Other interpreters have gone back and forth about whether the strong and weak correspond roughly to Jews or Gentiles, and if so, which is which. On the one hand, the strong are said to know that there is no God but one (1 Cor 8:4), which sounds an awful lot like the central affirmation of Israel’s monotheism in the Shema of Deut 6:4. It’s the strong who are said to know that, so the strong are identical with Jewish believers in Corinth–or so it is often thought. That’s corroborated by Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 8:7 that the weak have a close association with the practice of idol worship from the time before their conversion. On the other hand, some point out that it was Jews who were accustomed not to eat idol meat, so it would make sense that they would be the so-called weak ones with a conscience strongly opposed to idolatry and the eating of idol meat.

I find the latter suggestion that believing Jews would follow the lead of converted Gentiles, even against their own consciences in the matter of eating idol meat, to be implausible. I don’t think the weak were eating against their consciences in any event, but even on the more common view that the weak are ignoring their pangs of conscience and eating anyway, I don’t think the identification of the weak with Jewish believers is plausible. In 1 Cor 8:4, 7, Paul seems to indicate clearly that the strong have Deut 6:4 drilled into their heads and do not have any prior association with idolatry. Sounds like Jewish believers to me.

We make even more progress toward identifying the weak and strong when we stop trying to interpret the passage in strictly Jew/Gentile terms and realize that the weak have an unformed conscience on the matter of idolatry. They are the newer members of the church, and they obviously haven’t yet finished their new members’ or inquirer’s class. We know that Paul’s usual pattern of evangelization was to go to the Jews first, in the synagogue, and that he followed the same pattern in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:1-4). We know that Paul baptized only a few new believers in Corinth, probably the first ones to respond favorably to his message, and we know that among these was the ruler of the synagogue himself, a certain Crispus (cf. Acts 18:8; 1 Cor 1:14). It does seem very likely, therefore, that the earliest members of the church in Corinth were Jews, and that conclusion coheres with the well-grounded monotheism of the strong that allows them to eat idol meat without crossing into idolatry.

The fact that the Jews were the senior members of the church, and that Christian faith and practice grows organically out of God’s revelation to the patriarchs and Israel, explains why newer pagan converts would follow the lead of the Jewish leaders of the church. The pagans never had any scruple against idolatry, and they were certainly accustomed to eating meat sacrificed to idols. Polytheistic syncretism and civic religion were normal in that time and place. So, when the pagan converts saw the Jewish believers eating idol meat, they understood them as participating in the worship of the local gods and figured it must be OK for all Christians to do so. They ate without giving it a second thought.

I can just imagine the stunned silence when one of these newish converts innocently asked, after the Christians had eaten the Lord’s Supper in their helter-skelter manner, if they should all pour out a libation to Apollo. Something like that would explain how the misunderstanding of the weak came to be known in the church and ultimately to Paul. Probably in such a situation, the strong would have instructed the weak more carefully, imparting to them the same knowledge that allowed the strong to eat idol meat without guilt. But if the strong didn’t make a dramatic about-face–in the face of such a catastrophic misunderstanding, if they didn’t do everything possible to make sure no one else would misunderstand them, even abstaining from eating idol meat if need be–then they were not acting out of love for God or neighbor.

This interpretation is distinguished from others by understanding the weak as happy and willing idolaters and also by the way it shows Paul’s coherent train of thought in 1 Corinthians 8-10. Idol meat as such is never the issue. The issue is always faithfulness to the one true God; that requires Christians to worship only him and also to make sure everyone knows that all people must worship only him, whether new believers or unbelievers. Christians must not put any stumbling blocks in people’s way, either as an obstacle to faith (for monotheistic Jews who do not yet believe) or as just one more dish on the menu of religions (for idolatrous pagans). Love for God and neighbor. If you read 1 Cor 8-10 with these two principles in mind, you may have a new appreciation for the consistency and power of Paul’s overarching pastoral concern.

Second–and this is the real gem–he is giving away PDFs of exegetical notes for each book of the Bible, mainly his own keen observations, and also comments from grammars, lexicons, and so forth. You can print them out and make a little booklet out of them to carry with you as you read through the Greek New Testament this year.

Irons’ system is intended to be used with The UBS Greek New Testament: A Reader’s Edition, which has the text of UBS4 and a running dictionary of uncommon words along the bottom of each page–fully parsed in case you get stuck. In the back is a dictionary of all the rest of the words in the Greek NT, so you’re covered no matter how small your vocabulary is.

I used Irons’ system sporadically last year, but this year I’ve been faithfully setting aside about 30 minutes every day and am all caught up, ready to read the second half of Matthew 13 today. Thanks, Lee!

Since the site is aimed at the general public, they are asking all people who have any interest in the project and its eventual content–other than scholars who specialize in biblical studies–to complete a questionnaire about how familiar they are with the Bible and how interested they would be in articles about various people, places, and topics. It’s a quick one-pager, so I encourage you to answer the questionnaire.

