As part of my current study, this post examines the meaning of the word ‘aproskopos’ to establish its interpretation in 1 Corinthians 10:32.
Our exploration will begin with an analysis of ‘aproskopos,’ followed by a glimpse into its historical usage. We will then analyze its possible interpretations in the New Testament, and examine the phrase “aproskopoi ginesthe” from 1 Corinthians 10:32.
First up, we will focus on ‘proskopto,’ the verb foundational to ‘aproskopos.’
Proskopto
The Greek term ‘proskopto‘ comprises two words: ‘pros’ and ‘kopto.’ ‘Pros’ is a preposition with various definitions; however, in this context, the consensus is that “against” is the most suitable meaning. The verb kopto can be interpreted as “cutting” or “knocking” among other definitions.
Thus, the interpretation of proskopto can vary considerably depending on the author and the specific context of the text. In many cases, however, it refers to “striking or beating against.” This could refer to striking or beating against anyone or anything.
A timely, though unfortunate incident, occurred during my recent hotel stay, when I attempted to reach the window in the dark, believing I could do so without finding a light switch. I evidently forgot about a large recliner chair positioned in front of the window, resulting in me hitting my right foot squarely against it and severely stubbing my toe.
In my defense, I had just awoken and was not fully alert. Nevertheless, while I momentarily lost my footing, my immediate concern was the intense pain in my big toe, which subsequently developed a prominent bluish bruise right in the middle of it. Now, every misstep or pressure on my toe inside my shoe, triggers a painful reminder of that incident and the lingering bruise.
This serves as an example of proskopto, or “striking-against.” The word proskopto implies a forceful collision that may cause pain, damage, or separation. I’ll elaborate more on that later. But, next, let’s take a look at aproskopos, which is the adjectival form of proskopto.
Aproskopos
The word aproskopos (ἀπρόσκοπος) is an adjective, which could literally be translated as “without-striking-against (a + pros+ kopos = without + against + striking). Alternatively, it could be translated as “without beating or cutting against.” Although we rarely find the word in ancient Greek, neither in biblical nor secular literature, we can use what we have to understand its meaning.
Sextus Empiricus
The Greek philosopher, skeptic, and physician, Sextus Empiricus (2nd or 3rd Century AD), used aproskopon (accusative form – απροσκοπον) to describe a language that is straightforward and widely used (Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Gramm. 195). Due to the nature of this “language,” it would typically not cause harm or trouble for many people. That was the idea of aproskopos in this particular context.
Sirach (Apocrypha)
In Sirach 32:21, the word aproskopos (displayed in dative form – απροσκοπω) is commonly translated as “smooth” as in a “smooth road.” A common interpretation of this road is that there are no bumps, holes, rocks or the like to strike your foot against. However, despite being smooth, it should not be trusted or relied upon.
The LSJ also acknowledges the Common English Bible’s interpretation of aproskopos in Sirach, as “unexplored” (probably from a+pro+skopos). The meaning of “unexplored” better fits the context of the surrounding text, which clearly implies that any specific path should first be assessed for its level of danger and “stoneyness” before treading upon it.
Besides, where does such a “smooth road” exist either physically or metaphorically? The concept of a “smooth road,” free from physical or moral obstacles, is practically non-existent in reality, whether one follows God or not. Thus, in my opinion, that interpretation for a work classified as ‘wisdom literature’ is unfitting.
Additionally, if truly smooth, the only danger would be in tripping over one’s own two feet, literally or metaphorically. So why are there warnings about the road, since the road itself is harmless?
A Seemingly Smooth Road?
Certain translations and interpretations try to reconcile this issue by implying the author is only alluding to a “seemingly” smooth road. In other words, “Don’t trust a path that appears to be smooth, as there could be hidden dangers.” However, the text doesn’t support this; and I must assume that ancient writers, much like those today, didn’t expect their recipients to be mind readers.
How would they have known that this was what the author meant? Furthermore, when there was no quick way to communicate or to ask clarifying questions, why would an author purposely leave their readers to simply guess at their intentions?
