1 cor 8.7-13 - danger of idolatry

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry

1/18

The Danger of Idolatry:

First Corinthians 8:7-13

GREGORY W. DAWES

Faculty of Theology

University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

FOR MANY YEARS chaps. 8 and 10 of1 Corinthians have posed difficulties

for interpreters. The principal difficulty has been that of finding a consistentteaching on the issue of "food offered to idols" (8:1). At first sight, 1 Cor 8:7-

13 would seem to imply that the eating of food offered to idols is itself

morally neutral act which should be avoided only because of the effect it may

have on others. This position seems to be repeated in 10:23-11:1. Yet chap. 10

also contains a passionate denunciation of idolatry, and 10:14-22 suggests

that eating food offered to idols is quite simply unacceptable.

I. The State of the Question

Some have adopted the extreme position of suggesting that there is no

consistency in the positions adopted in these chapters. In doing so they have

called into question the integrity of the letter.1 However, this is a counsel of

despair: one should not assume that 1Corinthians is a composite work simply

because its argumentation appears inconsistent. Furthermore, such a theory

does not resolve the difficulty, since all admit that the same author wrote

all three passages. By partitioning the letter, one is forced to assume a


2/18

1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 83

significant inconsistency in the apostle's thinking on this issue. Therefore,

other commentators have attempted to interpret the chapters as they stand.

In surveying the workofthose authors who have tried to read 1 Corinthians 8

and 10 as a piece ofconsistent ethical exhortation, one may distinguish twointerpretations of these chapters.

According to the first interpretation, only one issue is addressed in these

chapters, namely, in C. K. Barrett's words, "whether or not it is proper for

a Christian to eat food that has at some stage in its history passed through

a pagan rite and been offered in sacrifice to an idol."2

The difficulty with

considering that these chapters deal with only one issue is the apparent

inconsistency between what is said in 8:1-13 and 10:23-11:1 (where eating

such meat seems to be, in itself, acceptable) and what is said in 10:14-22(where all involvement with such food seems to be condemned).

According to the second interpretation, put forward and vigorously

defended most recently by Gordon Fee, we need to recognize that within

chaps. 8-10 two quite different matters are being addressed.3

The first is the

question of taking part in sacrificial banquets within pagan temples, which

is discussed in 8:7-13 and 10:14-22. The second is the question of eating meat

bought in the marketplace which may have been sacrificed previously to an

idol,

4

which is discussed in 10:23-11:1. While Paul condemns participationin sacrificial banquets (on two grounds, as we shall see), he has no difficulty

in principle with eating meat from the market which may have been involved

in sacrifice. But he does warn that even this action needs to be undertaken

with concern for the other person's conscience.

Fee's presentation of this position has been criticized by Bruce Fisk, who

offers an alternative interpretation.5

Fisk takes exception to the way in which

Fee narrows the semantic range of the term , "food offered to an

2C. K. Barrett, "Things Sacrificed to Idols," NTS 11 (1964-65) 138. Barrett does, how

ever, distinguish the eating of such food in general from "the situation implied by viii.10 (cf.

x.20f.), where the meal takes place in a religious establishment" (p. 146). He writes that for Paul

to take part in such temple banquets "would be . . . wantonly to bruise consciences," but that

the apostle "does not say that it is in itself idolatry" (p. 144).3

Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerd-

mans, 1987) 357-63. This viewmay already be found in Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plum

mer, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians

(ICC; 2d ed.; Edinburgh: T. & Clark, 1914) 219.4

For the suggestion that not all the meat sold in the marketplace would have beeninvolved in sacrifice, see W. L. Willis, IdolMeat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in I Corin

thians 8 and 10 (SBLDS 68; Chico CA: Scholars 1985) 230 and Barrett "Things Sacrificed "


3/18

84 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996

idol," from food offered to an idol in general to food eaten in the idol's

temple.6

He rightly insists on the need to distinguish between the meaning of

the word and its referent in a particular context.7

He notes that

"the term simply means 'meat offered to an idol"' and that "only a search ofthe context of each occurrence will reveal precisely where this meat was tobe found and under what circumstances it was eaten."

8These observations

do not in themselves undermine Fee's position. Fee's distinction of the two

issues requires only that the context of the word's use in chap. 8 suggest that

the reference is to eating such food in a temple. However, Fisk raises another

objection to Fee's idea, suggesting that, like earlier explanations, it is unable

"to explain Paul's toleration in chap. 8 of an activity declared idolatrous in

chap. 10."9

Fee himself notes that this tension causes a difficulty for interpre

ters.10

We will return to this difficulty.Fisk's alternative interpretation ofchaps. 8 and 10 rests on his claim that

attendance at pagan temple feasts could serve a number of purposes, rangingfrom "harmless fun and social convention" to "raw idolatry."

