1 cor 8.1-11.1 - pauline ethics
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
1/33
[JSNT61 (1997) 83-114]
THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OR CHRISTOLOGICAL PRAXIS?
PAULINE ETHICS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8.1-11.1*
David Horrell
Department ofTheology,
University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QH
Introduction
Among the many difficult and complex passages in the Pauline epistles,1 Cor. 8.1-11.1 must surely be included. These chapters comprise a
complex and varied argument in which the connections between thedifferent sections are not always easy to discern. Moreover, it has
proved notoriously difficult to decide what Paul's advice actually wason the simple question with which the passage is explicitly concerned:
should a Christian eat idol-food? His answer is hardly what we would
call direct.1 The passage may seem even more obscure and irrelevantto modern Western readers (though not necessarily for readers in
other cultures and contexts),2 for whom the issue of food that has been
sacrificed to idols is scarcely a matter of everyday concern. However,Paul's method of responding to this particular ethical dilemma, indirect
though it may be on the specific question at issue, makes the passage
more relevant than it might otherwise have been to the broader issuesconcerning the shape and foundations of Christian ethics (cf. Brunt
1985: 115; Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 543).
* A revised version of a paper presented at King's College London and to a
research seminar at Exeter University. I am grateful to all those who raised questions
and made comments, especially to Edward Adams for his response to the paper.
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
2/33
84 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)
Some solutions to the complexities of the passage should be rejected
at the outset. For some scholars, the seemingly digressive ch. 9, and
the apparent differences between the various parts of chs. 8 and 10
(especially between 10.1-22 and the rest of chs. 8 and 10) point to acomposite text comprising portions from originally separate letters.3
The problems are therefore solved (or should we say, evaded?) by
assigning different sections of the passage to different letters writtenat different points in time. However, there are strong reasons for
rejecting such a solution. There are no compelling textual or literary
grounds for the hypothesis of literary partition, and both the form of
the argumenta broadly chiastic ABA' pattern with an apparentdigression at its heartand the tensions between its various parts are
features encountered elsewhere in Paul, indeed in passages that seemto be classic examples of Pauline argumentation (e.g. 1 Cor. 12-14;
Rom. 1.18-3.20; 9-11).4
It has also been suggested that the two groups with which Paul is
concerned here, generally labelled the 'strong' and the 'weak', are a
construction of Paul's rather than a reflection of genuine disagreement
and difference in the church at Corinth. J.C. Hurd, for example,followed more recently by Peter Gooch, argued that in fact the
Corinthians were united on the issue of idol-food and that the 'weak'are a non-existent, hypothetical group created by Paul, who was trying
to impose on the Corinthians a policy agreed at the apostolic council
which contradicted Paul's earlier practice and teaching at Corinth.5 Ofcourse Paul's own literary construction of the situation at Corinth is
all that we have, and in a number of places in these chapters Paul does
present situations as hypothetical. However, there are no compelling
3. E.g. Weiss 1910: xl-xliii, 210-13; Hring 1962: xiii-xiv, 75, 100; Sellin
1987: 2964-82; Yeo 1995: 81-82.
4. On the ABA' pattern, cf. Fee 1987:15-16 with n. 40. The extended arguments
in Rom. 1.18-3.20 and 9.1-11.36 both contain passages that, when compared,
stand in tension, even contradiction, with one another, but that can be seen to serve
the overall direction and purpose ofthe argument, as they make a particular point at a
particular stage (cf., e.g., Rom. 2.12-16 and 3.20, or 9.14-18 and 10.1-13). On the
unity ofthis passage, see Hurd 1965: 131-42; Merklein 1984: 163-73; Schrge 1995:
212-15. Recent work on this passage by Gardner (1994), and on 1 Corinthians by
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
3/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 85
grounds to doubt that differences of opinion and practice existed at
Corinth; indeed, much of Paul's exhortation would be rather pointless
if it did not. Jerome Murphy O'Connor agrees: 'No evidence contra
dicts the traditional opinion that there were two groups within the
Corinthian church. One group had no doubts about the legitimacy of
eating idol-meat, the other had serious reservations' (1978b: 544; also
Brunt 1981: 30 n. 18; Willis 1985a: 92ff.; Horrell 1995a).
Other recent studies of this passage, notably those by Tom Wright
and Ben Witherington, also fail to do justice to some of the most central
and striking features of Paul's argument. While Witherington may be
partly right to argue that Paul effectively prohibits participation inpagan cultic worship, I do not think, for reasons we shall explore
below, that the thrust of Paul's instruction can be adequately encapsu
lated in the phrase 'it's not what you eat, it's where you eat it'.6
Wright's (1991) analysis of 8.6 produces some important reflections
on the similarities between the Christian credal confession of what
Wright calls 'christological monotheism' and the Jewish Shema, but, I
hope to show, is mistaken in terms of the role that it proposes for this
confession within the wider argument of chs. 8-10. I aim to outlinehere an interpretation that does justice to the complex passage as a
whole (including, importantly, ch. 9) and that illuminates the main
features of Paul's ethical argument.
1 Corinthians8.1-13
The passage opens with a clear introduction of the topic, ,
in a form that, by comparison with 7.1, suggests it was a subject raisedin the Corinthians' letter to Paul.
7Immediately, however, we have to
face questions concerning the presence and extent of Corinthian
'slogans' or quotations. While scholars disagree as to the precise form
and the number of places where Corinthian opinions are quoted by
Paul, there is widespread agreement that in 8.1 and 8.4 at least Paul
cites opinions that have been expressed by the strong at Corinth:8
'we
6. See Witherington 1994; 1993; 1995: 186-230.
7. See Hurd 1965: 65-74, though note the caution ofMitchell 1989; see further
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
4/33
86 Journalfor the Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)
all have knowledge' (8.1b); 'there is no idol in the world9
and there isno God but one' (8.4b).
10These statements represent the theological
legitimation for the strong's assertion of their freedom to eat idol-food without restriction (cf. Brunt 1981: 22).
However, disputes about the extent of Corinthian quotations hereare perhaps less crucial for the interpretation of the passage than issometimes assumed. For in 8.1, 4, 6 and 8 (where Corinthian quotations have been suggested) it does seem clear both that the opinionsquoted are ones associated with the Corinthian 'strong' but also thatthey are opinions that Paul basically shareseven though he may
qualify them sharply and differ as to their implications for conduct.Here, as in 6.12, he does not counter a cited opinion with an emphatic (as, e.g., in Rom. 3.4, 6, 31; 6.2, 15; 7.7, 13; Gal. 2.17;3.21) and he seems to include himself in the 'we' who have knowledgein 8.1, 4 and 6 (just as he includes himself explicitly among the 'strong'in faith in Rom. 15.1).
11
Right from the outset, then, Paul agrees that he and others haveknowledge. Yet also from the outset, he expresses his view that knowl
edge is of little value, at least compared to love. 'Knowledge puffs upa pejorative term throughout 1 Corinthians
12but love builds up'
(8.1). Indeed, the irony is that people who think they know13
do notyet know as they ought to know (8.2). True knowledge is actuallyconnected with those who love.
14Here in the first three verses of the
9. Probably in the sense 'has no real existence' rather than that 'an idol is a
nothing'; see discussion in MurphyO'Connor 1978b: 546; Schrge 1995: 236.
10.The likelihood of Paul's quoting in 8.4b is shown by the repetition of cm.
cm; see Giblin 1975: 530.
11. Hring (1962: 72) and Schrge (1995: 221: 'da sich V lb und V 7a formal
widersprechen') are therefore not quite correct to suggest that there is a formal contra
diction between 8.1 and 8.7, thus establishing that the former must be a Corinthian
quotation: the two statements may simply indicate that the 'we all' is a group that
does not include everyone in the congregation.
12. appears in the New Testament only in 1 Corinthians (4.6, 18, 19;
5.2; 8.1; 13.4) and once in Colossians (2.18), always with a pejorative sense.
13. , 'anything', is absent from $p46, which Zuntz (1953: 31) considers the
correct reading.
14. A rough paraphrase of v. 3, based on the shorter reading found in *p46:
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
5/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 87
passage Paul has encapsulated the heart of his argument. However, as
will become clear, despite Paul's powerful rhetoric counterposing
knowledge and love, it should be borne in mind that the 'love' he has
in mind is actually, in one sense, rooted in 'knowledge'; it is a love
informed and shaped by the pattern and example of Christ (cf. 2 Cor.
