SKANDALON 3 (d): 'scandalizing' weaker brethren

Paul also states this principle of mutual love in his letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, but goes on to apply it to two specific situations within these two churches. The two problems Paul addresses are parallel and treated in very similar ways, yet are distinct. Both churches contain mature Christians with stronger consciences and deeper understanding, and more recent converts with weaker consciences and less developed understanding, who are still bound by the taboos of their previous lifestyles which constrict their behaviour. In Rome, these converts seem to be from a Jewish background; they still regard the ceremonial law of Moses as binding, and so will not eat meat which is ‘unclean’ (which means that, to be on the safe side, they eat no meat at all), and continue to observe Jewish Sabbaths and holy days. At Corinth, the converts are from paganism, and, to mark their break with their past, they refuse to eat meat which has been offered to idols. Paul makes it quite clear that, in each church, these scruples are unnecessary. As a former Jew himself, he tells the Romans (14.4) that he is convinced that “no thing is unclean of itself” – the lesson Peter only learned after three ‘refusals’ in his vision at Joppa, referred to earlier. And he makes it clear to the Corinthians (1 Cor 8.4) that there is only one God, so that meat offered to non-gods is just meat. So how should more mature Christians with stronger consciences treat their ‘weaker brethren’? In each letter the principle of love is clearly spelt out: “Love is the fulfilment of the law” (Romans 13.10); “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor 8.1). And to each church Paul says that it is the mature Christians who need to show this love in their attitudes and in their behaviour: their weaker brethren may be untaught, but they are brethren for whom Christ died. So he tells the Romans (14.13): “we should no longer judge one another, but rather make this judgement, not to place any stumbling-block or trip-wire in the way of our brethren”. Here Paul uses not only ‘skandalon’ but also its synonym (in this usage) ‘proskomma’, which was briefly mentioned earlier, and will return again later. Literally, this means something you ‘bump into’ or ‘stub you toe against’ (John Stott, in his commentary on this passage, suggests ‘bark your shins on’). If a mature Christian by his example leads a ‘weaker brother’ to do something or eat something which his conscience tells him is wrong, he is causing that brother to stumble into sin. So, Paul concludes, it is better “not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything which may cause your brother to ‘trip up’ or ‘stub his toe’” – using (according to some MSS) the two verbs derived from ‘skandalon’ and ‘proskomma’. The aim of love should be to build up our brethren, not trip them up. To the Corinthians, Paul says much the same. He tells those who know full well that the pagan gods do not exist, and so are powerless, not to use the freedom their knowledge gives them to put a ‘stumbling-block’ (proskomma) in the way of those with weaker consciences. If they encourage their ‘weaker brethren’ to go against their consciences, they are sinning not only against them but against Christ (8.12). So, he concludes, using the same double negative we saw was so characteristic of Peter, “if the food I eat ‘scandalizes’ my brother, I will certainly not eat meat till the end of time” (another of Peter’s phrases – see John 13.8) “so that I may not ‘scandalize’ my brother” (8.13).