I have been doing some thinking around Paul’s understanding of knowledge being used and applied in loving ways. I am going to reproduce a large chunk (though not all) of a previous post I wrote on this by way of Gordon Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians. You can read that post and the related context here. However, the key bit I wanted to repost at length here is as follows:

Discussion over stumbling blocks and causing brothers or sisters to stumble crop up regularly in the church. Usually, it must be said, when one person doesn’t like what another person is doing. In a sly attempt to stop someone else doing what they believe they ought not to do, even though the Bible doesn’t directly say so, the ‘stumbling block principle’ gets invoked. Usually, in such circumstances, the view amounts to something like: I do not like what you are doing and so, because I don’t like it, you have to stop it lest you cause me to take offence. In his NICNT on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee addresses this very issue.

First, he is clear about the issue at hand in the Corinthian Church. You will need to read his full comment for yourself, but essentially he insists the issue in 1 Corinthians 8 concerning meat offered to idols is not simply a matter of food formerly offered to idols being sold in a marketplace. Rather, Paul is addressing those believers eating food as part of the cultic temple meals who, considering that idols are nothing, actively invite former idol worshippers previously involved in such temple worship to come with them. Fee suggests Paul is particularly concerned with those who formerly believed such idols to be real gods, who have since left such thinking behind, being encouraged back to thinking of these idols as real gods and, worse, drawn back into idol worship.

Second, Fee argues Paul is most concerned with love trumping freedom or rather not allowing Corinthians views of freedom to be exercised without love for their brothers and sisters. He suggests 1 Cor 8:9 references a Corinthian catch word and exousia (freedom/authority) means to them something close to ‘freedom to act as they please without restraint’. Fee says ‘for the Corinthians, “knowledge” (= insight) means “rights” to act in “freedom.” Thus for them freedom became the highest good, since it led to the exaltation of the individual.’ Fee goes on to note that ‘not only do they want to “free” some of their brothers and sisters from what to them is their current bondage to false notions about “gods”… but also their view of exousia has led them to question Paul’s own apostleship and freedom since he does not act with the boldness of such “authority”.’

Third, from 1 Cor 8:10, Fee insists we learn three key things. First, those with “knowledge” are going to the cultic meals in the temple dining halls and this is the specific issue with which they are arguing against Paul. Second, they are encouraging others within the Christian community to take the same “knowledgeable” stance that they do and are actively encouraging those with weak consciences to join them at these meals. Third, the problem for those with weak consciences is not that they are “offended” by what the “knowledgeable ones” are doing but that they are being emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols. Fee says, ‘it is not the food that destroys them, but the idolatry that is inherent in eating in the temples.’ Specifically an idolatry which they had previously left behind and which they are now being encouraged to entertain again.

Fourth, Fee argues the following:

In saying that the brother “is destroyed” Paul most likely is referring to eternal loss, not simply some internal “falling apart” because one is behaving contrary to the “dictates of conscience.” The latter idea is altogether too modern; and elsewhere in Paul this word invariably refers to eternal ruin. That seems to clinch the argument that real idolatry (i.e. eating cultic meals) is the issue at hand, not simply eating food that formerly had idolatrous associations. What is in view is a former idolator falling back into the grip of idolatry… For such people to return to idolatry means to come back under its power and thus suffer eternal loss.

Finally, Fee argues in relation to v13 that Paul then generalises the principle. So, the issue at hand is using your freedom to eat cultic meals in the temple, inviting former idolator involved in that worship to eat with you and causing those former idolators to fall back into their idolatry. In v13, he generalises that principle and insists if eating meat at all would destroy a brother or sister this way, then out of love for them, he would never eat meat again. It is a principle of love over freedom; my freedom should not destroy others but love ought to cause me to set my freedom aside if it will cause someone to fall away.

Helpfully, Fee outlines what this means for the modern church. He says, ‘the issue is not that of “offending” someone in the church. It has to do with conduct that another would “emulate” - indeed, in this case is apparently being urged to emulate – to his or her own hurt’. He goes on to say the primary issue here is ‘people arguing for behaviour on the basis of knowledge and asserting their “authority/freedom” to the detriment of others… What would seem to be an illegitimate use of the principle, even in the broader terms of v13, is for those who feel “offended” to try to force all others to conform to their own idiosyncrasies or behaviour.’ He also notes that, in the church, the ‘weaker brother principle’ is often applied to peripheral issues whereas in 1 Corinthians 8 it applies to a fundamental matter of idolatry that Paul later, in 1 Corinthians 10, tells even those who consider themselves ‘free’ that their behaviour is unethical. The situation is like using your “knowledge” and “freedom” in Christ i.e. antinomianism to get drunk and encouraging a former alcoholic who has since become a believer to apply the same “knowledge” and “freedom” to get drunk with you knowing the real possibility that your drunkenness may not take hold of you, but it very may well destroy your brother.

