I’m thinking about 1 Corinthians 8-10 at the moment, and I’m intrigued by Garland’s development of Hurd’s idea that there was no squabble between “weak” and “strong” over idol-meat in Corinth; and that the “weak” are a pretend/hypothetical invention of Paul, for rhetorical purposes: According to Garland, the essential message of 1 Cor 8-10 is not that the “strong” (who correctly see that eating idol-meat is okay, in-principle) should restrain their freedom for the sake of the “weak”. Rather, the essential message is that any conscious association with idols is absolutely off-limits for Christians.
Garland makes a number of noteworthy points in support of this view:
- Paul himself is elsewhere presented as horrified by the idolatry of Athens (according to Acts 17); and we should not think that Paul’s acceptance of “unclean” foods (i.e. non-kosher) equalled an acceptance of “idol” foods (i.e. actively offered to other gods)
- In 1 Cor 8-10 Paul never identifies any particular group as “the strong”; and never directly addresses “the weak” – the latter group comes up (as an illustration?) at the beginning of the section, and not thereafter.
- In 1 Cor 8, the problem is not that the weak might have their faith shaken and compromised; the problem is that the weak might be “strengthened” to eat idol meat (and thereby be destroyed)
- By chapter 10, Paul’s argument – which started off gently by using the hypothetical example of weak brothers – becomes emphatic and uncompromising: Flee idolatry!
This is worth considering, and has made me realise that perhaps I have been reading 1 Corinthians 8-10 while subconsciously picturing the situation of Romans 14-15, which does seem to be presented differently.
I do think, though, that the “traditional” reading is, on the whole, worth sticking with – but with modifications. It still seems to me that the essential point is that the strong should restrain themselves for the sake of others – as well as for their own sake. This application comes up repeatedly in chapters 8 and 9, and is not absent from chapter 10, which argues not only for the abstract avoidance of idolatry, but for responsible participation in the body of Christ.
RSS - Posts
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for this post. I have enjoyed using Garland’s commentary. Garland has also written an article on this issue: “The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1),” Perspectives in Religious Studies 30 (2003): 173-97, that is also worth reading. Putting aside the strong/weak issue for a moment, Garland has convinced me that 1 Cor 8-10 is dissimilar from Rom 14-15. I would add that Garland’s view also has the advantage of at least agreeing implicitly (since he does not refer to it directly) to the Apostolic Prohibitions in Acts 15 and 21 and is consistent with view of food sacrificed to idols in Revelation 3:14.
Thanks Charles – I’ll have to have a look at the journal article. I’m inclined to agree with you: The NT’s general distaste for association with idol-food would fit well with Garland’s view; and the more I think about it, the more I can see that the passage does seem to be different to Romans.
I still think, though, that a centrally important intention of the passage is to promote self-restrained love on the part of those who have ‘knowledge’: Thus I’m not totally persuaded that the “weak” are simply a hypothetical element of a rhetoric of calculated persuasion.
Interesting, Matthew. Acts does tend to get things right. I will have to give this more thought.
You may like to read Nanos on this: http://www.marknanos.com/Polytheist-Corinth-1-15-08.pdf
Thanks for this: The Nanos paper is a good article – well argued and clear, with some persuasive points. I do think that the “traditional” understanding needs to be re-thought.
In the end, I’m not persuaded that the “weak” are actually non-Christian neighbours, as Nanos suggests. I’m just not convinced by Nanos’ arguments that Paul would have referred to idol-worshipping unbelievers as “brothers for whom Christ died”. Every other issue in chapters 8-14 appears to involve calling some believers to restrain their proud rights for the sake of other believers (in view of the wider world).
At this point I think that “the weak” in 1 Corinthians 8 are simply those who do not know that idols are nothing. I do think that Paul shares with the “strong” the in-principle view that food itself belongs to God and is sanctified by thankfulness (8:8; 10:26,29-30). But I am now persuaded that Paul believes that ANY (known) connection to idols makes such food off-limits for believers – for two main reasons:
1) It will lead the “weak” (i.e. those who are uncertain that idols are nothing) to sin by knowingly eating idol food (ch.8)
2) It will open the “strong” themselves to participation in demons, whereas they ought to be participating as edifying members of the body of Christ (ch.10)
Indeed, Paul’s example in the intervening chapter 9 follows this same pattern: Paul has in-principle rights and freedoms; but he chooses to restrain them for two main reasons:
1) In order to win the weak and save others (9:19-23)
2) In order that he himself will not be disqualified (9:24-27)
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for a thoughtful post. Nanos’ suggestion that Paul’s use of “brothers” refers to unbelievers is admittedly his weakest point, but I still think it works; the rest of his argument has too much going for it. I’ve blogged about the issue here (and earlier about Nanos’ essay here).
Thanks for this Loren – these are some useful links… and I agree – the article is really worth pondering. I’ll have to read it again myself and do some more thinking about it.
At this point though, I still view the “weak” as believers who do not know that idols are nothing – although I wouldn’t call them “idolators”: Yeo, in his 1994 book, compares this situation to present-day China, in which Chinese converts to Christianity – who genuinely call upon Christ as Lord – remain uncertain about the status of things such as ancestral shrines. Paul seems to call this lack of certainty about idols “weakness”, and is worried that the “strong” – who do possess knowledge – will embolden the weak to eat idol meat.
So I suppose I’m at something of an intermediate position: I am persuaded, with Nanos & Garland, that Paul was against ANY (knowing) participation in idol-food; but I still think the “weak” may have been Christian converts.
I’m open to change my mind, though – I’ll have to keep thinking this through!
Matthew and Loren, what if the ‘weak’ were those on the periphery of the church, who maintained an allegiance to pagan institutions? Would this give us the advantages of Nanos’s view, while avoiding the objections?