The weak are called weak because, according to 1 Corinthians 8:7, they have a weak conscience. The conscience doesn’t only judge past actions; it also recommends against or in favor of actions that are being contemplated. The weak do not really know that there is no God but one and that the pagan gods must not be worshiped, and so their Christian conscience is immature and uninformed. It is not strong enough to recommend against worshiping idols–hardly surprising since that was the cultural norm in their day.

The scenario I propose here explains what it means to have a weak conscience and also how their conscience then becomes defiled through the act of gladly participating in idolatry. An unformed, or weak, conscience is unable to guide them correctly. It is not fully developed and sensitive to danger. It is not sufficiently knowledgeable about essential Christian doctrine. And now, seeing their Christian leaders doing something that, to them, looks like participating in the worship of idols, they come to believe that idol worship is compatible with, or perhaps even complements, their Christian faith. They eat idol meat too and think of themselves as worshiping the pagan gods, and then later in the week they meet with the rest of the Christian church for fellowship and worship of the one true God, never giving it a second thought.

What was once a weak conscience has now become a broken conscience, a defiled conscience, a conscience that is not merely unformed but malformed. Worse than not informing them clearly or strongly enough, their conscience now misinforms them and allows them to walk blithely down an idolatrous path that will lead to their destruction (1 Cor 8:11-13). A study of the word to defile (μολύνω) will show that it doesn’t connote guilty feelings but moral pollution from actually doing what God has prohibited, including worshiping idols.

Christians with a weak conscience are sheep who need a shepherd; the strong should have been their shepherds. Christians with a defiled conscience are sheep who were eaten by wolves while the shepherds went back home to dine on filets mignons from the pagan temple butcher shop.

The strong are the more senior Christians. They are more mature than the weak in terms of their knowledge. They know some things correctly:

• there is no God but one;
• pagan gods don’t really exist;
• Christians must not worship idols;
• meat is just meat, acceptable as food for Christians even if it comes from an animal sacrificed to an idol.

Yet, they are just as immature as the weak in another important way. They don’t show brotherly or pastoral love for the weak. They are inconsiderate of the spiritual wellbeing of those around them, which is what God himself really cares about. On the question of meat sacrificed to idols, they stop thinking when they reach the conclusion that meat is just meat, and that it is OK for them to eat. They can still be right with God even if they eat idol meat. Paul wants them to be more thoughtful than that and to consider how their actions are being misinterpreted by the people around them, their junior Christian brothers and sisters and unconverted pagans or Jews, who assume that eating idol meat is tantamount to worshiping the idol, and that therefore it is acceptable for Christians to participate in idol worship in this limited way.

Paul says no! to the actions of the strong and to the idolatrous error in thought and action of the weak. That is what 1 Corinthians 8-10 is all about:

• In chapter 8, he gives his understanding of the situation and chastises the strong for their general attitude of thoughtlessness.
• In chapter 9, Paul offers himself as an example of pastoral concern for the strong to emulate. His priorities and actions are controlled by love and concern for all people, both believers and those who are lost. In this, Paul is aligned with God’s own priorities and will, and it is actually love for God that fosters in Paul this love and concern for other people.
• In chapter 10, he sternly warns his readers about the dangers of idolatry. This has the effect of rebuking the strong for their indifference to the idolatry of the weak and also correcting the serious error of the weak.

The cohesion of these three chapters and their clear flow of thought is what makes this interpretation so compelling to me. Many other interpreters struggle to make sense of the three chapters in relation to each other, and it is not at all uncommon for people to claim that they are irreconcilable, being riddled with contradictions. For example, in 1 Cor 8:4, Paul says that an idol has no real existence and in verse 8 that eating idol meat is a matter of indifference. But, in 10:20-21, he says that pagans sacrifice their meat to demons and that eating it is idolatry. Which is it, Paul? Are idols nothing or are they demons? Is eating their sacrificial meat a matter of indifference or is it idolatry?

As I’ve tried to show, anyone who thinks these passages are contradictory simply hasn’t understood them adequately. In metaphysical or spiritual reality, idols are nothing and meat is just meat, a matter of indifference. The strong are correct about that. In social reality, however, some people think that pagan gods are real and that eating sacrificial meat is an act of worship. Christians are permitted by God to eat meat, but not if it will misrepresent Christian faith and practice to people who are not informed about it, such as immature Christians or unbelievers. The person who gladly worships an idol is committing a grave sin that leads to defilement and destruction in metaphysical reality. The strong are right in the abstract, about the metaphysics of idols and the ethical implications of eating meat; they now need to adapt and apply that understanding to the real world of personal relationships. Paul concludes the topic with an exhortation that summarizes everything he has said in 1 Corinthians 8-10:

So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 ESV)

This is not, I don’t think, a guilty conscience. Their conscience goes through two stages, first weak, then defiled. Neither of those has to do with feelings of guilt.