8.9: 'For you know [] the grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ... '; also 1 Cor. 1.4-6; 2.11-16; 2 Cor. 2.14; 4.6).
In v. 4 Paul reiterates the question with which the passage opened
and begins to deal with the issue in greater detail. Following the out
line of what 'we' know in v. 4b, Paul carefully hedges round both sides
ofthe question of the existence of idols in v. 5: they are only 'so-called'
gods ( ) yet indeed there are many gods and many
lords (cf. Schrge 1995: 226). 'The pagan pantheon cannot simply be
dismissed as metaphysically nonexistent and therefore morally irrele
vant' (Wright 1991: 128). But what he is leading to is the emphatic
statement ofpractical monotheism in v. 6, introduced with the strongly
adversative ' , 'but for us... '
Here in v. 6, as Wright suggests, we find a concise credal confession
of early Christian faith with notable similarities to the Shema (Deut.
6.4). While I am not so sure that this actually represents 'a statement
ofthe highest possible christologythat is, ofJesus placed within the
very monotheistic confession itself' (Wright 1991: 132)Paul seems
to me, and not least in 1 Corinthians (3.23; 11.3; 15.28), to retain a
rather clear and careful distinction between God (the Father) and
Christ (the Lord)15
it surely does represent a formulaic and concise
expression of theological and christological belief which lies at the
heart of New Testament Christianity. 'For us there is one God, theFather, from whom are all things and we to him, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things and we through him'. It has been
suggested that the verse is another quotation from the Corinthian strong
'knowledge'. However, v. 2 speaks of the kind of knowledge that one ought to
have, which contrasts ironically with the supposed knowledge of those who think
theyknowsomething (cf. 1 Cor. 13.2, 8).
15. Cf. Barrett 1971: 193: 'Jesus Christ is not described as God, and the fact that
Lord () serves very frequently in the Greek Old Testament as an equivalent of
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
6/33
88 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)
(Willis 1985a: 84-86), but again it makes little sense here to divide theopinions of the Corinthians from those of Paul. It is more likely thatv. 6 comprises an already established credal formula, but even so it issurely one with which Paul is in wholehearted agreement.
16
All of this should make v. 7 strike the exegete with a forceful jolt.How does Paul follow this confession of the heart of early Christianfaith? With the simple, but remarkable little phrase: 'but the knowledge is not in all'. As the following verses make clear, Paul is certainlytalking here about members of the Christian congregation. Was thereever such a clear-cut example of the need for a programme of theolo
gical education? Does Paul really accept with such apparent nonchalance a situation in which believers can be said not to share suchfundamental 'knowledge'? It hardly seems likely that Paul actuallymeans that some of the congregation do not believe that 'for us thereis one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ'; the confessionof Christ as Lord is the touchstone for Paul of genuine Christiancommitment (1 Cor. 12.3; Rom. 10.9) and he certainly knows nothingof Cupittite atheistic non-realism! What he does perhaps mean is that
not all possess this knowledge in a way that convinces them of thenon-reality of idols and of the consequent acceptability of idol-foodin this sense they do not have the gnosis of the strong.
17They are,
Paul says, accustomed to eating idol-food as belonging to an idol, and
16. Cf. Schrge 1995: 221: 'In V 6 greift Paulus wahrscheinlich nicht auf ein
Argument der Korinther, sondern auf eine berkommene Formel zurck.' Murphy
O'Connor (1978a: 254-59) argues that the text is a pre-Pauline baptismal acclamation.
His argument that it is 'soteriologicaT and not Cosmologica!' is less convincing.17. Cf. Schrge 1995: 254: 'Wohl aber rechnet Paulus offenbar mit einer
Diskrepanz zwischen dem, was auch die Schwachen erkennen, und dem, was ihr
Verhalten prgt.' Also Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 552-55. Martin (1995: 184) rightly
warns against modernizing Paul too easily by imputing to him modern psychological
ideas of knowing on a 'conscious' level but not working this through on the
'subconscious' level. Martin suggests that from Paul's point of view (which differs
from that of the strong), 'The Strong cannot simply hand over their gnosis to the
Weak, as if it could be taught; rather, in Paul's rhetoric, people either have it or
do not have it. Possession of gnosis is a matter of state or status, not education'
(p. 187). However, Martin's view that Paul regards gnosis as a 'prophylactic
talisman' (pp. 179-89) surely needs some qualification. The activity for which the
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
7/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 89
because they still have this awareness, if they eat, their weak
is defiled (v. 7).18
Whatever the precise explanation, this
juxtaposition of vv. 6 and 7 is a key to understanding this passage. It is
notable that Wright skips over it completely. His only reference to
v. 7 is the following sentence in a section stressing the importance of
love within the family which is 'the Messiah-and-his-people'. 'This',
he suggests, 'is essentially the point of vv. 7-13, whose focus is vv. 11-
12' (Wright 1991: 133). We shall return to this point.
In v. 8, Paul expresses a view with which the strong might at least
in part agree, though it is certainly Paul's view too (cf. Rom. 14.14-
15), and hence it is unnecessary and probablyunconvincing to see it as
another Corinthian quotation. Moreoever, the assertion that 'food will
not commend us to God' is used by Paul to show that the act of eating
brings no particular benefit, and equally, therefore, that abstaining
implies no loss. The strong will not suffer any spiritual lack if they do
abstain from (cf. Gardner 1994: 48-53). Food itself is
indeed a matter of moral indifference; what is crucial in this case is
the effect one's conduct has on others, whose 'consciences' are weak.
, 'watch out' (v. 9), is the first imperative Paul uses in thispassage. The problem is that the strong's exercise of their authority,
their , may become a stumbling block to the weak; seeing the
strong eating or elsewhere, they may be 'built up'
, an ironizing of the term Paul uses so positively
elsewhereto eat idol-food even while conscious of its idolatrous
connections. The conduct of the strong would therefore lead to the
destruction of the weak, who are, as much as anyone else, people for
whom Christ died (v. 11).In vv. 11-13, there emerges a clear emphasis upon christologically
based relational concerns. In contrast to the theological legitimations
which are cited in vv. 1-6 as the basis from which the strong argue
their right to eat idol-food, here the foundation for ethical action is
18. There has been much discussion of the meaning of the term here
and in the New Testament. It certainly has a sense somewhat different from the
modern use of the word 'conscience': those with a 'weak' are not those
with a slack or undisciplined approach to morality, but quite the opposite. It is gene
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
8/33
90 Journalfor the Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)
the status ofeach fellow believer as a brother orsister in Christ.19
The word appears four times in w. 11-13, in what MurphyO'Connor (1978a: 266) calls 'calculated repetition'. First the point ismade that each ofthese , is someone forwhom Christ died.Christ gave himself completely foreach one, even to death. Moreover,to offend orcause to stumble one ofthese is to sin againstChrist (v. 12), 'the only occasion on which Paul speaks ofa "sin againstChrist'".
20Thus in a hyperbolic summary ofhis point Paul declares
that he himself would go to extreme lengths, giving up meat completely rather than be a cause ofoffence and stumbling to anyofthesesisters and brothers (v. 13; cf. the extreme language ofRom. 9.3).
The shift between w . 6 and 7 is, I submit, crucial to this argument.Paul, it seems to me, does almost precisely the opposite ofwhat Wrightsees him doing. Wright proposes that
Paul, in addressing a very specific situation and problem, argues from
basic, and thoroughly theological, principles to a view which is, in terms
of the history ofreligions, specifically and uniquely Christian, and that in
the middle ofhis argument v. 6 functions as a Christian redefinition of the
Jewish confession of faith, the Shema (1991: 121).21
What we actually find in vv. 4-6 is Paul's outline ofthe theologicalprinciples upon which the strong base their freedom to eat idol-food.
Paul does not disagree with the theological principles (though v. 5reflects some ambivalence about the non-existence ofidols), nor withthe consequence drawn from them, that food is a matter ofmoralindifference and that idol-food can therefore be eaten without worry.There is no hint in ch. 8 that the ofthe strong is anythingotherthan entirely legitimate (v. 9). What Paul does do is to insist thatChristian conduct has quite a differentfoundation and motivation.
