Adiaphora, a Study in Libertyand
its
Boundaries
by Jack Kettler
“Shew me thy
ways, O LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm
25:4)
In this study, we will look at
the biblical teaching regarding what is called
“adiaphora.” What does this mean? As in
previous studies, we will look at definitions,
scriptures, lexical evidence, commentary
evidence and confessional support for the
purpose to glorify God in how we live. Glorify
God always!
Adiaphora:
“Actions
or beliefs which are neither commanded nor
forbidden in scripture, and thus left to the
liberty of the conscience; issues of theology
or morals to which scripture does not speak
definitively.”*
Adiaphora:
“Teachings and practices that are
neither commanded nor forbidden in scripture.
An example might be whether or not to use a
sound-board in a church, to meet in a tent or
a building, to have two or more services or
simply one on the day of worship.” **
From Wikipedia:
In Pyrrhonism, “adiaphora”
indicates things, which cannot be logically
differentiated. Unlike in Stoicism, the term
has no specific connection to morality. In
Stoicism, “adiaphora” indicates actions that
morality neither mandates nor forbids. In the
context of Stoicism, “adiaphora” is usually
translated as “indifferents.”
When considering the above
definitions, one might ask, how could there be
disagreements on such seemingly trivial
matters. Simply said, adiaphora it could be
said is not majoring in minors.Unfortunately, what is obvious to some
is not oblivious to others. When considering
that a man has fallen sinful nature, majoring
in minors can quickly become the norm when
approaching seemingly matters of indifference.
From Scripture:
“But
meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if
we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat
not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by
any means this liberty of yours become a
stumblingblock to them that are weak. But take
heed lest by any means this liberty of yours
become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
For if any man see thee which hast knowledge
sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not
the conscience of him which is weak be
emboldened to eat those things which are
offered to idols; And through thy knowledge
shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ
died? But when ye sin so against the brethren,
and wound their weak conscience, ye sin
against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my
brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while
the world standeth, lest I make my brother to
offend.”(1 Corinthians 8:8-13)
When
looking at Scriptural evidence on the topic of
adiaphora, you find 1 Corinthians 8:8-13
frequently referenced. The following
commentary evidence will look at the issues
involved. Paramount, to this to this issue
will be the very real danger of causing a
weaker believer to stumble, and at the same
time in preserving real Christian liberty.
This side of heaven, majoring in minors can
become the cause of disagreements among
brothers, and even leading to church
conflicts. What is considered adiaphora to one
may not be to another. This is why there are
conflicts and offenses. The following
commentary evidence is not a digression or
going off topic; it is directly related to
differences among brothers to seeming
indifferent matters.
With
that said, the commentators will set explain
how the apostle Paul instructs believers on
how to not offend their brethren in matters of
dispute.
The New Testament
Commentary on 1 Corinthians 8:9-13:
4. Sin
8: 9–13
9. But
beware that this right of yours not become a
hindrance to those who are weak.
With an
adversative, Paul indicates that although he
agrees with the general sentiment of the
quotation (v. 8), he rejects the context in
which it is used. In preceding verses (vv.
1–2), he had told the Corinthians that
knowledge and love must go hand in hand.
Knowledge by itself results in arrogance, but
when it is accompanied by love, it edifies.
And Paul, discovering an absence of love in
the conduct of some Corinthians (compare Rom.
14:15), now registers a pastoral objection.
Paul
detects a dangerous attitude that will
undermine the unity of the church. He commands
the readers to beware of their own conduct. He
drafts the phrase this right of yours, in
which the pronoun this reflects a trace of his
dislike for the apparent haughtiness of some
Corinthians (see Luke 15:30). Moreover, this
is the second time the word weak occurs in
this chapter (see v. 7). If this expression
comes not from Paul but from these spiritually
strong Corinthians, a measure of arrogance
seems obvious. They aggressively claim for
themselves the right to Christian liberty.
However,
just
as knowledge without love produces pride, so
freedom without love generates arrogance. The
Corinthians have the right to assert their
freedom to eat food, for Paul himself teaches
that “no food is unclean in itself” (Rom.
