of the Christian in his relationship to a pagan environment. He begins with discussion of "knowledge," a subject, like "wisdom," of great importance to Greek philosophy and religion. Greek and pagan philosophy and religion involved all the basic elements of gnosticism, ideas about the nature and fruits of knowledge (or epistemology) and enlightenment. Paul begins this chapter by a reference to general human knowledge, that knowledge which all humans possess. He then makes a judgment about this common knowledge. By itself, it "puffs up," inflates the ego, produces pride and arrogance. This was stated in order to combat the idea that knowledge alone was sufficient to successful life, both here and hereafter, and the idea that it was the chief virtue, and the only way to salvation and elect status. This is true of knowledge in general, among all men, and not what is only true among Christians. Paul is thus affirming these basic premises of his epistemology: 1) There is general human knowledge in the world, and 2) knowledge by itself produces pride (and by implication, a downfall and destruction). Knowledge alone will not save any man. The idea that man's salvation from his state of suffering and death is to be found in human "science" or "knowledge" is still prevalent today.

Paul, in his writings to the Corinthian church, as in his letter to Timothy, warned about a "science falsely so called" (I Tim. 6: 20). Just as there is a false wisdom, the wisdom of the evil world, there is a false knowledge or science. It is false in substance, in theory, in design, and in practice.

Paul says "charity builds up," an obvious play on words against the words "knowledge puffs up." Charity, or divine love in action, builds, but knowledge by itself destroys. Knowledge must be joined with charity for knowledge to be of any benefit to a man. Knowledge without love is ruinous.

"Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know."

Who is meant by the pronouns "those who" and "they"? Christians at Corinth only? Or, only Christians in general? Or, "those people in general"? Clearly the latter. What Paul says is true of every man. Paul does not here speak in the plural first person, as before in verse one, but in the plural third person. This is further evidence that he is speaking of the general thinking of men, of common human knowledge.

"Think" is from the Greek word "dokeō" and may be translated as "are of the opinion," or "supposes," or "assumes," or "judges." "Know" is from the Greek word "eidō" and means to "perceive," "discern," "discover," and includes the idea of having "special insight" into some aspect of knowledge. We may thus translate Paul's words as follows:

"Those people in the world, Christian or non-Christian, who are of the opinion that they have special insight into particular, special, higher knowledge, or science..."

The pronoun "something" is singular, or particular.

Of these claimers to special knowledge, a knowledge lacking love, Paul says that "they do not yet know as they ought to know." "Know" here, in both instances, is from "ginosko," and not from "eido." The use of these two different words, instead of the same word, is significant.

The Greek word "ginosko" (gnosis) respects general knowledge. To "know" something in the sense of "ginosko" was to "realize," or "recognize," a fact, or truth, with the added idea of spontaneously accepting or approving it. On the other hand,"eido," describes superior knowledge and insight.

Thus, Paul is saying "those who think they have superior insight into a particular area of knowledge do not recognize that they do not recognize," or "are ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant." Paul is affirming that the principal part of knowledge is to know that one is ignorant, that he does not have the explanation of all things. Paul, in these words, implies an irony. The "know-it-alls" do not know the basic truth underlying all real knowledge. This fundamental truth about human ignorance is what really enlightened people "ought to know," first of all, if they were really illuminated souls.

"But if any man love God, the same is known of him.” (Verses 3)

Is “any man” (any one) equivalent to “anyone in the world,” or “anyone in the church”? Surely the former is meant.

“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), BUT to US there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (Verses 4-6)

Who is meant by the “we” in the verse? What is it that those designated by the “we” know? Would any member of the Corinthian church not know that the “idol is nothing”? Who believes that there are “lords many,” and “gods many,” saints or pagans? Who is being contrasted when Paul says “but unto us”? Is it not a contrast between Pagans and Christians? Is it not also a contrast between “weak” and “strong”? Are the “weak” not identified with those who believe in paganism? Are the “strong” not those who believe in “one God, the Father”? Are not the “strong” those who believe in “one Lord Jesus Christ”? Who is the “we” in “we by him”? Paul is not contrasting two groups of Christians in the Corinthian assembly, as if one part believed the Christian creed and one part did not. Had this been the meaning of the apostle, he would have said "but to some of us Christians" rather than "but to us Christians," referring to what is universal among Christians.

Clearly Paul is contrasting Christians with non-Christians. He defines Christians by what they believe, by their creed, by their Theology and Christology. A convert to the Christian religion embraces monotheism and rejects polytheism. He believes that Jesus Christ is Lord of lords, and King of kings, the only begotten Son of God, that he was God in the flesh by a miraculous incarnation, Emmanuel, and that "all things were created by him and for him." (Col. 1: 16) Those who do not accept this creed, do not believe in God the Father and Christ the Lord, are not Christians.

The church at Corinth no doubt had some Jewish and Roman members, and some of various ethnic sects and tribes, but were nevertheless mostly made up of Greeks. Corinth was a cosmopolitan city due to its sea trade. It is safe to say that nearly all the members of the church at Corinth had formerly been religious people before their conversions to Christ, most likely the polytheism of the Greeks. Many of the errors that Paul confronts in his epistles to Corinth were Greek in origin and nature. Paul fought the mixture of Greek philosophy and religion with the religion of Christians.

In the next chapter there will be a continuation of a verse by verse analysis of I Corinthians chapter eight.

Piricilli on I Cor. 4: 7

Arminian theologian, Robert Piricilli, wrote (emphasis mine):

"Paul gives reason why pride is unjustified (v. 7). In essence, the reason is that God gives to men anything they have, and therefore no one has any grounds for self-glorying. Paul makes this point by asking three rhetorical questions, each leading to the next. The first one, "Who makes you different (from anyone else)?" might be answered in either of two ways: "No one makes you difference, in that you are all basically the same"; or "God is the one who makes one different from another." Some commentators assume one, some the other; I am more inclined to the latter.

Certainly that is the implication of the second question: No one has anything that he did not receive (implied: from God). Any talents or gifts that men have must be traced, ultimately, to God as their source. So what if one person has a native intelligence that others do not possess? He certainly did not get it for himself. All the more with spiritual gifts: each one is a manifestation of the grace of God (back to 1: 4-7 again; cf. 12: 11).

The third question obviously follows: then if every good thing a person has is something received (from God), how can he possibly justify glorying (boasting) as though he took it by his own doing? Answer: he cannot. And Paul's point has now become very clear. At first he had been speaking of himself and Apollos as simply doing what God gave them to do in His service. Now he means for the Corinthians to see that this applies to them, too. They have no right to glory in Paul or Apollos; neither do they have any right to glory in themselves. They are nothing more or less than God has made of them--even though what God makes of a man depends, in part, on how man develops or utilizes the capacities God gives him."

Randall House Bible Commentary By Robert E. Picirilli (pg. 54)

See here

According to Peter Lumpkins, I was misinterpreting I Cor. 4: 7 when I applied it to everything. I guess he would condemn Piricilli also? And condemn him for violating the context as he did me?