22
19. Cf. Furnish 1990: 154: Paul *shifts attention away from the question of what
rights believers have before God to the matter of what responsibilities believers have
for one another'.
20. See Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 563-65, who argues that it is the community
as the body of Christ which is in view here.
21. Cf. p. 125: 'his [sc. Paul's] basic rule ofthumb for addressing this question
is, as one might have predicted from a Jewish background, the reassertion of Jewish-
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
9/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 91
There are some who do not see the theological knowledge or its con
sequences in the same way as the strong, and rather than seeking to
educate or enlighten them so as to change their views and practice, Paul
insists that a christologically based pattern of self-giving for one's
brothers and sisters in Christ must be adopted. Even a practice for
which one has an unquestionable 'right',23
which has an unquestionable
theological basis, must be set aside if it is a cause of stumbling. That
this interpretation of ch. 8 is correct is, I suggest, confirmed by what
follows in ch. 9.
1 Corinthians9.1-27
Chapter 9 may be digressive but I believe it plays a crucial role in the
argument of the whole passage. It is notable, and unfortunate, that a
good manystudies concentrate on chs. 8 and 10 (or parts thereof) with
out giving attention to ch. 9 and its role here.24 Just as 1 Corinthians
13 is a digression from the specific theme of spiritual gifts and their
exercise within the community, yet at the same time points to love
drawing attention to the way in which they are linked through the pattern of indicative
and imperative. Certainly, in a general sense (against the idea that Paul's ethics are
merely adopted ad hoc from various sources contemporary with him, cf. Hays 1997:
17) I would agree that Paul's ethics are thoroughly grounded in the Gospel (cf.
Furnish 1990; Hays 1994). However, what I am arguing for here is a rather more
nuanced expression ofthe broadly 'theological' foundations ofPaul's ethics. In this
passage at least, theological principles, such as the monotheistic confession (v. 6)
are not (pace Wright) used as a basis for ethical action. This does not mean, however, that Paul's ethics are merely 'relational' or contextual; rather, they are based
upon profoundlychristological foundations. When it comes to the ethical shaping of
action and relationships in the Christian community, it seems (here at least) that it is
the christological paradigm, rather than strictly ideological principles, which is
ethicallydeterminative.
23. Following many New Testament scholars, and BAGD, 277,1 have used the
term 'right' to translate in this passage, esp. in ch.9.1 recognize, however,
that there is an important contemporary debate as to whether the notion of 'rights' has
any legitimate part in Christian ethics. Winter (1994: 166-77) argues for the transla
tion 'right', and suggests that Paul has a specific 'civic right' in view, 'a civic privi-
lege which entitled Corinthian citizens to dine on "civic" occasions in a temple'
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
10/33
92 Journal for the Studyofthe New Testament67 (1997)
as the most important foundation for the whole discussion, so
1 Corinthians 9 points to issues that are of fundamental importance in
the context of the discussion of. The verbal and thematiclinks indicate the integration of ch. 9 into the wider argument to
which it contributes.25
There has been considerable debate as to whether this chapter should
be read primarilyas a defence or as an example (see Horrell 1996a:
204-206). Certainly there are elements of defensiveness here in rela
tion to Paul's apostleship (vv. 1-3) and perhaps also in relation to his
refusal of financial support from the Corinthians.26
Yet in the argu
ment ofthe passage as a whole it clearly serves as an example, spellingout for the strong the pattern of conduct that Paul calls them to imitate,
and that he perceives as an imitation of Christ (11.1).
The opening verses are a robust assertion of Paul's apostleship,
which may well reflect his defensiveness on this very question, not
least at Corinth.27 But the reason that it is so crucial for Paul to estab
lish his apostolicity at this point is that it is a necessary prerequisite
for the validity of the argument that follows. Paul will go into some
detail about his refusal to use his rights as an apostle, but if he werenot a true apostle then the whole argument becomes completely
worthless. However, having established his apostolic status he can then
list the rights of an apostle (vv. 4-6) with the clear and insistent pre
sumption that he and Barnabas are as entitled to these rights as any of
'the other apostles' (v. 5). Then he proceeds to list the grounds upon
which such rights are based, the principles with which they can be
legitimated.
In this list there is a clear progression, with more weighty anddecisive reasons drawn in, and reaching a rhetorical climax in v. 14.
28
25. E.g. (8.9; 9.4-6, 12, 18) and the various words related to the idea
of 'offence': (8.9); (9.12); (10.32);
(8.13); also (9.19-23). See further Willis 1985b: 39-40; Malherbe 1994;
Schrge 1995: 213.
26. I cannot see any evidence for the view that Paul is defending himself against
criticism that he ate idol-food in this chapter, as argued by Hurd 1965: 130-31; Fee
1987: 363, 393,425 etc.; contrast Gooch 1993: 93-95.27. Schrge (1995: 280-91) suggests that the 'defence' mentioned in v. 3 relates
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
11/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 93
First there are the reasons drawn from the logic of human affairs:
soldiers receive provisions from those for whom they fight; those who
plant vineyards enjoy the fruit of the vines; shepherds drinkthe milkfrom their flock (v. 7). The reasons become more important and
authoritative: it is not just human reason and experience that show this
principle to be right, the law of Moses says so too (vv. 8-9). The
regulation from Deuteronomy about the threshing ox was meant, Paul
insists, as a principle for human beings,29
a principle that Paul elabo
rates in v. 1030
and relates specifically to the Corinthian situation in v.
11. He and his co-workers, more than any others ( ),
have a right, an , which is surely unquestionable. However,strikingly, it is a right that they choose not to use, so as not to place
any stumbling block in the way of the gospel (v. 12). Having made
this point explicitly, the rhetorical climax comes as Paul returns to yet
further legitimations of these rights, followed by the personalizing of
the issue onto himself alone, as the shift from first person plural to
first person singular shows (cf. v. 12 and v. 15). First he mentions the
principle at work in the operations of temple and cult (v. 13), and
then 'clinches the argument' (Fee 1987: 412) with surely the ultimateChristian legitimation: the command ofJesus (v. 14).31
Paul has thus demonstrated the following: if ever there were a right,
an , which could be unquestionably legitimated, this is it. It is
undergirded by the logic of human affairs, by the scriptures, by the
way the temple operates, and even by a command of the Lord. Yet
how does Paul act in relation to this right? He sets it aside, and refuses
to use it, employing hyperbole once more as he declares that he would
beabsichtige Steigerung von Alltags- und Vernunftgrnden ber das Mosegesetz bis
zrn Herenwort,
(p. 295).
29. See further Listone Brewer 1992; Robbins 1996: 121-22,130.
30. Some have argued that v. 10b is a quotation from an unknown apocryphal
source introduced by . .. (e.g. Conzelmann 1975: 155; Schrge
1995, 302; it is italicized in NA27). However, while it may be based to some extent
on Sir. 6.19, with which it has notable similarities, it is more convincing to take the
verb to refer back 'to the cited passage in v. 9' and to read the in 'acausal or explanatorysense' (with Fee 1987: 409 n. 68).
31 'V 14 t P l di t h id d I t i i B i
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
12/33
94 Journal forthe Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)
ratherdie than be deprived ofhis boast in this matter (v. 15).32
Indeed,his proclamation ofthe gospel is something he undertakes not from
choice but undercompulsion, as a slave,33
and hence he can claim nowage, no (vv. 16-17). The answer to his rhetorical question'what then is my?' is deeply ironic: his pay orreward is presenting the gospel free ofcharge () so as ( plus articularinfinitive) notto use his (v. 18).
The argument goes further still: though Paul is unquestionably free(9.1, 19) he has enslaved himself to all (v. 19).
34He has commended
the gospel bybecoming 'all things to all people' (v. 22). In his list
here too there is a rhetorical climax in thefinalphrase 'to the weak, Ibecame weak', the only phrase in the series without the qualifying .35
There is no mention ofbecoming 'strong' in the list, both because thisseems to be the group with which Paul would naturally and initiallyidentify himself and, more importantly perhaps, because the strong arethe group he is addressing and challenging to imitate him in accommodation to others forthe sake ofthe gospel.
36Indeed, Paul concludes,
he does everythingforthe sake ofthe gospel.
This leads him to think about the strenuous effort and self-controlwhich such commitment demands (vv. 24-27). Using the analogyofathletes who run and box, he urges the Corinthians to similarly wholehearted and self-disciplined dedication (see Garrison 1997). Paul goesto the lengths ofbeating and enslaving his own body, lest he findhimself in the end (v. 27).