14:14). Yet Christian liberty must always be
observed in the context of love for one’s
neighbor in general and the spiritually weak
brother or sister in particular.
The
right that a Christian legitimately exercises
should never become a hindrance to a fellow
believer. Paul uses the word stumbling block
to describe a specific obstacle a Christian
can place on someone’s pathway. And the
hindrance here is eating sacrificial meat,
which was an offense to others in the church.
The
freedom which a Christian enjoys must always
be asserted in the context of serving one
another in love (Gal. 5:13). His attitude
should not be a hindrance to the weaker
members of the church. Paul is not saying that
those who are weak take offense but rather
that those who are strong give offense. The
members who promote their right to be free are
exerting undue pressure on those whose
conscience restricts them from eating certain
kinds of meat. Paul, therefore, alerts the
freedom-loving Corinthians to demonstrate love
by not offending their fellow church members.
10. For
if someone sees you who have knowledge dining
in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience
of someone who is weak be emboldened so that
he will eat food offered to idols?
We make these observations:
a.
Dining. Taking a situation from daily life,
Paul envisions the possibility of a
spiritually strong Corinthian who sits and
eats in the temple of an idol. This believer
might be asked to come to a celebration held
in one of the many dining rooms of the temple.
There the meat of an animal sacrificed to an
idol would be consumed. He could reason that
the idol was nothing more than a piece of hewn
stone and the meat was ordinary food. His
faith in God remained strong. Further, he
would refuse to break bonds of family or
friendship. He would feel obligated to attend
a feast to which he was invited and would
consider the meal an occasion for fellowship
with relatives and friends. Because of his
firm knowledge of the Christian faith, he
would not see any harm in his presence at a
festive meal in a temple dining room.
Although
Paul
provides an illustration by using the singular
you, his intention is to portray the reality
of a common occurrence. The possibility is not
unreal that Erastus, for example, who was the
city’s director of public works in Corinth
(Rom. 16:23) and a member of the local church,
might attend such functions.
Maintaining
Christian
liberty, Paul does not reprove a person who
eats in a temple dining room. He correctly
observes that a spiritually strong believer is
not worshiping an idol but only enjoying the
company of family and friends. By contrast, in
a later passage (10:19–20) Paul comments on
idolatry and there delineates the sin of
worshiping an idol. Now he calls attention not
to the eating in a dining room but to the
effect this action may have on a weaker
brother. This action has the potential of
leading a weaker brother into idolatry.
b.
Conscience. The weak brother is probably not a
Jew, for a Jew would not think of entering a
temple to eat meat that was sacrificed to an
idol. Instead, the weak brother is likely a
Gentile who recently converted to
Christianity, whose spiritual knowledge is
limited, and whose conscience is weak. Paul
now asks the strong Christian a question that
probably conveys a touch of irony: “Does the
act of eating in a temple embolden the
conscience of the weaker brother?”
By his
conduct, the one who is strong is leading the
weak one; but the fact is that he leads his
brother astray. If a spiritually weak person
enters the dining room and eats, his
conscience is defiled instead of strengthened
(see v. 7). Hence, not the weak brother but
his weak conscience is emboldened. The inner
voice of his conscience no longer keeps him in
check. At the beginning of his discussion of
this subject, Paul noted that knowledge leads
to pride and love leads to edification (v. 1).
Paul now reiterates the same thought in
different words. Conduct without love and
consideration can be disastrous, especially
for the spiritually weak who follow the
example of the strong person to lead the way.
The full responsibility for the spiritual
health of the brother rests on the shoulders
of the person who has knowledge. His
inconsiderate conduct constitutes a sin
against Christ.
11. For
the weak brother for whom Christ died is
destroyed by your knowledge.
