UNDERSTANDING I CORINTHIANS 10:29-30

There have been two issues bothering me concerning the whole subject of dealing with other believers who disagree on certain practices for moral reasons. The first concerns Paul's conclusion to his extensive discussion, found in I Corinthians 8 and 10 on eating meat that has been offered to idols. After spilling much ink teaching that we must bend over backwards avoiding actions that might cause weaker brothers to stumble, he paradoxically reverses gears in 10:29b-30 by saying that our freedom in Christ should not be hampered by another's conscience. I was gratified to find that I am not the only one who sees a problem here. Gordon Fee calls these verses a sudden and apparent non sequitur. And Marsh says, “Vv. 29b and 30 seem to be out of sympathy with Paul's preceding statement.”

The second sticking issue concerns an apparent inconsistency in Paul's actions recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter has withdrawn from table fellowship with the Gentile believers at Antioch when a group of Jewish Christians from Jerusalem arrives. In doing so in order not to offend their sensibilities regarding eating with Gentiles, he seems to be following Paul's advice in I Corinthians. But for some reason Paul bawls him out in front of the whole church instead. Again, I was pleased to see that Orr and Walther reached the same conclusion. They call the distinction between Paul's teachings in I Corinthians and his actions in Galatians “a nice one.”

Apparent Inconsistency Within I Corinthians 10

This discussion begins with the question as to how vv. 29b-30 fits within the scope of its immediate context since it appears to strike out in a new direction. Fee explains that these verses deal more with the subject of a Christian's freedom than with his voluntary limiting of that freedom to avoid offending others. In other words, it looks back to vv. 25-26. The flow of Paul's thought is thus best described as a chiasm:

A. Criterion: the good of others (vv. 23-24)

        B. Personal freedom in regard to food (vv. 25-27)

                C. Illustration (vv. 28-29a)

        B'. Personal freedom defended (vv. 29b-30)

A'. Criterion generalized: salvation of others (vv. 31-33)

This understanding is in line with the way RSV places vv. 28-29a in brackets in spite of the fact that Marsh states that “little is gained by such a reconstruction.”

Fee says that the rhetoric in verses 29b-30 “has created a notorious crux for interpreters. A variety of solutions has been offered, none of which is fully satisfactory.” He lists five possibilities offered by others to resolve the issue. I won't offer any comments on the first two.

    1. It is an interpolated passage from another author.

    2. Paul is simply quoting an objection from one of the “strong” Christians, but it does not represent Paul's own thoughts.

    3. Paul is warning the “weak” not to take advantage of the forbearance of the strong.

    4. This is a rhetorical way of stating that he who limits is freedom for the sake of others has not lost his own freedom in those matters.

    5. It is a rhetorical question meaning “What good end will be served by eating meat?”

Solution 3: Fee feels that Paul concludes his discussion of the whole subject by breaking out against those who have judged him for eating meat offered to idols in his own house. “If he eats, he does so in light of the benediction alluded to in v. 26, and he is not to be condemned by anyone.”

Solution 4: Lowery states, “A knowledgeable Christian did not need to alter his convictions to accord with the conscience of a weaker brother, but he did need to alter his behavior when in the weaker brother's presence. Otherwise the weak brother might act against his conscience and harm himself, which would bring denunciation on the strong brother.”

Grosheide: “The fact that the one may have objection to the eating of sacrificial meat has no significance for another who is strong...On the contrary such a conscience remains free, whether the person eats or does not eat.”

Orr and Walther add, “Paul is careful to make it clear that the principle of Christians freedom is not to be jeopardized. A free Christian...must not allow his own conscience to think that he is doing something evil by the mere act of eating the food.”

Solution 5: Marsh expresses this thought when he explains that hinat (“for why”) “never means 'by what right' but 'for what purpose'.” Thus he paraphrases 29b-30 as “What good end will be served by my eating under these circumstances, and exposing my freedoms to the censure of an unsympathetic conscience?”

Gundry-Volf offers a good conclusion to this issue when he says that “personal integrity is not endangered by violation of another's conscience...the conscience may give a positive verdict on a particular behavior as such, but that verdict does not suffice as a justification for engaging in that behavior...The 'strong' ignore this truth when they eat meat offered to idols in the presence of the weak...the conscience's verdict on a particular behavior in a concrete situation must be heard...before one can engage in that behavior and claim conscience as a witness to its rightness.”

Apparent Inconsistency Between I Corinthians 10 and Galatians 2:11-14

As with the previous question, scholars have approached this issue of Paul's apparent inconsistency in slightly different ways:

Donald Guthrie: “He [Peter] probably thought that compromise was the best solution, both Jews and Gentiles keeping respectively to their own customs. But Paul saw with acute penetration that this was no solution at all.”

