Paul’s discussions on meat sacrificed to idols and observance of special days (Rom. 14; I Cor. 8-10) have been rolling around in my head for a while. There’s some good fodder for contemplation in those chapters: there will always be differences between the ways that godly believers apply Scriptures. Some people have “higher standards” – others have “more liberty.” This came to the forefront of my mind when a friend recently asked for my thoughts on those passages. I dug up an old email I had sent; here is that note (slightly updated).
In Rom. 14 and I Cor. 8-10, Paul doesn’t seem to think that either group (“higher standards” or “more liberty”) should try to change the other – his instruction points toward getting along in love, not “helping them understand their freedom” or “waiting for them to learn more Scripture and realize why they should quit doing that.” I’ve thought a few times about the current popular view of that passage and the resulting application, and I believe that the definition of skandalon (translated “stumbling-block” or “offense”) is key to understanding these chapters rightly.
My experience is that the common understanding of I Cor. 8-10 (and Rom. 14) is “you shouldn’t do anything that your brother would consider sinful, because Paul says don’t offend your brother.” Is “doing anything that my brother would consider sinful” the definition of stumbling-block? No. From what I can tell from Paul’s use of skandalon in the passage, its context-specific meaning here seems to be “causing someone to actively violate his conscience by following your example.” In the future, I hope to chase that word through the NT and see how Paul and others used it in different contexts, but if this understanding is correct, then the correct application of the passage is significantly different from the common application.
If, as I suggest, stumbling-block involves a conscience-violating action, then the type of preaching-teaching that says “live by the highest standard possible so that your choices don’t violate someone else’s conscience” becomes a man-made regulation, not the outflow of correctly understanding the Scripture. When skandalon is defined as an action that violates the active follower’s conscience, then it’s actually fine for me live in the bounds of Scripture and my conscience in any area, as no one “weaker” follows my example and violates his own conscience.
This understanding seems, in my view, to explain why Paul chose the word “weak” to describe the offense-prone believer. He’s not saying that higher standards make you weak; he’s saying that the inability to strongly stand by your conscience and conviction makes you weak. (Please pardon the following examples if you must – they are deliberately chosen and worded to avoid conflict.) If a lady has dress standards that don’t permit her to wear pants and a strong character, then other ladies can wear pants around her without causing offense because she’s not weak (even though her standards are higher than average). On the other hand, a Christian with a conviction against television who lacks strength of character would be prone to suppress his conscience and watch TV in another believer’s house – he is weak, he violated his conscience by watching TV and the other believer set a stumbling-block (though perhaps unwittingly and innocently). Of course, the over-riding liberty-limiter is not “how well I know my brother’s strength and how much I think I can do,” but rather, love that is fervently unwilling to cause an offense (unknowingly or not) to a brother.
I’m also discussing this with a few seminary friends and will probably post more as I come up with more questions and refine my understanding.
For now, though, I’d love to get some feedback on these thoughts – please feel free to comment below or send me an email!