When
the weak brother eats sacrificial meat in a
pagan temple, he associates his act with idol
worship. His confidence is destroyed because
of his qualms of conscience. Instead of being
built up he is torn down. Paul looks at the
consequences of the conduct of the
knowledgeable brother who intentionally
overrides the objections that the weak brother
raises. Paul knows that the insensitive
conduct of the brother with knowledge destroys
“the weak brother for whom Christ died.”
What
the apostle is saying in this verse concerns
the spiritual life of the weak Christians.
Here is a threefold explanation of Paul’s
point of view:
First,
with the word order, Paul makes every word
count in this text; he stresses especially the
verbs to destroy and to die. These two verbs
are key words. In this sentence, the verb to
destroy is in the present tense to indicate
that the action already is occurring. The
weaker brother “is being destroyed.” With the
present tense, he conveys progressive action
but not the thought that the weak brother “has
been lost.”
Next,
the immediate context (v. 12) features the
verb to injure, wound in the present tense.
This verb is a synonym Paul uses to explain
the meaning of “to destroy.”
And
last, the parallel passage in Romans 14:15 and
its context shed light on the present verse.
“If your brother is distressed because of what
you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do
not by your eating destroy your brother for
whom Christ died.” If Christ paid the supreme
sacrifice by dying for this weak brother, then
the least a strong brother can do is to
demonstrate neighborly love to fellow
Christians by not eating certain foods. The
intent of this verse is to depict the contrast
between the death of Christ and the
callousness of the strong Corinthians.
Two
additional observations on this passage.
First, Paul is not teaching that a strong
Christian can cause a spiritually weak brother
to perish, for he writes “brother” instead of
“sinner” or “man.” He implies that Christ
continues to protect this person from harm and
will enable him to stand (Rom. 14:4). In
brief, loving this brother so much that he
died for him, Christ will also make him
withstand temptation. Second, some translators
introduce the helping verb could () or would
() to convey the probability of experiencing
ruin but not the actuality of being lost
eternally. The weak brother is stunted in his
spiritual growth by the lack of love from
fellow Christians. Nonetheless, Christ has
redeemed and sanctified him (1:2) and regards
him as his brother (compare Heb. 2:10–11).
Paul no
longer speaks in generalities but addresses
the strong Corinthians personally. He writes,
“your knowledge,” and calls attention to the
loveless attitude of these Corinthians who are
puffed up by knowledge (v. 1). Also, the use
of the personal pronoun you seems to reveal
that the current problem involved a number of
people. By contrasting Christ’s death—as an
illustration of the greatest love
imaginable—with the loveless knowledge of some
Corinthians, Paul encourages his readers to
express their love to the weaker members of
the church.
12.
Thus you sin against Christ by sinning against
your brothers and by wounding their weak
conscience.
Conclusively,
the
apostle comes to the heart of the matter. He
writes the verb to sin twice in the same
sentence. In the Greek, he accentuates this
word by having the form sinning near the
beginning of the sentence and the form sin at
the very end.
13.
Therefore if food causes my brother to stumble
into sin, I will never eat meat again that I
may not cause my brother to stumble.
The
conclusion to this part of the discussion is
that Paul himself will provide leadership in
the Corinthian church even while he is
physically absent. If the spiritually strong
Christians fail in their responsibility to
strengthen the weak, Paul will set the
example. This verse is a conditional sentence
that expresses reality and certainty. The
readers can be assured that Paul indeed will
do that which he is telling them.
Paul
writes the general word food instead of the
term sacrificial meat, which was at the center
of the discussion (see vv. 1, 4, 7, 10). The
matter of eating food should not become a
stumbling block to anyone in the church. Paul
himself scolded both Peter and Barnabas for
their refusal to eat with Gentile Christians
in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14). He and his
associates delivered the letter of the
Jerusalem Council to the Gentile Christians
(Acts 15:29). Jewish Christians even refused
to buy meat in a local Gentile market for fear
of eating food that had been offered to an
idol. They fully kept the law of Moses
(compare Acts 21:20). Gentile Christians, too,
were careful in dining with Gentile friends.