Bruce: Cephas would have said that he was being considerate of his weaker brothers. “the trouble was, however, that Cephas' concern for the weaker brethren in Jerusalem conflicted with Paul's concern for the Gentile brethren in Antioch, who were being made to feel like second-class citizens...But for Paul the liberty of the Gentiles was endangered by their actions as surely as it was by the intrusion of the false brethren mentioned in v. 4.”

Stott: The truth of the gospel message itself was at stake here. Peter's motive for his actions is clearly stated to be fear of the delegation from Jerusalem, not love.

Orr and Walther: “Paul's encounter with Cephas at Antioch provides an instructive illustration. It might be argued that Paul did not have regard for Cephas' conscience in that encounter but Paul evidently did not think the point involved danger to the weak conscience of another but rather his own freedom.”

Jerusalem Bible: “Peter's conduct was not in itself blameworthy, and in different circumstances Paul was to do the same, Ac 16:3; 21:26; I Co 8:13; Rm 14:21; cf. I Co 9:20. But on this occasion such a policy suggested that the only true Christians were converted Jews who observed the Law, and threatened to produce two separate communities that could not even meet to celebrate the Eucharist.”

Despite some of the attempts above to excuse Peter's actions, Stott is correct in pointing out that the text clearly states that it was fear of the Judaizers which caused him to act in the way that he did. As to whether the Jerusalem Bible is correct in stating that Paul did the same thing on various occasions, here is a quick review of the passages it cites:

    Acts 16:3 – Paul has Timothy circumcised so that his evangelistic efforts with the Jews will not be hindered. However, Timothy was a half-Jew and so this was not a case of having a Gentile circumcised because that would have actually had a negative effect on their attempts to teach the true gospel of grace.

    Acts 21:26 – Paul as a Jew has no problem taking part in a Jewish ceremony. But the previous verse makes it clear that Gentile Christians, in contrast, do not need to be circumcised but only observe those laws that would hinder table fellowship with Jewish believers. This is the totally opposite situation as that in Galatians 2 where Peter's actions led to the complete table separation of the two groups.

    I Corinthians 8:13 – This teaching is in perfect alignment with all of Romans 14 and its words concerning weaker brothers. But everything depends on one's definition of strong and weak in this context, as Friesen demonstrates below.

    Romans 14:21 – Again, this passage concerns our actions toward “weaker” brothers only.

The entire last chapter of Gary Friesen's excellent book Decision Making and the Will of God is devoted to a discussion of how we are to act toward “weak Christians,” “strong Christians,” and Pharisees. His useful distinction between the three categories does much to clarify the events related in Galatians 2.

    Weak Christian: “a Christian who, because of the weakness of his faith, knowledge, conscience, and will, can be influenced to sin against his conscience by the example of a differing stronger brother.”

    Strong Christian: “a Christian who, because of his understanding of Christian freedom and the strength of his conviction, exercises his liberty with full peace of conscience without being improperly influenced by the differing opinions of others.”

    Pharisee: “He is fully convinced and proud. He has been taught, but is not open to correction. He judges or rejects me for my differing conviction and seeks to make me conform to his viewpoint. He becomes upset by my use of freedom.”

Keeping these definitions in mind, one can easily see that Paul's comments in Romans 14 are addressed to the strong Christians regarding their actions in the presence of weaker believers (converted Gentiles). In stark contrast to this situation, Galatians 2 describes the false actions of a strong believer (Peter) in the presence of both weak Christians and Pharisees (i.e. the Judaizers from Jerusalem). Peter's error in this case was to be solely concerned with how the Judaizers would view him personally whereas Paul's more appropriate concern was on the effect Peter's actions would have on the weaker brothers in Antioch. After all, there was little chance that Peter, or anyone else, could have changed the visitors' minds on the matter, and certainly not by simply giving in to their prejudices.

When I was growing up, the common teaching from the pulpit and Sunday school usually started out with the rhetorical question: “What will people think if they see you doing [fill in your own blank]?” But in every case that I can think of, their subsequent examples would always referred to the effect of our actions on non-believers. Not that I don't believe this is an important consideration, but it certainly wasn't what Paul had in mind in I Corinthians.

The behaviors that were usually highlighted back then were those such as going to the movies, playing cards, dancing, holding hands with those of the opposite sex, going swimming where boys and girls were both present, etc. However, it was obvious to me even back then that these teachers and preachers were in fact the weaker brothers and Pharisees illustrated in the I Corinthians and Galatians passages described above since they were the only ones who would have been upset with such actions that non-Christians and most other Christians would find totally innocuous.