Richard,
Not a bad suggestion. That would reduce objections about the term “brothers” and would allow perhaps for more realistic ambiguity. Were there insiders who had moved to “the periphery”, as you say, because they had begun associating with the world too much? Would the “weak” then refer to any Christians on the periphery and/or outsiders they’re associating with?
My principal reservation standing over this discussion is that I Cor 5:9-12 (where Christian “brothers” are in view) makes clear that insiders should be held to unbending standards while outsiders should be massaged in order to be won to the gospel efficiently (“don’t judge outsiders, only God does that”). Since Christian idolaters should be expelled from the assembly, the advice of I Cor 8 really can’t apply to them in particular. It must apply, in the most general terms, to pagans who stand as potential converts. In the company of such polytheists the Corinthians should neither be judgmental (“only God judges those outside”) nor exercise their freedoms indiscriminately.
And this makes sense, because Paul was candid about his willingness to become “all things to all men” in order to win them to the gospel.
This is a difficult one to judge: It does seem that, as Loren points out, Paul summons believers who are flirting with idolatry (or sexual immorality, or etc…) to cut it out or to be cut off.
On the other hand, there are a number of other issues in chs.8-14, in which Paul does ask those who have in-principle freedoms and rights to refrain from exercising these freedoms indiscriminately:
- Those who are exhibiting unhindered liberation in Christian worship are called to veil themselves for the sake of their husbands
- Those who are feasting in the Lord’s Supper are called to restrain themselves for the sake of fellow-believers who have little
- Those who speak in tongues are called to reduce and order their expression, for the sake of building up others in the ekklesia (and secondarily, in order to be comprehensible to outsiders)
Indeed, 8:1 begins by confronting the Corinthians with a choice between “puffed up knowledge” and “edifying love”. My inclination then is to view the issue in chapter 8 as fitting this pattern, of love-driven-restraint-for-the-sake-of-building-up-fellow-believers. The irony is that the strong are “building up” (8:10) brothers toward sin rather than in love.
I do feel the weight, though, of the point that Paul doesn’t want believers to have anything to do with idolatry, so there is a tension in understanding the “weak” as those who have ambiguous links to pagan institutions or uncertainty about the reality of idols…
Can you give a citation for Garland’s treatment. I can’t seem to find it here.
In Garland’s 2004 commentary, he has a section entitled “The Dispute over Food Sacrified to Idols” beginning on p347. The points I draw from this in my post above are not direct quotations, but attempt to sum up some of Garland’s points that seem particularly to carry weight. Hopefully I’ve represented him fairly – I think he’s worth a read.
Thanks, I’ll have to consult it carefully.
I am, however, a little concerned about the vagueness of “any conscious association with idols is absolutely off-limits for Christians.” What exactly is “any conscious association”? You can hardly eat meat at all back then without dealing with the fact it was sacrificed to some idol. But Paul was not a vegetarian (cf. Rom 14:1-2 and 15:1). IMHO, Paul was thinking of a more direct participation in idol cultic activity than merely eating the food that had been sacrificed.
I suppose the reason I say “conscious association” is because in chapter 10, Paul seems to allow the eating of any sort of food in an unbeliever’s home, unless it is made explicit that it is related to idols. I think this is for the reason you mention – that otherwise you could hardly eat meat at all. So Paul’s perspective seems to be that ignorance is bliss. Perhaps it would be better to say “intentional association with idols”
Great discussion. I think it is worth pursuing the question of the puffed up and the weak had social statuses in the world and in the church. Were the puffed up the opinion formers within the church of Corinth? Were the “weak” those who followed without necessarily understanding the reasons for things? Were the “weak” those who were baptized when the heads of their households converted, or when Crispus (the benefactor) converted? If the weak were indeed followers in this way, would this explain why Paul addresses only the puffed up (the opinion formers)?
Did the weak obey the rules of the church because they had to, rather than out of conviction? If so, their convictions may have been ambiguous.
The real original issue folks, was about priests sacrificing animals believing that it cleansed them from sin, when in reality it was the priest’s spirits that were ‘defiled’ (8:7). Sacrifice did not cleanse the spirit. The priest’s spirits were not ‘weak’, they were impure. The original writer avoided eating meat to encourage those to whom he was writing to avoid eating the meat that came from the temple, because he disagreed with the principle of animal sacrifices. You have the paulinised version for the later Gentile community.
If you look at 8:1, you might see a clue about the writer’s view of animals. I would render 8:1 as:
“Now about animals sacrificed to God: We understand that they all possess a spirit,”
Take 8:1b-8.5 as pauline interpolation. I then render 8:6 as:
“yet for us there is but one Spirit from whom all spirits came and by whom we live.”
In Jewish theology, every creature and moving thing, including a planet or the sun, was animated by the Spirit of God. Take 8:6b as pauline interpolation. I render 8:7 as:
“But priests do not understand this. Some priests are so accustomed to sacrifice that when they sacrifice animals they think of them as having no spirit since their conscience is weak.”
I suggest we originally had a prophetic type of writer observing a Noahic vegetarian covenant, and rejecting animal sacrifice because he saw animals as having God’s Spirit in them. He seems to be saying that some, like priests, regarded animals as not having a spirit because animals didn’t appear to know what was right or wrong. But there was another reason for rejection of animal sacrifices which appears in the crunch line of 8:8. I render 8:8 as:
“But sacrifice does not bring us near to God.”
Clearly the issue was related to what brought one ‘near to God’. I suggest it had nothing to do with what one ate, but with whether you sought cleansing by God’s spirit, or by sacrifice. ‘Food’ was substituted for sacrifice as the issue.