For the
sake of his Christian brother, Paul says, “I
will never eat meat again that I may not cause
my brother to stumble.” In the next chapter of
this epistle, he states unequivocally that “to
those who are weak I became weak to win the
weak. I have become all things to all men so
that at least I might save some” (9:22). Paul
was willing to forego eating certain foods so
that he might advance the cause of Christ, the
spread of the gospel, and the growth of the
church.
Did
Paul suggest that every Christian should
become a vegetarian? No, not at all. But Paul
is willing to go to any extreme to avoid
hurting the conscience of anyone for whom
Christ died. And if that extreme means not to
eat meat for some time, Paul readily adapts.
He submits even his Christian liberty to the
principle of love. What he is asking every
believer to do is to show genuine Christian
love to fulfill the summary of the Decalogue:
to love God with heart, mind and soul, and to
love one’s neighbor as oneself (Matt.
22:37–39). Indeed, Augustine expresses a
comment to this effect: “As long as you love
God and your neighbor, you may do whatever you
wish and you will not fall into sin.”
Additional Note on 8:10
The
Jerusalem Council stipulated that Gentile
Christians were to abstain from food
sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29). But in
Corinth, Paul allowed Christians to enter a
temple and participate in feasts held in one
of its dining rooms. Paul’s consent in this
chapter appears to be contradictory,
especially because he forbade the eating of
sacrificial meat in 10:14–22.
Is Paul
lax in the one chapter (8:10) and strict in
the other (10:18–22)? Hardly. What Paul is
trying to do is walk the thin line between
allowing Christian liberty and strengthening
the consciences of the weak. To put it
differently, in chapter 8 Paul addresses the
strong but in chapter 10 the weak.
Sacrificial
meat
in itself is not harmful. If Christians should
attend a feast where this meat was served,
they were free to partake provided they did
not hurt the conscience of weaker Christians.
But whenever the eating of meat was directly
associated with idolatry, Paul condemned this
practice (10:7, 14). When a Christian became a
participant in idolatry (10:18, 20), he would
forge a spiritual association with an idol and
thus become an idolater. Whenever Gentiles
were worshiping an idol, a Christian should
have nothing to do with them. He ought to know
that God is a jealous God (Exod. 20:4; Deut.
5:8). In the words of James, “You adulterous
people, don’t you know that friendship with
the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who
chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an
enemy of God” (James 4:4).
Practical Considerations in
8:12
In
today’s world, sin is taken lightly. Often it
is considered something amusing, especially
when it relates to sexual immorality. When the
news media mention sexual escapades of
prominent people, the expression used is not
“sin” but rather “character weakness.” Indeed,
the thinking seems to be that the term sin
should not be applied to anyone because it
might damage a person’s reputation. Although
the consequence of sin is evident, people like
to pretend that there is nothing wrong.
In many
parts of the world, sin is an embarrassment
for the offender when his deed becomes common
knowledge. Disgrace can be removed by a
restorative action of presenting the offended
party an appropriate gift. If the offense
remains undetected, the guilty person
continues to act as though nothing has
happened.
In the
Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day, sin was a
matter of frustration. Sin was compared to an
archer who misses the mark and thus
experiences failure. Sin, therefore, was a
lack of skill that continual training could
overcome. It was not something that was taken
seriously.
The
Scriptures, however, teach that sin is a
personal affront to God and a transgression of
the laws he has established. Sin is stepping
over the legal boundaries within which we
should live and work. Sin is an insult to God
because we choose no longer to serve him but
an idol. And idolatry is nothing but spiritual
adultery. God loves his people like a
bridegroom loves his bride. Instead of loving
him as our spouse, we turn to idols and commit
adultery.