The argument ofchs. 8 and 9 maytherefore be summarized: Paulcites and accepts the theological principles which the strong use to
32. Cf. Willis 1985b: 35: 'Paul has established his rights so strongly so that he
can make somethingof his renunciation of them\
33. Paul's situation is that of one who acts , not ; see Martin 1990:
71-77; Horrell 1996a: 207; otherwise Malherbe 1994: 249; Robbins 1996: 85.
34. On the distinctiveness of Paul's viewof self-enslavement here, compared
with Stoic and Cynic philosophers, see Martin 1990: 71-77,117-35; Malherbe 1994:
251-54.
35. See Horrell 1996a: 208-209; otherwise Tomson 1990: 274-79, whose reading
of the textual evidence seems to me rather strongly influenced by his own agendaabout Paul. He argues that both the in v. 20a and the phrase
( 20) are later insertions
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
13/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple orChristologicalPraxis? 95
justify their to eat . Paul nowhere questions this
or the principles upon which it is based, but what he does do
is to maintain that Christian conduct involves a Christ-like self-givingfor others, a self-enslavement, a setting aside of one's own rights for
the sake of the gospel.37
This, Paul demonstrates, is precisely his own
practice. He has an unquestionable right to financial support from the
congregations, but he sets it aside in order to place no barrier in the
way of the gospel and in order to become weak alongside the weak
whom he seeks to gain. Christian life is not about the exercise of free
dom or authority, however legitimate that freedom and authority
might be. It is about a rigorous self-discipline rooted in concern forothers. In the words ofPaul's own summary: it is about acting on the
basis not ofknowledge, but oflove; a love whose paradigm is Christ.
But if this interpretation is correct, what are we to make of 10.1-
22? In the light of what Paul urges there, can it really be maintained
that he accepts as entirely legitimate the ofthe strong?
1 Corinthians10.1-22
It is often suggested, with some plausibility, that 10.1-13 is a midrashic
passage, based on texts concerning the wilderness wanderings from
Exodus andNumbers, which may well have existed in some form prior
to its inclusion here, perhaps created, or used previously, by Paul.38
The character and thrust ofPaul's argument seem quite clearly to shift
here, in a way that has led some to propose that 10.1-22 belongs to a
different letter altogether. However, this section is not entirely dis
junctive; rather, it picks up the train of thought begun in 9.24-27,
specifically the danger of being found in the end , that is,excluded from the company ofthose who are saved. This is clearly the
theme of 10.1-13.
The language which Paul uses in vv. 1-4 surely represents a careful
and deliberate attempt to parallel the Israelites' experiences with the
rituals of baptism and Lord's supper in which the Corinthians have
shared. Being under the cloud (an image of burial?) and passing
through the sea are described as a baptism into Moses (
37 Cf Hays 1994: 38 (= 1997: 42): 'The operative norm here is relinquishment
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
14/33
96 Journal for the Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)
, . 2). The food and
drinkthe wandering Israelites received are described as spiritual food
and spiritual drink(vv. 3-4). And just to make the parallels emphatically clear, Paul reads Christ explicitly into the wilderness narrative:
the spiritual rock from which they drankwas Christ (v. 4). So just as
all of the Corinthians have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ
(1 Cor. 1.13-14; 12.13), and all share in the Lord's supper (1 Cor.
10.16-17; 11.17-34), so allof the Israelites also shared in the rituals
of membership and belonging. After the laboured repetition of 'all',
, five times in vv. 1-4, the rhetorical impact of v. 5, beginning
with the adversative ' , can hardly be missed. Despite the factthat all shared equally in these signs of belonging, 'God was not pleased
with the majority of them, for their bodies were scattered in the desert'.
And straightawaythe explicit linkis made: these things happened, Paul
tells his readers, as examples for us, , in order to warn us
against the forms of behaviour, the 'evil desires' (v. 6), for which the
Israelites were judged and condemned: idolatry, sexual immorality,
putting Christ( )39 to the test, and grumbling.40 The lesson
is clearly drawn out: so then, ,41 'if you think you are standing,
watch out that you do not fall' (v. 12, NRSV). The whole passage is a
warning against complacency: the Israelites all partook in the rituals
of community membership just as much as the Corinthians, yet this
was no guarantee of salvation. Each person should be aware of the
potential precariousness of their position within the communityjust
as Paul is too ( ... , 9.27). Evil desires and
practices have disastrous consequences and bring terrible judgment;
baptism and eucharist provide no guarantee of protection.42
This
39. Verse 9; which some scribes found too odd and changed to . Cf. 8.12
and the warning against 'sinning against Christ'.
40. The symmetrical structure of vv. 6-11 is notable, especially in the changes
between first and second person plurals:
6: . . . , Tiuc . . . [first person plural pronouns]
7: . . . [second person plural imperative]
8: . . . . [first person plural hortatorysubjunctive]
9: , . . . [first person plural hortatorysubjunctive]
10: . . . . [secondperson plural imperative]
11: . . . . . . [first person plural pronouns]
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
15/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 97
seemingly precarious situation is nothing other than what is normal
for human beings, and it is not as if God sets up traps hoping people
will fall. On the contrary, God is faithful and provides a way bywhich temptation can be avoided (v. 13). Not surprisingly the specific
sin Paul urges the Corinthians to avoid is that of idolatry (v. 14). He
appeals to them as people wise () enough to make the right
judgment themselves in this matter (v. 15).
In vv. 16-18 Paul uses what is well known and accepted about the
Lord's supper (cf. Gardner 1994: 161) and about Israel's sacrificial
system to illustrate how eating and drinking in a cultic context estab
lish a which embraces those who partake and that which theyshare. Paul is careful to point out (v. 19) that he is not thereby con
ceding any significance to (cf. 8.8) or any real existence
to an (cf. 8.4). But (unlike Israel , in v. 18) pagan
cultic acts make sacrifices to demons () and not to God, and
Paul does not wish his readers to share with demons. Paul
wants both to deny that an idol is anything (10.19, cf. 8.4) but also at
the same time to acknowledge the existence, or the danger, of spiritual
beings other than God (cf. 8.5).43
It is hardly adequate simply to saythat Paul denies the existence of idols but believes in demons. The
tension, rather, is one that runs through much of the Bible's polemic
against idols and idolatry. On the one hand, idols are nothing; they are
not gods, but ridiculous artefacts made by human hands (e.g. Isa. 44.9-
20), yet at the same time (or precisely for this reason?) idolatry
giving worship and allegiance to anything other than Yhwhis a
dangerous and heinous sin (e.g. Deut. 6.13-15). Whatever the ontolo-
gical status of the inhabitants of Paul's mythological universe, thestatement of v. 21 is clear: 'you cannot ( ) drinkthe cup of
the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of
the Lord and the table of demons.' (NRSV) To attempt to do so would
be to provoke the Lord and to test his strength and, as the bodies of
the Israelites scattered in the desert graphically and typologically
demonstrate, the result would be destruction and death. For Paul there
are not secure'. This passage surely raises questions against Martin's (1995: 179-89)argument that gnosis acts (in Paul's view) as a prophylaxis for the strong (see n. 17
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
16/33
98 Journal for the Studyof the New Testament67 (1997)
is clearly a 'mystical reality' about the believers' in the one
body of Christ (vv. 16-17). This is simply incompatible with
with demons; to risk the latter is therefore a dangerous thing, invitinga judgment of destruction. Similarly, failing to 'discern the body'
44at
the Lord's supper and acting 'unworthily' () brings the judg-
ment of sickness and even death (11.27-31).45 Here then, as elsewhere
in 1 Corinthians, it is a further christological foundationthe unity
of the community as the body of Christwhich forms a basis for
admonition (1.10-17; 11.17-34; 12.12-27; cf. also 5.3-13; 6.15-20).
So how does Paul's extended attack on complacency and warning
against idolatry and with demons relate to the argument ofchs. 8 and 9, and to what follows in 10.23-11.1? There is certainly at
least an apparent contrast between 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1 on the one
hand, and 10.1-22 on the other: in the former passages Paul seems
to regard eating as permissible unless another is offended,
whereas in 10.1-22 he stresses the danger of eating (cf., e.g.,
Conzelmann 1975: 137). Gordon Fee, however, argues that there are
differences between 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1 and 'that the alleged ten
sion between 8,7-13 and 10,14-22 has been considerably overdrawn'(1980: 176). In his view, 8.1-13 and 10.1-22 both concern temple
meals and only in 10.23ff. does Paul introduce the different subject of
idol-meat sold in the market place and meals taken in the home.