Bottom line: If the original recipients didn’t have to add words and ideas to understand what a writer meant, then we shouldn’t either. Our challenge is to understand what was written—not to rewrite it.
A Warning Against Taking the Easy Way Out
Despite the possibility of “unexplored” being an accurate translation, there might have been something else in mind. The author could have intended “hodo aproskopo” (non-striking-against way) to represent an effortless approach or course of action, rather than an obstacle-free route associated with a “smooth road.”
This suggests an unchallenging path, free from major difficulties or trouble, unrelated to literal or metaphorical roads or stumbling. In essence, the text cautions against choosing such an easy way out—like cheating on a test for example, or lying to avoid confrontation—as these shortcuts are often unethical, unprofitable in the long term, and can lead to lasting trouble. As a result, one should not put their trust in them or pursue these paths.
One clear example involves the enemy’s attempt to persuade Christ to bypass God’s ordained path in favor of an easier way to attain worldly power. Had he prioritized a life free from suffering and agony, our situation would be hopeless; however, he remained faithful and followed the divine plan even to his death—for our benefit.
While these observations offer a general sense of the word aproskopos, the most accurate meaning in Paul’s letter is best determined by its New Testament context, which we will now turn to.
Aproskopos in the New Testament
In the New Testament, aproskopos appears three times in various forms. In addition to 1 Corinthians 10:32, the word appears in Acts 24:16 and Philippians 1:10. First, let’s look at the word in Acts.
Acts 24:16
In Acts, we gain a bit more insight into the meaning of aproskopos from verses 24:1-18.
Five days later the high priest Ananias went down to Caesarea with some of the elders and a lawyer named Tertullus, and they brought their charges against Paul before the governor. 2 When Paul was called in, Tertullus presented his case before Felix: “We have enjoyed a long period of peace under you, and your foresight has brought about reforms in this nation. 3 Everywhere and in every way, most excellent Felix, we acknowledge this with profound gratitude. 4 But in order not to weary you further, I would request that you be kind enough to hear us briefly.
5 “We have found this man to be a troublemaker, stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect 6 and even tried to desecrate the temple; so we seized him. [7] [a] 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn the truth about all these charges we are bringing against him.”
9 The other Jews joined in the accusation, asserting that these things were true.
10 When the governor motioned for him to speak, Paul replied: “I know that for a number of years you have been a judge over this nation; so I gladly make my defense. 11 You can easily verify that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12 My accusers did not find me arguing with anyone at the temple, or stirring up a crowd in the synagogues or anywhere else in the city. 13 And they cannot prove to you the charges they are now making against me. 14 However, I admit that I worship the God of our ancestors as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, 15 and I have the same hope in God as these men themselves have, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16 So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man.
17 “After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts for the poor and to present offerings. 18 I was ceremonially clean when they found me in the temple courts doing this. There was no crowd with me, nor was I involved in any disturbance. —Acts 24:1-18 NIV
The word, aproskopon (accusative form), is found in verse 16, the Greek text of which is presented below, followed by my interpretation of it.
εν τουτω δε αυτος ασκω απροσκοπον συνειδησιν εχειν προς τον θεον και τους ανθρωπους διαπαντος (TR)
And in this, I, myself strive to have a non-conflicting knowledge concerning God and the people, always.
Paul defended himself against accusations of arguing, using inflammatory speech, and causing riots. He asserted that he shared the same hope in God and in the resurrection as those who accused him, and maintained that he wasn’t creating trouble or inciting people with ideas or doctrines differing from the Law and the Prophets.
Therefore, his words were “non-striking-against.” Rather than clashing with established doctrines and shared beliefs, they aligned with the knowledge shared by Paul and his accusers—-the syneidesin—-commonly translated in the New Testament as “conscience.”
The Meaning of Conscience In Scripture
The meaning of conscience we use today is likely not what Paul is referring to. I’ve elaborated on this here, in this article. In a nutshell, although its definition has evolved, given the context of the passage, the earlier meaning of syneidesis as “shared knowledge” or “information” (with others) appears more fitting here.