The weak are not doing something they think is wrong. The word συνείδησις comes from a Greek compound meaning knowledge-with, just like it does in Latin: con-scientia, knowledge-with. You may be asking, “knowledge with what or with whom?” and the answer is, with self, with society, or with God. Your conscience keeps you informed about the rightness or wrongness of some action that you did in the past or that you’re contemplating in the future, based on your own, society’s, and God’s values and norms. A person with a guilty conscience is a person whose knowledge of having done something wrong–in the past–gives rise to feelings of guilt. Paul does not say in verse 7 that the weak have a guilty conscience about having done something in the past but that they have a weak (ἀσθενής) conscience that becomes defiled when they eat idol meat:

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. (1 Corinthians 8:7 ESV)

Let’s analyze what is happening when a weak brother eats idol meat. First, the weak do not possess this knowledge about the non-existence of pagan gods (verses 4-6). At no point in this scenario does a weaker brother really grasp the fact that there is no God but one and that meat is just meat, which the strong understand correctly. Second, “through former association,” the weak person eats the idol meat thinking that he is somehow participating in the worship of the idol in a real way. Third, concurrent with his eating, his conscience is weak. Fourth, as a result of his decision to eat, his conscience becomes defiled.

Some may think that the conscience was weak at first in the sense that it didn’t sound an alarm loud enough to keep the person from doing something he would later feel really guilty about. So he ate. Afterwards, though, he became wracked with guilt, and that’s what Paul means when he says that the weak conscience becomes defiled. A defiled conscience is a guilty conscience, on that view.

But if that’s all this is about, why aren’t Paul’s words in verses 4-6 enough to solve the problem? If the weak are suffering from guilt feelings needlessly, just because they don’t know the truth about God, idols, and meat, then why not just fill them in and offer some comfort and assurance? If the weak brothers actually had a strong scruple against worshiping idols all along; if at the time they ate they were not sinning against their own conscience by doing something they thought wrong (the conscience was then weak, after all); and, if they only developed a feeling of guilty defilement upon later reflection, thinking incorrectly that idols are somehow real and that eating sacrificial meat somehow implicates them in idolatry, even against their will–then why doesn’t Paul just speak to the weak Christians and set them straight? In that scenario, in fact, they haven’t done anything wrong whatsoever! And how could the strong possibly make life decisions based on what someone else might emulate and later feel privately and needlessly guilty about?

I’m not buying it. Paul doesn’t instruct, comfort, and assure the weak in 1 Corinthians 8. In fact, if we take chapter 8 by itself, it appears that he says nothing at all to these supposedly guilt-wracked Christians. Something much more serious is taking place, and both the weak and the strong are truly guilty of very grave sin. In 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul will address both.

Here’s what I think was happening. I think the weak Christians are recent converts from paganism who misinterpret the actions of the strong as a sign that Christianity is just a syncretistic polytheistic religion like most of the others they would have known in Corinth: Christ is just another god to add to the pantheon of the first-century Mediterranean world. The weak were participating in idolatry knowingly and in good–that’s right, good–conscience because they were inadequately instructed about Christian monotheism. The strong could have and should have realized this, at least by the time Paul comes to learn of it, and yet they apparently do nothing to counteract the wrong signals their eating idol meat is sending to their newest brothers and sisters and the unconverted pagans around them.

That would explain an awful lot of the exegetical problems in 1 Cor 8-10. I’ll say how in my next post.

In 1 Cor 8-10, Paul gives his Christian readers or hearers instructions about eating food that had been sacrificed to pagan idols. In Corinth, the main issue Paul is concerned about isn’t whether they do or don’t eat but how their choice reflects their underlying thought and attitude: what do they believe about God in relation to pagan idols, and does their choice show that they really love and care for the people around them? He leads off in 1 Cor 8:1-3 by contrasting two kinds of knowledge, abstract knowledge and relational knowledge (characterized by love):

Now concerning food offered to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” This “knowledge” puffs up, but love builds up. If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by God. (1 Corinthians 8:1-3 ESV)

Paul wants the Corinthian Christians’ actions to be informed not only by impersonal abstract knowledge but primarily by God’s love for them and their love for him and each other. As we shall see beginning in verse 7, some in the church had been eating meat sacrificed to idols with no regard for how it would affect the spiritual wellbeing of the people around them, and the problem didn’t lie in the fact that they were eating the meat, but the way it was influencing the thought and action of others.

Before we get to verse 7, however, in verses 4-6 Paul elaborates on the impersonal abstract knowledge that has led some in the church to eat sacrificial meat without any regard for how it would affect others:

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth–as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”– yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6 ESV)

As you can see, some Christians reasoned, correctly according to Paul, that there is no God but one. The pagan gods of the ancient Mediterranean world aren’t competitors to God since they don’t really exist in the first place. Some of these believers may have thought that the clearest way they could show their disbelief in and disregard for pagan gods was freely to eat the meat, showing total indifference to its association with a cult sacrifice. After all, an idol is nothing, but meat is given as food by the one who is God indeed, the God whom Christians know and love.

Whatever their own motivations might have been, Paul makes it clear that they feel free to eat because they know idols are nothing, but they act on the basis of this knowledge with nary a care about whether other people know the same thing. Paul’s concern is that other people, who don’t have the same degree of confident knowledge that the pagan gods do not exist, will see these Christians eating idol meat and interpret their action in light of some other belief or so-called knowledge–and that is where all kinds of trouble starts.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to continue writing now, so I’ll have to continue with this later. Check back soon for the next exciting installment of … STRONG AND WEAK CONSCIENCES IN CORINTH!