According to Fee, Paul prohibits participation in meals at pagan
temples, whereas he permits, or regards as indifferent in itself, to be
avoided only if it offends others, buying meat from the macellum, the
market, and eating whatever is served at meals in private homes.46
Witherington similarly proposes the solution that 'Paul distinguishesbetween eating at home and eating in temples and strictly forbids the
latter (10.14-23)' (1995: 188; also Wright 1991: 134-35). He argues
that the term ' means meat consumed in the presence of
an idol, or at least in temple precincts where the god's power and pre
sence was thought to abide' (1993: 242; cf. Fee 1980: 181-87) whereas
44. The possible meanings of this enigmatic phrase have been much discussed;
see, e.g., Barrett 1971: 273-75; Martin 1995: 194-96; Horrell 1996a: 152-53.45. Cf. Martin 1995: 194: 'what Paul means by "unworthily" has to do with
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
17/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 99
'is the proper term for food that has come from the temple,
but is not being eaten in the temple or as part of temple worship'
(1993: 248). Thus Paul prohibits but permits .
Witherington states that 'Paul comes to the nub of the argument in
8.10* where he refers to the strong 'eating in the temple of an idol'
(italicized in Witherington's paraphrase of v. 10; 1993: 246).47
Yet
the implication in ch. 8 seems clearly to be that eating is
not idolatrous or sinful per se9
but only if it causes problems for the
weak who eat it as of an idol. In 8.10 there is no hint that their
presence in a temple is of itself unacceptable, or idolatrous, and
Witherington's linguistic study does not sufficiently establish that theclear distinction he wishes to make can be based on Paul's use of the
two terms.48
Fee attempts to get around this difficulty49
by suggesting
that Paul begins (in ch. 8) by correcting the Corinthians' misunder
standing of the nature of Christian ethics and only gives the imperative
against idolatry and prohibiting attendance at temple meals in 10.1-22,
after what Fee sees as 'a vigorous defence of his apostleship' in 9.1-
23.5 0 In Fee's words: 'Paul seldom begins with an imperative... he
begins by correcting serious theological misunderstandings and thengives the imperative' (1987: 363 n. 23; cf. 1980: 196-97). However,
it is surely difficult to see why Paul should apparently leave unques
tioned the of the strong to eat , even in a temple,
in ch. 8, if he intended to prohibit that very activity in ch. 10.
The evidence ofchs. 8 and 10 together requires us to acknowledge
that for Paul 'eating need not be inherently idolatrous'
(Fisk1989: 59). Bruce Fisk is right to maintain that 'One of the greatest
obstacles to Fee's interpretation is its inability to explain Paul's toleration in chap. 8 of an activity declared idolatrous in chap. 10' (1989:
47. Witherington considers it 'probable that Paul is here referring to the temple's
adjoining dining rooms' (1993: 246 n. 22).
48. Witherington makes no reference (cf. his comment on p. 237) to Fisk 1989
(nor to Brant 1981), who also analyses uses of the term but comes to
quite different conclusions. Cf. for example their different comments on Did. 6.3
(Fisk 1989: 58; Witherington 1993: 242). The presence of in place of
in a number of (Western) manuscripts at 10.28 casts further doubt on the
terminological distinction Witherington wishes to make being understood as such in
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
18/33
100 Journal forthe Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)
59). This applies equally to Witherington's proposal. Fisk summarizes
the problem:
evidence within chap. 8 suggests strongly that Paul did NOT view those
dining in the temple as morally culpable (unless they scandalized someone
else), whereas chap. 10 contains a strong warning against the idolatry that
occurs around the idol's table in the temple. Paul appears inconsistent. Is
dining in an idol's temple allowable, or isn't it? (1989: 62)
It is important to note the vocabulary used in 10.1-22. Paul does notcondemn orprohibit but worship of
idols (10.14; cf. 10.7; also 5.10-11; 6.9).
51
So what is Paul attemptingto do in 10.1-22?Part ofwhat he is doing, surely, is giving a further reason whythe
strong need to be rather more cautious than they might be at presentabout partaking in at all sorts ofoccasions. The firstreason Paul gives is concern forthe weak, and it is this concern thatdominates his own practice as described in ch, 9 and that is reiteratedmost strongly at the end ofthe whole passage (10.23-11.1). As a secondreason, however, Paul warns the strong against complacency, againstregarding themselves as immune from judgment and punishment, andagainst idolatrytheir gnosis is no protection (10.1-14). Thirdly, he
warns them against the delusion that they can unproblematically share
in opposing spheres of (10.15-22).
Paul may also be concerned to show that his seemingly 'liberal' stanceon in no wayrepresents a lackofconcern about idolatry.Idolatry must always be rigorously shunned forfear ofjudgment (cf.Brunt 1981: 23). More than this, however, the clear implication of
10.20-21 is that certain occasions are idolatrous: cultic gatherings whenthings are sacrificed to what Paul calls demons. AChristian cannotshare in such occasions and also share around Christ's table.
This must surely be Paul's teaching at this pointthis is where he'draws the line' around the limits ofacceptable involvement in paganlife and cults
52yet what he does not do is define clearly which occa
sions he means. When is eating ? In the
51. Cf. Brunt 1981: 20,23,29n. 7; Fisk1989:63-64. According to Witheringtonthe teaching of 10.14 is explicit: 'Paul does not merely say "do not eat in dining areas
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
19/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 101
light ofch. 8 he does notseem to mean all occasions when
are eaten in the temple precincts (contra Fee, Wright, Witherington
etal). A simple temple/private home distinction does not seem to bewhat Paul enunciates (and if he had meant this surely it could have
been more clearly and directly stated). There are good reasons for this:
temples and their precincts were extensively used for a wide range of
purposes and gatherings in the Roman empirereligious, political,
social and economicand were central to social life.53
Moreover,
meals in the home often had a religious dimension too; the sacred and
the secular cannot be so neatly divided.54 Perhaps this is in part why
Paul does not give a clear answer as to precisely which settings orgatherings are acceptable or unacceptable. Fisk rightly observes, The
issue in 10.1-22 is neither what one eats (idol meat or other) nor
where one eats it (temple, home, etc.) Rather, Paul is concerned about
the nature of the meal' (Fisk1989: 63). Paul does indeed want to warn
the strong Corinthians against participation in pagan sacrificial cultic
celebrations, but this does not amount to a ban on , nor
necessarilyon activities at the temple.55
1 Cor. 10.1-22 does not, then,
contradict ch. 8, though it does state that certain occasions on which would be eatennamely pagan cultic sacrificesare pro
hibited, whether participation offends other Christians or not. However,
in view of chs. 8-9, 10.1-22 does not contain the dominant focus of
Paul's ethical instruction here. Witherington is misleading to suggest
that Paul's teaching here can be summarized as a concern 'about the
venue of eating such meat' (1994: 42). The issue to which Paul gives
most attention in 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1 (though he draws an absolute line in
53. See esp. Stambaugh 1978; also Willis 1985a: 7-64; and on the Egyptian cults
at Corinth, Smith 1977.
54. Cf. P. Oslo 157, P. Yale 85 (quoted in Horrell 1996a: 145-46); Gooch 1993:
1-46; Martin 1995: 183.
55. This conclusion is not perhaps as surprising or unlikely as many New
Testament studies might suggest, nor would it necessarily make Paul highly 'unusual'
or remarkably 'un-Jewish': see Borgen 1994 for evidence that there was greater
diversity among both Jews and Christians with regard to participation in pagan cults
than is often assumed. Borgen (p. 48) writes, 'Various Jews and various Christiansdrew the boundary differently with regard to sports, cultural activities, meals and
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
20/33
102 Journal forthe Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)
10.1-22) is that of eating ornot-eating when the only reason forabstaining is the interests and concerns of others. These primaryconcerns emerge again in his own summary of the whole passage(10.23-11.1).
