B. The weak brother (8:7–13)
B. The weak brother (8:7–13)
Paul has more than one thing to say about idolatry. He sees it, for example, as an evil from which believers must flee and as anassociation with demons (10:14, 20). But his first point is that Christian love means that in this as in other matters strong Christians must act with consideration for the weak.
7. Paul has been speaking of the knowledge that enables a believer to see an idol as ‘nothing at all’. Now he makes the point that such knowledge is not universal among Christians. There is no contradiction with v. 1. There Paul said that knowledge was not confined to the Corinthian élite; in principle it is open to every believer. But not every believer has risen to it and he now points to some who, from the habit of their pre-Christian days, were so accustomed to thinking of the idols as real that they could not completely shake off such thoughts. It is not unlike the situation in the modern mission field, where some converts find it very hard to rid themselves completely of a belief in witchcraft (to say nothing of the superstitions that linger on even in ‘enlightened’ communities!). At Corinth something of the old way of thinking persisted. When some people eat meat that has come from an idol temple their long-standing attitude to idols leads them to think that they are in some way participating in idolatry. Their conscience is weak, Paul says, and accordingly it is defiled. What one of the strong Corinthians might do without a tremor, fully assured that the idol is nothing, is a sin to the weaker brother.
8. But (the adversative de) the eating of any particular food is a very minor matter. Those who advocate eating food from the temples are not contending for some great principle (as Paul was when he stoutly refused to accept the necessity of circumcision). The eating of food is a thing indifferent. It does not bring us near to God, where the present tense points to what happens here and now (some MSS have the future; food will not bring us before God for praise or blame at the day of judgment). Eating food makes us no better and abstaining makes us no worse. It may be that Paul is quoting the Corinthians again. The strong perhaps held that the Christian should assert his freedom by eating what has been offered to an idol; it shows that he has a full understanding of the truth that an idol is nothing. As long as scruples hold him back, they may have said, he is a worse Christian, but when he eats he is a better one. If so, Paul is accepting what they say about food, but applying it the other way round. Eating does not matter either way. It must not be insisted on.
9. The person who insists on doing anything allowable has not learnt the Christian way of love. Every believer must have a concern for the weak. The strong at Corinth claimed their ‘right’ (the exercise of your freedom translates exousia, ‘authority’ or ‘right’); they could do as they pleased in the matter of idols. Paul reminds them that no Christian is at liberty to assert his ‘rights’ if that means doing harm to other people. A stumbling block (proskomma) is a stone in the pathway, an obstacle, something that trips one up and makes progress difficult. The actions of the strong must never be such as to offer a hindrance to the progress of the weak. What one person sees as right may well be quite wrong for another. No-one should try to force his standards of right and wrong on others, whose consciences react differently.
10. Paul points to the kind of thing that can happen. The man with knowledge is pictured as taking part in a meal in the temple of an idol, a common social practice. Many commentators draw attention to an invitation in the Oxyrhyncus papyri: ‘Chaeremon invites you to dine at the table of the lord Sarapis in the Sarapeion (i.e. temple of Sarapis) tomorrow …’ For the arrangements in a typical temple in Corinth see Figs. 1 and 2 (pp. 128, 129). Eating means ‘reclining at table’; the man is taking his ease in a place dedicated to an idol. Paul asks whether the weak person’s conscience will not be emboldened by this so that he will do the same. The verb is that translated ‘builds up’ in v. 1. The strong had evidently spoken of the necessity of ‘building up’ the weak by encouraging them to do such things. Paul takes up their word and points out the harm. ‘By setting such an example will you “build up” the weak brother? You will “build him up” only to destruction!’ (cf. Lenski, ‘A demolition calling itself edification’).
11. Paul brings out the consequences. The knowledge on which the strong pride themselves is the means of doing tremendous harm to the weak (the change to the participle may stress the continuing state of weakness). Is destroyed (apollytai) is a strong term (cf. Phillips, ‘bring spiritual disaster to’). The strong inflicts ruinous disaster on the weak by inducing him to sin where otherwise he would not. Paul is speaking of a present activity (the tense is present, not future): ‘It is not the man’s eternal perdition, but the stunting of his Christian life and usefulness’ (Bruce). The word order is unusual. Paul emphasizes ‘the brother for whose sake (di’ hon) Christ died’, by putting it right at the end. ‘The last clause could hardly be more forcible in its appeal; every word tells; “the brother,” not a mere stranger; “for the sake of whom,” precisely to rescue him from destruction; “Christ,” no less than He; “died,” no less than that’ (Robertson and Plummer).
FIG. 1. THE ASCLEPION AT CORINTH
This is the kind of idol temple with which the Corinthians would be familiar Notice the dining rooms.
FIG. 2. THE DINING ROOMS OF THE ASCLEPIO
Each of the three rooms could take eleven diners. Cooking was apparently done in the square space in the center of the room. The courtyard formed a ‘perfect little piazza’ which could be used by anyone and which gave access to the dining rooms (cf. 8:10). It is not completely certain that actual rooms were in use in the time of Paul, though it is probable. In any case there would have been a similar arrangement in the temples of his day genreally.
12. The harm done to the weak is bad enough, but even that is not the whole story. To sin against your brothers means nothing less than to sin against Christ (a lesson brought home to Paul long since, on the Damascus road, Acts 9:4f.). They are ‘in Christ’, and anything done against them is therefore done against him (cf. Matt. 25:42–45). There is a high dignity in being Christian. It is easy to look down on some church members as unimportant. But they are not so. No temple of the Holy Spirit (6:19) is unimportant. God lives in the weak. We must honour them as members of Christ, and beware of sinning against the Lord. Wound renders typtō, used metaphorically only here in the New Testament. Its customary use is for striking vigorous blows, for beating. The strong ‘hit’ the weak conscience, and thus do great harm.
13. Paul himself will do his utmost to see that he does not hinder the weak. In this context he might have confined himself to ‘meat offered to idols’, but he speaks simply of ‘food’ (NIV, what I eat). If need be he will become a vegetarian and never eat meat again. The important thing is not his own rights, nor his own comfort, but the well-being of the brotherhood. There is emphasis on brother; it occurs four times in the last three verses (NIV makes the last one him). Cause to fall renders skandalizō, a verb difficult to translate. It means something like ‘to set off a trap’ (from skandalon, used in 1:23, the bait stick, i.e. the stick that sets the trap in motion when a bird or animal touches it). It is used metaphorically for trouble of various kinds. Paul’s negative is the emphatic ou mē, and he follows it with ‘into the age’, i.e. the coming age. It is a strong expression for never.
The principle laid down in this chapter is one of great practical importance. It is always easy for the strong Christian to see no harm whatever in actions which the weak can only regard as sinful. While it would not be true to say that the robust Christianity of the New Testament envisages the strong as permanently shackled by the weak, yet the strong must always act towards the weak with consideration and Christian love. In cases like the one dealt with here the strong must adapt their behaviour to the conscience of the weak. No good purpose is served by asserting their ‘rights’ (cf. Paul’s treatment of the same general subject in Rom. 14).