According to today’s common interpretation, essentially the argument Paul would be making before his accusers would be: “I make every effort to believe that I have done nothing wrong” —“Well, whoopty-doo and good for you, Paul” How would this help his case? Most likely, it wouldn’t. Because, who cares?
Further, according to this understanding, by Paul’s own admission, possessing a “clear conscience” offered him little to no benefit regarding judgement (1 Cor. 4:4). How much less would someone else value the state of his conscience? If he says it virtually means nothing, what value would it hold with his accusers?
Consequently, it is likely that in Acts, Paul is not making an effort to defend himself by persuading others that he strives for a “clear conscience.” Instead, what he seems to be asserting is that, though he was a follower of “The Way,” in the area concerning the resurrection and judgement, and the Law and Prophets (the shared knowledge he had with his accusers) he worked to maintain an understanding that did not “collide” or conflict with those established truths.
The logic is as follows: Possessing accurate knowledge permits one to rightly testify or act as a witness to the truth. It should therefore, not cause damage or harm, unlike a statement that contradicts the truth, as seen with a false or mistaken witness in a legal context.
Paul, upholding his belief in God, the Law and the Prophets, resurrection, and judgment, intended not to diminish established beliefs but rather to seamlessly introduce Jesus into them. Other than that, his teachings were consistent with the shared beliefs and hopes he had with those who accused him.
Thus, his knowledge, and therefore his message, were “non-striking against.” They did not challenge or conflict with the beliefs of his accusers. His words did no damage or harm, as he claimed could be easily verified (Acts 24:11). This was his argument. In the end, he did nothing wrong. Any outrage on his accusers’ part stemmed from their own stubbornness and pride, as he had no intention of causing trouble.
Philippians 1:10
Concerning the use of aproskopos in Philippians, firstly, we note that the concept of unity, from 1 Corinthians 10, is echoed in Philippians 1:10. In Philippians, Paul expresses his desire for the church to learn how to distinguish what is most beneficial for the community as a whole, implying they learn to navigate and settle disputes peacefully.
And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, —Phil. 1:9-10
He prayed that they would increase in knowledge, and that with this shared knowledge and understanding, they would remain pure, meaning ‘whole’ or ‘unmixed’, as well as “non-striking-against” (aproskopos) (translated as “blameless” in the above verse.)
In other words, he did not want to see arguments or fall-outs over conflicting practices or beliefs. This would be so as not to introduce damageharm or division and ultimately cause impurity (mixture) within the church.
The church that is “striking-against” is simply opposing one another and not on the same page. Being blameless or not has nothing to do with it. Next, we will look at the words aproskopoi ginesthe in 1 Corinthians 10.
aproskopoi ginesthe
First, the word ginesthe (γινεσθε) is a second-person plural verb which means to enter a state of being or rather, to “become.” In this context, ginesthe best functions as an imperative verb which essentially indicates a command. Therefore, Paul is instructing the Corinthians to whom this letter is addressed to become something.
According to reliable sources, the word aproskopoi, in 1 Corinthians 10:32, can be the plural form of the word aproskopos. Among English Bible translations, Young’s Literal Translation probably translates the verse most faithfully as:
become offenceless, both to Jews and Greeks, and to the assembly of God; —1 Corinthians 10:32 YLT
In the next section, we will examine the common interpretation of the verse, which implies not being a stumbling block to others.
Don’t Be A Stumbling Block?
Concerning the idea of a “stumbling block,” though it makes sense to suggest avoiding confusion in others’ understanding by not leading a hypocritical life or acting contrary to one’s own teachings,” I find no support for translating the words aproskopoi ginesthe as “Do not cause anyone to stumble.” In fact, I have two primary concerns regarding this translation.
The first, is that it seemingly operates under the assumption that ‘striking against’ inherently refers to someone’s foot hitting something, which is false. Second, from this presumption of “kicking,” it is then assumed that the impact will make the person trip, or “stumble” over the object that was struck. However, that may not always be the case. A person could, for example, strike their foot against a ball and not fall or stumble over it.
As such, this is a significant overextension of the words’ actual meaning. Thus, the reference of a “stumbling block” appears to be a theological interpretation, and is therefore, highly debatable.