1 Corinthians10.23-11.1
In 10.23 Paul begins to recapitulate and summarize his argument.56
Hebegins bytwice citing the Corinthian slogan 'all things are lawful', , quoted already in 6.12. As with the opinions Paul
cites in 8.1 and 8.4, he does not negate oroppose this slogan, but qualifies it byinsisting again (10.23 is closelyparallel to 8.1) that there aremore important values, higher priorities, which must inform ethicalpractice. It is not a matter only ofwhether one has the freedom, orthe right, to do something (), but ofwhether it is forthe common good (; cf. 12.7: ), whether it buildsup the community(). These values are fundamental to Paul'sunderstanding of Christian ethical practice, which is essentially a
relational, communal matter and is not primarily about an individual'sown rights orbenefits.
57Indeed, as the concise imperative of v. 24
declares, it is an ethic oriented fundamentally to 'the other', and to thebenefit and support ofthe other rather than ofthe self. This ethic isgrounded, forPaul, in Christology. Richard Hays suggests that thereare 'two fundamental norms to which he [sc. Paul] points repeatedly:the unity ofthe community [we should perhaps add: as the body ofChrist] and the imitation ofChrist' (1997,41).
58These basic principles
of Pauline ethics are thus summarized in vv. 23 and 24: the unity andwell-being ofthe community (... ) and the imita-
56. Cf. Hurd 1965: 128: 'Closer comparison reveals that the whole of 1 Cor.
10.23-11.1 is a point by point restatement and summary of the argument of 1 Cor. 8
and 9'. See also Watson 1989: 312.
57. Cf. the uses of and elsewhere in 1 Corinthians: 3.9;
14.3-5, 12, 17, 26. Hays (1997: 57 n. 27) points out that this language refers to 'the
edification ofthe community as a whole'.5 8. Wright ( 1991: 135) also points to the christological basis ofthe argument here:
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
21/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple orChristologicalPraxis? 103
tion ofChrist ( ).59
In . 25 Paul turns to more specific and practical conclusions, dealingfirst with the issue of meat purchased in the market and second withinvitations to meals from unbelievers. In the first case the Christian isfree to buy and consume anything sold in the market without feeling
the need to raise questions about it. Paul justifies this advice with a
quotation from scripture, Ps. 24.1. While this verse was used in rabbinic literature 'to justify the use ofbenedictions over food' (Barrett1982: 52), Paul seems to use it here as a scriptural basis for declaringall foods sold in the market place 'clean' and acceptable for the
Christian (cf. Mk 7.14-20; Acts 10.14-15; Rom. 14.14).60 In the caseof invitations to meals hosted by unbelievers, Paul allows the freedom
to go, 'if you wish' ( ), and to eat whatever isserved (v. 27). Although 10.1-22 certainly makes clear that pagancultic sacrificial gatherings are not included in this permission, it is
not necessarilyto be assumed that the only invitations Paul has in viewhere are those to a private home (as most interpreters do; see Schrge1995: 468 n. 523). On the contrary, it is likely that invitations to
various kinds of social and celebratory occasions in the temple restau-rants are included.61 The only reason given here for 'not eating' is
if someone62 points out that the food has been offered to an idol
(). Then one should abstain, for the sake ofthe otherperson's; that is, not because you yourself are in danger from suchfood, but out ofconcern forthe well-being ofthe other.
The rhetorical questions that follow in vv. 29b-30 have puzzledcommentators for years.
63However, Duane Watson's (1989) analysis
ofthe use of such questions in ancient rhetoric has shown that the lackof direct answer to the questions need not be problematic. Certainly
59. NA2 7
lists in the margin by this verse Rom. 15.2 and Phil. 2.4, both pass
ages where the paradigm ofChrist's self-giving is expounded; see further below.
60. Cf. Barrett 1982; otherwise Tomson 1990: 205-206.
61. Cf. Borgen 1994, esp. 55-56; Martin 1995: 183; Schrge 1995: 468-69,461.
Schrge suggests, 'Zudem pat dann auch die Zurckhaltung ( ) besser,
weil die Grenze des Erlaubten hier eher zu verschwimmen droht' (p. 469).
62. There has been much discussion as to whether the *someone' Paul has inmind here is a believer or an unbeliever. I thinkthe evidence just tips in favour of a
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
22/33
104 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 67 (1997)
Paul has already shown that the Christian way, as he embodies it, may
indeed require the limitation of one's own legitimate freedom, for the
sake of others and for the gospel (9.19-23), and an abandonment of
rights which one could justifiably enjoy (9.4-18). Watson suggests that
here the questions 'allow Paul to progress in his argumentation from
the specific examples of 10:23-29a to the more general principles of
10:31-1 i.V.64 Paul's first general principle, in the conclusion to the
passage as a whole (10.31-11.1), does perhaps concede the importance
and force of these questions. The Christian's calling, in whatever they
do, is indeed to glorify God and not to please people (v. 31). But this
also implies, of course, that Christian living is not primarily about exercising one's legitimate freedom and enjoying one's rights, but about
glorifying God. Next Paul reiterates his basic conviction, so central to
this whole passage, that one should avoid causing offence or stumbling
either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God (v. 32).65 Just as
Paul believes that he does, so they too must seek to please others rather
than seeking their own benefit, in order that others may be saved
(v. 33). And the concluding sentence urges imitation of Paul, revealing
also that he regards his own practice as an imitation of Christ (11.1).Notable in this concluding section is the lack of any reference back
to 10.1-22. All the reiterations and repetitions relate to chs. 8 and 9
(cf. Hurd 1965: 128-31). Wolfgang Schrge suggests that after making
clear the necessary limits, especially the rejection of participation in
pagan cultic meals (in 10.1-22), Paul turns back in the conclusion to
the more fundamental statements ofch. 8 and summarizes and clarifies
these with concrete examples (1995: 461).
This concluding section also raises wider questions concerningPaul's ethics and practice. For example, what does Paul understand by
the 'imitation of Christ', and how central or otherwise is this to his
ethics here and elsewhere? And how does Paul's exhortation to be
without offence () to both Jews and Greeks (10.32; 9.20-21) relate both to his insistence in 1 Corinthians that the gospel ispreciselyan offence to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1.23) and to
his blunt and angry confrontation with Jewish Christians whom he
hardlyseems concerned to please (Phil. 3.2; Gal. 1.8-10; 5.1-12 etc.)?These questions will be taken up briefly in the conclusion that follows.
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
23/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 105
Conclusion
Fundamental to Pauline ethics, in this passage at least, is a christologi-cally patterned orientation to others. Ethics is not about the actions ordecisions that an individual justifies on the basis oftheological principles, but is about the common good, about building up the Christiancommunity. The contrast is sharply drawn in ch. 8, where the theological principles that could legitimately justifypartaking of(vv. 4-6) are supplanted as a basis for action by the relational con
cerns rooted in Christ's self-giving love. Each member of the community is an forwhom Christ died; each is a memberofthebody ofChrist, and to cause anyone to stumble is therefore to sinagainst Christ (vv. 11-13). It is these concerns that should determineone's actions. Murphy O'Connor's analysis is in some ways similar tothat argued here, but he is too psychologically speculative about theCorinthian Christians and also underplays the christological basis ofthe practice to which Paul calls the Corinthian 'strong'. He writes,
The Strong had Paul's support on the level of objective truth, but it stoppedthere. He could not accept the cold speculative reasoning which dominated
their approach. Stripped to its essentials his objection was that their strictly
rational logic failed to take into account the complexity ofreal life.66
Paul's objection, I suggest, is hardly summarized adequately as a pragmatic appreciation of 'the complexity ofreal life'. It is based on theconviction that in certain situations even practices that can be justifiedand legitimated byunquestionable theological principles should be
renounced out ofconcern forothers, a concern rooted in an orientationto the interests ofthe other which forPaul is essentially an imitationof Christ. In essence Paul argues here that Christian ethics are foundednot upon theological principles but upon a christological praxis.
67The
66. 1978b: 558. According to Murphy O'Connor both strong and weak are
challenged and criticized by Paul; their 'behaviour betrayed self-centered superiority
and fear respectively' (p. 568). The contemptuous superiority of the Strong was
opposed by the spiteful malice of the Weak' (p. 556). The Weakhad to change.