Sin can
be forgiven only through the shedding of
blood—in the Old Testament era the blood of
animals foreshadowed that of Christ. In the
New Testament era, the sinner is cleansed
through Christ’s blood shed at Golgotha. As
the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews aptly
puts it: “and without the shedding of blood
there is no forgiveness” (Heb. 9:22). (1)
“Him
that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not
to doubtful disputations.” (Romans 14:1)
From Matthew
Henry's Concise Commentary on Romans
14:1:
“14:1-6
Differences of opinion prevailed even among
the immediate followers of Christ and their
disciples. Nor did St. Paul attempt to end
them. Compelled assent to any doctrine, or
conformity to outward observances without
being convinced, would be hypocritical and of
no avail. Attempts for producing absolute
oneness of mind among Christians would be
useless. Let not Christian fellowship be
disturbed with strifes of words. It will be
good for us to ask ourselves, when tempted to
disdain and blame our brethren; has not God
owned them? And if he has, dare I disown them?
Let not the Christian who uses his liberty,
despise his weak brother as ignorant and
superstitious. Let not the scrupulous believer
find fault with his brother, for God accepted
him, without regarding the distinctions of
meats. We usurp the place of God, when we take
upon us thus to judge the thoughts and
intentions of others, which are out of our
view. The case as to the observance of days
was much the same. Those who knew that all
these things were done away by Christ's
coming, took no notice of the festivals of the
Jews. But it is not enough that our
consciences consent to what we do; it is
necessary that it be certified from the word
of God. Take heed of acting against a doubting
conscience. We are all apt to make our own
views the standard of truth, to deem things
certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus
Christians often despise or condemn each
other, about doubtful matters of no moment. A
thankful regard to God, the Author and Giver
of all our mercies, sanctifies and sweetens
them.” (2)
“For
the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy
Ghost. For he that in these things serveth
Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of
men. Let us therefore follow after the things
which make for peace, and things wherewith one
may edify another.For
meat destroys not the work of God. All things
indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man
who eateth with offence. It is good neither to
eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing
whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended,
or is made weak.” (Romans 14:17-21)
From the Pulpit
Commentary on Romans 14:19-21:
Verses
19-21. - Let us therefore follow after the
things that make for (literally, the things
of) peace, and the things wherewith one may
edify another (literally, the things of the
edification of one another). For meat's sake
destroy not the work of God. “Destroy,” or
rather, overthrow - the word is κατάλυε,
not ἀππόλλυε
as in ver. 15 - is connected in thought with
the edification, or building up (οἰκοδομήν)
before spoken cf. “The work of God” is that of
his grace in the weak Christian's soul,
growing, it may be, to full assurance of faith
(cf. 1 Corinthians 3:9,” ye are God's
building”). Upset not the rising structure,
which is God's own, as ye may do by putting a
stumbling-block in the weak brother's way. All
things indeed are pure (i.e. in themselves all
God's gifts given for man's service are so);
but it is evil to that man who eateth with
offence (i.e. if the eating be to himself a
stumbling-block. The idea is the same as in
ver. 14). It is good (καλὸν,
not of indispensable obligation, but a right
and noble thing to do) neither to eat flesh,
nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made
weak. The concluding words in italics are of
doubtful authority: they are not required for
the sense. For St. Paul's expression of his
own readiness to deny himself lawful things,
if he might so avoid offence to weak brethren,
cf. 1 Corinthians 8:13. (3)
From the Westminster
Confession of Faith, Chapter 20:
II. God
alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left
it free from the doctrines and commandments of
men, which are in anything contrary to his
Word, or beside it in matters of faith on
worship.
Comments in closing:
To
summarize, adiaphora, is understood as an
unsettled or disputable topic or subjects that
deal with non-essentials. To illustrate, these
type of issues would fall under secular
categories of going to movies, music
performances, sporting events, amusement
parks, reading adventure stories, vacation
traveling or not going. Many have experienced
arguments about not going to movies for
example because there are bad movies.
A
weaker brother may see my liberty and then go
to a bad movie. Implicit in this reasoning
would be not to cause a weaker brother to
stumble as a result of my liberty. The issue
is, are all movies bad? How is it the stronger
brother’s fault if the weaker brother goes to
a bad movie, he could have gone to a good
movie too? Banning the going to movies is not
a solution to the weaker brother’s sin. This
type of argument has been applied to the other
examples above. There are bad sports, bad
music, and bad literature. By using afallacious
non-sequitur argument, it could be said since
there are bad things; we should abstain from
all manner of things. This type of thinking
leads to a monkish life.