I think these things are particularly helpful to us in understanding how to apply this weaker brother principle in the church. All too often, the weaker brother principle is used against those who believe one course of action to be legitimate and another group does not. The ones who insist it is not demand the “stronger” group desist. Clearly, in 1 Corinthians 8, the principle is about encouraging people into behaviour that they do not believe is legitimate and, worse, doing so in such a way they are likely to fall away from Christ as a result. Unless you are being encouraged into a particular behaviour against your conscience and there is a chance you will end up undermining your faith in a catastrophic way, the weaker brother principle is not really at play.

It has, sadly, become something of a power-play in the church to demand anyone who does anything I wish they wouldn’t to desist for my sake. Not because I am in any danger of doing it myself, nor because my faith in Christ will in any way be undermined by it, but simply because I don’t like it and want to force conformity to what I believe to be biblical. Such statements and references to the “weaker brother” almost always show such a person is not a weaker brother. They are in no danger of emulating what they consider to be ungodly nor is there much chance they will renounce Christ because of it. Nobody’s conscience is seared because someone else does what they think ought not to be done; consciences are seared when what one thinks ought not to be done they are encouraged, even forced, to do and run the risk that they will undermine their faith by returning to their old way of life as a result.

In one sense, the principle Paul outlines in 1 Corinthians 8 is simple enough: love before freedom. I will set aside my freedom out of love for my brother or sister. I will not act – even in entirely legitimate ways – if I know it will harm my brother or sister in some way. At this level, Paul’s principle is pretty straightforward.

At a more specific level, it becomes difficult. The issue in 1 Corinthians 8 is specifically about using your freedom in such ways that it will lead others to renounce their faith altogether. It is pointedly NOT about what may offend you or what you may not like. It is NOT about limiting my freedom because you believe what I am doing is sinful despite there being no danger you will do it yourself. It is about using my knowledge and sense of freedom to encourage you to do what will work to your harm, particularly so far as your walk with Jesus is concerned and perhaps even more specifically so far as your being a believer at all is concerned. In essence, if the exercise of my freedom will lead you to idolatry, faith-ending persistent sin or the renunciation of your Christian faith then my freedom ought to be set aside,

In practice, as Fee notes, churches often only consider this issue at the fringe of church life whereas in Corinth it went to the heart of faith. Questions about whether it is okay to drink when others don’t like it or your preferred use of Sunday when others demur do not really cut to the heart of the issue. Not least as elsewhere, in Romans 14, Paul is adamant that such things are matters of personal conscience and encourages the Romans to ‘accept one another in love’. His position over fringe matters of freedom is not that the stronger set aside their freedom, but that both stronger and weaker stop judging one another on matters that are far from faith-ending. In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul’s concern is more about behaviour and the exercise of freedom that is doing real damage to the heart of the onlooker’s faith.

Perhaps we can see the issue most clearly when we understand the Corinthians statement, that Paul quotes, ‘all things are permissible’. What lies behind that statement is a heavy emphasis on ‘all things’. It was an antinomianism that, if accepted lock-stock, would mean the end of any meaningful relationship with Jesus or credible recognition of his Lordship. In a bid to live in light of their knowledge that in Christ all things are permissible, the Corinthians were essentially doing what they ought not to do and encouraging others into the same. The narrow issue of what meat one eats was permissible, but the context of their eating in the pagan temples was not and the encouraging of others to join them despite their pagan backgrounds was tantamount to encouraging them back to their former unbelieving lifestyles and not permissible either. This is the unloving behaviour Paul says is not an accceptable use of freedom and if the Corinthians were truly knowledgeable, they would know it!

Perhaps, when looking to apply 1 Corinthians 8, the direction we ought to be looking is towards those of us with a tendency to promote antinomianism and, more likely in evangelical circles, cheap grace. We may not be saying to people that their sin doesn’t matter at all, but we promote a view of grace that it is cheap and relatively inconsequential and, as a result, our behaviour of little consequence that can simply be repented of simply, quickly and without any real concern later. Whilst some who (whether knowingly or unknowingly) promote such a view of grace are still saved, there can be little doubt that some who follow their behaviour and approach may easily be captured by the sin that they indulge and then takes hold. A handwaving reference to ‘Jesus understands’ or ‘Jesus covers that’ is not really repentance. The freedom we have in Christ that comes in this guise may well be the kind of faith-ending behaviour that Paul had in mind.