Their aggressivity was in its own wayjust as destructive as the lack ofconcern of theStrong' (p. 568). However, I cannot see in the passage the criticism of the weak
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
24/33
106 Journalfor the Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)
basis for action is not (theological, monotheistic) knowledge, but(christomorphic) love (8.1-3).
68This, perhaps, is essentially what Paul
means by his being , 'in the law of Christ' (9.21).Schrge writes, 'The law of Christ is the command to love. However,
in the light of 11.1 this must be seen more precisely in the sense of
conformity to Christ' (1995: 345; cf. Gal. 6.2).69
Particularly in Protestant exegesis there has been a tendency to under-
play or deny the importance of imitatio Christi in Pauline thought.70
But here, of course, the passage concludes with the explicit call to
imitation (11.1), imitation of Paul which is in turn imitation of Christ.
We must surely relate this back to ch. 9, where Paul has spelt out at
length the nature of his personal example and where we find precisely
the pattern of renunciation of an unquestionable right for the sake of
others and for the gospel. Paul's assertion that, though free, he has
enslaved himself to all ( , 9.19) recalls thelanguage of Phil. 2.7 ( ), as does the phrase'humbling myself ( ) in 2 Cor. 11.7, anotherpassage where Paul is speaking of his practice of proclaiming the gospel
'free of charge' ().71 That well-known passage in Philippiansis introduced with the exhortation 'let each of you look not to yourown interests, but to the interests ofothers' (Phil. 2.4, NRSV). Christ'sattitude of self-giving and self-emptying is an attitude to be imitated.
72
The example ofChrist is also used in Rom. 15.3 to support the assertionthat each should seek to please their neighbour and not themselves,'for Christ did not please himself. Here in 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul
about the shaping ofaction and relationships in community.
68. Cf. Hays 1997: 46: 'the fundamental norm of Pauline ethics is the christo
morphic life'.
69. See further Hays 1987; 1997: 27-28; Furnish 1990: 155.
70. See, e.g., Michaelis, TDNT 4: 668-73; and the comments of Kurz 1985;
Hooker 1990: 7, 36 n. 21, 47 n. 7, 90-93. Recent studies of Pauline ethics seem
more inclined to appreciate this important theme: see, e.g., Matera 1996: 174-83;
Hays 1997: 31,41. Castelli 1991 is much more suspicious and critical of the theme
of imitation in Paul, regarding it as a discourse ofpower which functions 'as a call to
sameness with its implicit indictment ofdifference' (p. 116).
71. Hays (1997: 42) states that 9.19-23 'bears a striking structural similarity to
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
25/33
HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 107
demonstrates that this ethical imperative has priority over the theolo
gical or scriptural justifications which otherwise might legitimate a
particular practice. In 1 Cor. 9.9, as Richard Hays correctly observes,
Paul cites Scripture but then 'follows a course opposed to what the
texton his own readingrequires' (1989: 166). Hays continues,
'What this extraordinary fact demonstrates is that Paul allows the
imitatio Christiparadigm (renunciation of privilege for the sake of
others) to override all particular ethical rules and prescriptions, even
when the rule is a direct command of scripture' (1989: 225 n. 36).
We should also add, 'and even when the rule is a direct instruction of
Jesus' (9.14-15).73 In this particular situation Paul clearly believedthat the imperative of the gospel demanded from him the setting aside
of his right to material support from the church, and demanded from
the strong Corinthians the willingness to set aside their to
eat .
It should not be thought, however, that this is the be all and end all
ofPauline ethics. 1 Cor. 10.1-22 shows that there are other considera
tions to be taken into account. Concern for others is certainly not the
onlynecessarybasis for ethical decision-making. Avoidance of idolatry,like the avoidance of sexual immorality, is an absolute imperative
which is not to be compromised even if people happen to be over-
tolerant (cf. 1 Cor. 5.1-13). The strong's right to eat with impunity
is limited by factors other than a Christ-like concern for the interests
of others, and 10.1-22 shows (albeit without clear and unambiguous
definition) where Paul draws the line. Here though, interestingly,
another aspect of Pauline Christologythe of believers in
the body of Christis prominent.Pressing questions about Paul's consistency are raised by his asser
tion that he seeks to please everyone and to cause no offence to Jews,
as well as Greeks and the church of God (10.32-33; 9.19-23; cf.
Richardson 1980). It hardly needs to be pointed out that Paul else
where causes great offence to Jews and to Jewish Christians, and shows
no sign of amending his behaviour or standpoint in order to please
them. Indeed, he insists that he is not seeking to please people (Gal.
1.10; 1 Thess. 2.4). A full answer to this complex issue cannot be
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
26/33
108 Journal for the Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)
attempted here, though the following points are perhaps worth making.
First, it is clear, as we have already noted, that factors other than a
christologically patterned self-giving for others also play a part in
Pauline ethics. The case of, as has often been pointed out,
is one where for Paul the question of eating or not-eating (exceptin
cultic sacrifices) is a matter of indifference; it is an adiaphoron. The
only reason to abstain in this situation is out of concern for others.
Other actions are for Paul quite clearly wrong and intolerable, what
ever the reaction of others. Secondly, it is perhaps not too simplistic
to say that Paul's harshest criticism is often directed towards those
judaizing Christians who in his view seek to impose additional requirements other than faith in Christ upon Gentile converts, or seek to
exclude them from full with Jewish Christians (Gal. 2.11-
21). It is the right of all converts to be full and equal members of the
community which Paul so vehemently defends.74
Indeed, the unity
of the community as one in Christ is basic to his ethical concerns, and
not least in 1 Corinthians. Thirdly, it is not insignificant that it is
apparently the strong of the community whom Paul is urging in
1 Corinthians 8-10 to act with the interests of the weak in mind.75
Paul seeks to become weak in order to gain the weak, and urges the
strong to do the same, even though this very practice and exhortation
are and remain a cause of offence to the strong (Martin 1990: 117-24;
Horrell 1996a: 199-235). Similarly in 2 Cor. 8.9-15 it is those who in
Paul's view have a present abundance (v. 14) who are challenged to
follow Christ's example and become poor that others might be enriched,
and that there might be equality (see Horrell 1995b). This is an
important consideration, for while the imitation of Christ's self-givingmay be a valuable ethical paradigm, it may also become an ideological
tool for sustaining oppression and injustice, as for example in 1 Pet.
2.18-3.6, where the socially weakwomen and slavesare urged to
bear unjust suffering in silence and submission, in explicit conformity
to the example of Christ (see further Corley 1994). It can become the
basis for a psychologically and socially damaging pattern in which
Christians, especially those who are already weak and vulnerable,
74. This means, ofcourse, the community as defined by Paul's convictions as to
h t ' b hi ' t il d h P l l h tl d i l d f d
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
27/33
HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? 109
believe that they have no 'rights', no right to assert their own needs or
their own value, and sense that imitating Christ is akin to imitating adoormat. Such an ethic is the worm-like humility and self-abasement
that Nietzsche so despised. If one is inclined, as I am, to believe that
there is contemporary value in Paul's presentation of imitating Christ,then one must be equally and acutely aware of the dangers of such a
paradigm.
The imitation of Christ's self-giving, in the renunciation of rights
and concern for the interests of others, is not, then, the only basis for
Pauline ethics. It is certainly not a complete or coherent foundation
for Christian ethics, nor is it without its dangers. Yet I suggest that itis close to the heart of what for Paul is an authentically Christian
ethic, a way of living that is patterned primarily by the self-giving ofChrist. For, as Paul shows in 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1, there are times when
the demands of such christological praxis override theological prin
ciple, scriptural warrant and even dominical command. What remains
unclear from Paul is precisely which situations call for such Christlike renunciation of one's own freedom or rights, and which areas of
conduct are rightly the subjects for such flexibility. Paul obviouslybelieved that his own conduct could be offered as an example of theimitation of Christ, which was in turn to be imitated by others. We,
like the Corinthians, might wish to be somewhat suspicious, certainly
critical and cautious, in assessing how justified such a claim mightbe.76 But after all, whether he meant it or not, Paul did urge his
readers to 'judge for yourselves what I say' (1 Cor. 10.15).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barrett, CK.
1971 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black).
1982
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
28/33
110 Journal for the Studyof the New Testament67 (1997)
Borgen, P.
1994
Brunt, J.C.
1981
1985
Castelli, E.A.
1991
Collier, G.D.1994
Conzelmann, H.
1975
Corley, K.