However,
it is very real that exercising your liberty
may cause your brother to stumble. This is a
real concern. We should never pressure a
weaker brother to conform to our standards of
Christian liberty. However, there is also the
phenomena known as the tyranny of the weaker
brother. I get together with a group of
brothers for a cigar night. Also, various
beverages are brought to the event. Some
brothers who do not smoke or drink. They enjoy
the spiritual fellowship and no one is
pressured to participate in any liberty other
brothers enjoy. The spiritual fellowship and
bonding among men of the church are
remarkable.
How do
we sort all of these issues out, not offending
the weaker brother, and yet maintain Christian
liberty of conscience?The
best statement on how to proceed with
disputable matters can be found in the
following quotation from the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Scripture is where we go
for answers and what may be deduced by good
and necessary consequence.
In
theology, adiaphora would involve the time the
Sunday service starts, how many times
communion is celebrated, should there be a
mid-week service. Can a church service be held
in a storefront or a park? Beside, in the area
of theology, there are areas of seemingly
irresolvable disputes that are not essential
for salvation, such as eschatology.
For
example, there are differing views regarding
the interpretation of the book of Revelation.
Four common views are the historicist (a
method of interpretation which associates
biblical prophecies with actual historical
events), preterist (past fulfillment),
futurist (future fulfillment), and the
idealist (called the spiritual, allegorical,
or non-literal approach) views. The book of
Revelation belongs to a class of literature
called “apocalyptic.”
The
Bible uses many literary forms. For example,
it uses genera's such as; law, historical
narrative, wisdom, poetical, gospel, didactic
letters, or epistles, predictive, and
apocalyptic literature. In addition, there are
differences in millennial views, such as
Pre-Millennial A-Millennial Post-Millennial
and a subset of Pre-Millennialism is
Dispensational Pre-Millennialism. To some
eschatology would be considered under the area
of adiaphora, to others it would not.
How do
we sort out and resolve the disagreements? The
instruction from the confessional standard is
a good rule of thumb where it says, “common to
human actions and societies, which are to be
ordered by the light of nature, and Christian
prudence, according to the general rules of
the word, which are always to be observed.”
Christian prudence and charity are called for
in the area of adiaphora.
The Westminster
Confession of Faith: Good &
Necessary Consequence Chapter 1.6:
vi. The
whole counsel of God, concerning all things
necessary for His own glory, man's salvation,
faith and life, is either expressly set down
in Scripture, or by good and necessary
consequence may be deduced from Scripture:
unto which nothing at any time is to be added,
whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or
traditions of men. Nevertheless, we
acknowledge the inward illumination of the
Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving
understanding of such things as are revealed
in the word; and that there are some
circumstances concerning the worship of God,
and government of the Church, common to human
actions and societies, which are to be ordered
by the light of nature, and Christian
prudence, according to the general rules of
the word, which are always to be observed.
“Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach
me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew thyself approved
unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
(2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1.Simon J. Kistemaker, New
Testament Commentary, 1 Corinthians,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House,
1993), pp. 269-278.
2.Matthew Henry, Matthew
Henry's Concise Commentary, Romans,
(Nashville, Tennessee, Thomas Nelson), p.1815.
3.H. D. M. Spence and
Joseph S. Exell, The
Pulpit Commentary, Romans, Vol. 18,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan, Eerdmans Publishing
Company reprint 1978), p.411.
“To God, only wise, be glory
through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans
16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.”
(Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has previously
published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the
Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. He served as an
ordained ruling elder in the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church. He worked in and retired
from a fortune five hundred company in
corporate America after forty years. He runs
two blogs sites and is the author of the book
defending the Reformed Faith against attacks,
titled: The
Religion That Started in a Hat.
Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more study:
* For a great source of
theological definitions go to Rebecca writes
at Rebecca writes
http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/