Further, this definition primarily originates from biblical translations, so it should be taken with a grain of salt. What I mean is that some biblical terms have been defined solely by biblical translators without any support from outside sources or without regard for a word’s common usage.
For instance, in Jeremiah 13:16, the Greek word proskopto appears in the Septuagint as a counterpart to the Hebrew nagaph, meaning “to strike, smite or injure.” While many English Bibles translate the verse as “…before your feet stumble…”, it could simply be rendered as “before your feet strike against…”, referring to a foot making contact with an obstacle or colliding with it.
Besides—do feet really stumble, or do people stumble? While feet can definitely strike against things, it is people who stumble and lose balance—not feet. Kashal is a Hebrew word commonly used for “stumble.” Considering all, the term “stumble” in this, and possibly other verses, stems from an English interpretive decision—not actual word meanings, and is not a suitable interpretation in my opinion. Now, we’ll look at the related noun proskomma.
Proskomma
Proskomma is often translated as a “stumbling block” in the Bible. It is a noun derived from the verb proskopto meaning “strike-against.” Often, attempts are made to justify the interpretation of “Do not cause anyone to stumble,” by linking the adjective aproskopos to the related noun proskomma.
Aproskopos is somehow associated with proskomma and further interpreted as “not being a stumbling block,” suggesting that one is not an obstacle in the way for another person to strike their foot against and stumble over. You’re welcome to correct that understanding as it may be completely incorrect because unfortunately, I can’t make it make sense.
Nevertheless, the LSJ lexicon suggests that, in other contexts, the noun proskomma refers to the actual result or outcome of stumbling, such as a bruise or injury; not the object that causes the stumble. For more on this, please see this very short, yet concise, article.
To add, in the term proskomma, the noun komma typically signifies a “stamp” or “impression.” Therefore pros-komma suggests “a stamping-against.” This conveys not simply the idea of an impact, but also leaving a lasting mark or impression. It indicates the application of considerable or violent force.
What comes to mind are the comedic film scenarios where someone takes a hard hit, prompting another character to say, “Oh! Now that’s gonna leave a mark,” referring to an impending bump or bruise; or the classic cartoons where a slap on the face leaves a bright red handprint.
While these are exaggerated, any forceful strike, like a car colliding with another or an axe hitting a tree trunk, will undeniably leave a mark or an impression of the object that caused the impact.
Our English Word “Comma”
Notably, our English word “comma” is derived from the Greek “komma,” which, in ancient Greek rhetoric, referred to a brief clause or phrase that had been separated—literally “a piece cut off.” Today, commas function as punctuation to interrupt a sentence and indicate a pause, by separating a part of it.
All things considered, it seems more probable that proskomma, in both Ancient Greek and Paul’s texts, refers to the outcome or product of a “striking against” or “severance,” rather than a mere stumbling block.
Again, there is no justification for interpreting any part of aproskopoi ginesthe or aproskopos to mean ”stumbling” or a “stumbling block.”
Conclusion
To conclude, the word aproskopos simply means “non-striking against” or “without striking against.” Literally, it means to not physically strike against something. Metaphorically, it refers to something that isn’t problematic or conflictual and therefore, doesn’t cause any harm.
The rendering of aproskopoi ginesthe in 1 Corinthians 10:32 as, “Do not cause anyone to stumble,” is a matter of theological preference. In my opinion, it’s not the most accurate interpretation, as the underlying root of aproskopos across its various forms, suggests a sense of harm or injury resulting from an impact.
Within this family of words, which includes proskopto, proskomma, and aproskopos, emphasis is not on a stumble or any such action, but rather refers to a forceful collision or separation, and the subsequent injury, outcome, or damage from that impact.
Logically speaking, actions that cause “hurt,” “harm,” or “injury,” demand a more serious warning than merely causing someone to momentarily lose balance, or become “tripped up” in their walk with God and is more likely what Paul is referring to.
The next post will continue our parent study by exploring how aproskopoi ginesthe can be understood in 1 Corinthians 10:32.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In