1994
Dautzenberg, G.
1969
Fee, GD.
1980
1987
Fisk, B.N.
1989
Furnish, V.P.
1968
1990
Gardner, P.D.1994
Garrison, R.
1997
* "Yes", "No", "HowFar?": The Participation ofJews and Christians in
Pagan Cults', in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in his HellenisticContext(SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 30-59.
'Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1 Cor. 8-
10 to an Understanding ofPaul's Ethical Thinking', SBLSP20: 19-33.
'Rejected, Ignored or Misunderstood? The Fate ofPaul's Approach to the
Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity', NTS31: 113-24.
ImitatingPaul: A Discourse ofPower(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John
Knox Press).
4 "That we Might not Crave Evil": The Structure and Argument of
1 Corinthians 10.1-13', JSNT55: 55-75.
A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia;
Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
Peter', in E. Schssler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures. II. A
Feminist Commentary (London: SCM Press): 349-60.
'Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht: eine exegetischeUntersuchung zu 1 Kor 9', Bib 50: 212-32.
' Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8-10', Bib
61: 172-97.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians(NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmanns).
'Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behaviour and Pauline Response
in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)', TrinityJournal 10:
49-70.
TheologyandEthics in Paul(Nashville: Abingdon Press).
'Belonging to Christ: A Paradigm for Ethics in First Corinthians', Int44:
145-57.
The Gifts ofGodand the Authentication ofa Christian: An Exegetical
Study of 1 Corinthians 8-11.1 (Lanham, MD: University Press of
America).
'Paul's Use ofthe Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9', in The Gracco-
Roman Context ofEarlyChristian Literature (JSNTSup, 137; Sheffield:
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
29/33
HORRELL Theological Principle or ChristologicalPraxis? I l l
Gooch, P.D.
1993
Hays, R.B.
1987
1989
1994
1997
Hring, J.
1962
Hooker, M.D.
1990
Horrell, D.G.
1995a
1995b
1996a
1996b
1997
Horsley, R.A.
1978
Hurd, J.C.
1965Hurtado, L.
1984
Instone Brewer,
1992
Kurz, W.S.
1985
Malherbe A J
Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Studies in Christianity
and Judaism, 5; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press).
'Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law ofChrist', CBQ 49: 268-
90.
Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul(New Haven: Yale University
Press).
'Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians', ExAuditu 10: 31-43.
The Moral Vision ofthe New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to
New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
The First Epistle ofSaint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth
Press).
From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul(Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press).
Review ofDangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its Context by Peter
D. Gooch, 77546:279-82.
'Paul's Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology*, Epworth Review
22.2: 74-83.
The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests andIdeology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark).
Review ofThe Corinthian Body by Dale B. Martin, JTS 47:624-29.
' "The Lord commanded... But I have not used": Exegetical and
Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor. 9.14-15', NTS (forthcoming).
'Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10',
CBQ 40: 574-89.
The Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK).
'Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2.5-11 ', in J.C. Hurd and P.
Richardson (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis
Wright Beare (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 113-26.
D.
Corinthians 9.9-11 : ALiteral Interpretation of"Do not muzzle the ox" ',NTS 38: 554-65.
'Kenotic Imitation ofPaul and of Christ in Philippians 2 and 3', in F.F.
Segovia (ed.), Discipleship in the NewTestament(Philadelphia: FortressPress): 103-26.
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
30/33
112 Journalfor the Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)
Martin, D.B.
1990
1995
Martin, R.P.
1983
Matera, F.J.
1996
Maurer, C.
Meeks,W.A.1982
Merklein, H.
1984
Michaelis, W.
SlaveryasSalvation: The MetaphorofSlaveryin Pauline Christianity
(NewHaven: Yale UniversityPress).
The Corinthian Body(NewHaven: Yale UniversityPress).
Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the
SettingofEarlyChristian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
NewTestamentEthics: The LegaciesofJesusandPaul(Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox Press).
', ', TDNTl: 898-919.
' "And rose up to play": Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10.1-
22',.AWri6:64-78.
'Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes',ZNW15: 153-83.
', , ', TDNT4: 659-74.
Mitchell, .,
1989
1991
'Concerning in 1 Corinthians', 31:229-56.
Paulandthe Rhetoric ofReconciliation: An ExegeticalInvestigation of the
Language andComposition ofl Corinthians(HUT, 28;Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr).
Murphy O'Connor, J.
1978a Cor. Vffl,6: Cosmology or Soteriology?', RB85: 253-67.
1978b 'Freedom or the Ghetto (1 Cor. Vin,l-13; X,23-XI,1.)\ RB85:543-74.
Richardson, P.
1980 'Pauline Inconsistency: 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14',
NTS26: 347-62.
Robbins, V.K.
1996 The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and
Ideology(London: Routledge).Sanders, E.P.
1990
Sanders, J.T.
1997
Schrge, W.
1995
Jewish LawfromJesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press).
'Paul between Jews and Gentiles in Corinth', JSNT65: 67-83.
Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12-11,16) (EKKNT, 7.2;
Zrich: Benziger Verlag: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).
Sellin, G.
1987
Smith, D.E.1977
Stamba gh J E
'Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes', ANRW, .25.4: 2940-3044.
'The Egyptian Cultsat Corinth', HTR 70: 201-31.
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
31/33
HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? 113
and to his Own Christian Foundations', in J.C. Hurd and P. Richardson
(eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare
(Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 127-41.
The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (ed. and trans. J. Schtz;
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).
Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters ofthe Apostle to the
Gentiles (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).
Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light ofGreco-Roman Rhetoric: The
Role ofRhetorical Questions', JBL 108: 301-18.
Dererste Korintherbrief(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10
(SBLDS, 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press).
'An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9',
JSNT24: 33-48.
'Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism1 Corinthians
8-10', TynBul41: 209-26.
Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
'Not so Idle Thoughts about EIDOLOTHUTON\ TynBul44: 237-54.
'Why not Idol Meat? Is it what you Eat or where you Eat it?', Bible Review
10.3: 38-43, 54-55.
Conflict andCommunity in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on
1 and2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
'Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus' Life and Message and in the Apostolic
Existence of Paul', in A.J.M. Wedderburn (ed.), Paul and Jesus:Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 145-60.
'Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8', in The Climax of
the Covenant: Christ andthe Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. &
T. Clark): 120-36.
Yeo, Khiok-Khng
1994 'The Rhetorical Hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 8 and Chinese Ancestor
Worship', Biblnt 2: 294-311.
1995 Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and10: A FormalAnalysis with
Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-cultural Hermeneutic(Leiden: E.J. Brill).
Theissen, G.
1982
Tomson, P.J.
1990
Watson, D.F.
1989
Weiss, J.1910
Willis, W.L.
1985a
1985b
Winter, B.W.
1990
1994
Witherington, B.
1993
1994
1995
Wolff, C.
1989
Wright, N.T.
1991
Z t G
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
32/33
114 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)
ABSTRACT
This article offers a coherent reading of a complex and difficult passage (1 Cor. 8.1-
11.1). It is argued that Paul accepts as legitimate the 'right' ofthe strong to eat idol-
meat and does not rule out participating in activities at the temples, but offers his own
example (in chapter 9) as a Christ-like pattern of the giving up of legitimate rights in
the interests of others. He calls the strong Corinthians to imitate him in imitation of
Christ (11.1). Paul agrees with the theological principles cited by the strong in sup
port of their right (8.1-6), but argues that Christian ethical conduct is founded not
upon such principles, but upon a Christological praxisa pattern of action shaped by
the self-giving of Christ.
Kim Paffenroth
THE STORY OF JESUS ACCORDING TO L
Using stylistic, formal, and thematic criteria, Paffenroth reconstructs a pre-
Lukan source (L) for much of the unique material in Luke 3-19. This source
portrays Jesus primarily as a healer and teller of parables, a portrayal verydifferent from that of the suffering Son ofMan in Mark, the aphoristic
teacher of Wisdom in Q, or the depiction of Jesus as universal saviour that
Luke himself prefers. This source is quite primitive, probably earlier than
Mark, perhaps as early as Q, to which it is quite similar in form, if not
content.
Dr Kim Paffenroth is Visiting Assistant Professor, Program ofLiberalStudies,
University of Notre Dame, Notre Darne, Indiana.
cl 35.00/$58.00ISBN 1 85075 675 9
-
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics
33/33
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.