11What Paul is

concerned about, he suggests, is not the meat as such (as in earlier readings),

noreven where one eats it (as in Fee's interpretation), but rather the character

ofthe meal. As he writes: "when temple feasts had a distinctly religious focus,

when participants were consciously acknowledging pagan gods, the Christian

could not participate (10:14) without risk of provoking God to jealousy

(10:22)."12 The apparent conflict between the two chapters comes from thefact that "1 Cor 8:10 describes permissible temple attendance, while 10:19-22

clearly portrays what is off limits."13

Whichever reading is chosen, however, all commentators seem to agree

on the nature of the problem being faced by the "weak in conscience" in

chap. 8. Whether one considers that 8:1-13 is directed against eating in thetemples in particular or against food offered to idols in general, it is assumed

that the so-called weak in conscience are scrupulous Christians. Such people

have, as it were, an overactive conscience. They cannot bring themselves to

act in good faith when it comes to eating in this way. Believing that such eating

was prohibited by their new faith, they are acting contrary to conscience if

they do so. In these verses at least, those to whom the instruction is addressed

are asked to refrain on the grounds that such behavior may lead fellowChristians into acting contrary to conscience, and therefore to their ruin.

6Ibid , 55

7Ibid , 55-56

8

Ibid , 569

Ibid , 5910

F Fi t E i tl t th C i thi 363 23


4/18


Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, for instance, describes the alleged problem

as follows:

It is easy to perceive the dilemma that one of the Weak would face if he received

. . . an invitation to celebrate the marriage of his pagan brother. He could not

decline on the grounds that his new faith did not permit it, because the Strong

were known to participate in such banquets. No matter how deeply rooted his

conviction that Christians could not share in such meals, there was no way he

could make it either comprehensible or palatable to his family. To refuse could

only appear as a gratuitous insult to a family he still loved. If he ceded to the

legitimate desires of his family, he would be going against his conscience, and

all because the Strong participated in such occasions.14

Robertson and Plummer write similarly of the one who is "weak in

conscience":

It is just because he is feeble in insight and character that this following of a

questionable example "builds up" his conscience in a disastrous way. His con

science is not sufficiently instructed to tell him that he may eat without scruple,

and yet he eats. Doing violence to scruples is no true edification.15

Wendell Lee Willis writes in the same way:

Most interpreters say the injury to the weak man's "conscience" arises when in

retrospect he evaluates his actions to have been wrong. It is possible, of course,

that the pangs accompanied his eating, but he was simply unable to resist pres

sure (implicit or explicit) to eat. Either way his "weak conscience" is the opposite

of the current meaning: someone without scruples. Rather, the man is over

scrupulous.16

What this means, as Willis notes, is that the weak person does not act because

his conscience is weak, but in spite of his weak conscience. C. K. Barrett

adopts the same line, in the process showing little sympathy for the problems

the "weak" are alleged to be experiencing.

There are in Corinth men who have eaten sacrificed food all their lives, and have

always thought of it as sacrificed to an idol having real existence, and thus

bearing real spiritual significance and force. In becoming Christians they have

not ceased to believe in the reality of the spiritual beings behind idols, and have

accordingly not ceased to think of the food itself as having religious meaning.

14Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, St Paul's Corinth: Texts and Archaeology(GNS 6; Wilming

ton DE: Michael Glazier 1983) 164


5/18

86 T H E CATHO LIC BIBLI CAL QUART ERLY I 58, 1996

They are weak . . . , weak in conscience, for they are scrupulous where scrupu

losity rests on pure error; to eat food sacrificed to idols is contrary to their

conscience, and if they do eat, their consc ience is defiled. All this is foolish, and

Paul will not defend it.17

What all the commentators have in common is that they consider the

problem of the "weak" in 1 Corinthians 8 to be essentially the same as that

of the "weak" in Romans 14-15. It is my contention that the similarities

between the two passages have led scholars to assimilate one to the other. I

will suggest that 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 make a great deal more sense if the

danger facing the weak in Corinth is not that of acting contrary to their own

beliefs but rather that of idolatry, simpliciter. We will begin with a brief look

at Romans 14-15.

II. Romans 14-15 and 1 Corinthians 8

The number of points of contact between Romans 14-15 and 1 Corin

thians 8 and 10, particularly on the level of vocabulary, is impressive.18

Nonetheless, it is clear that the issues which are dividing the two churches are

very different. The community in Rome can be divided, it seems, into at least

two groups, described in Romans 14-15 as the "weak in faith" and the

"strong."19 What issue is dividing them? Although not every practice mentioned here is in conformity with Jewish dietary laws,

20the question of the

observance ofthe Old Testament's regulations about food does seem to be the

issue which is dividing the community.21

Even if we have to reckon with the

17C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New

York: Harper & Row, 1968) 194-95.18

The points of contact are conveniently listed by C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and

Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1979)2. 691-92.

19For the expression "weak in faith," see Rom 14:1, and for the expression "the strong,"

compare the phrase oi in 15:1. Paul S. Minear (The Obedience of Faith: The Purposes

of Paulin the Epistle to the Romans[SBT 2/19; London: SCM, 1971] 18) discerns "at least five

distinct factions, or, if faction be too strong a word, five different positions" within the church

at Rome, but even if one accepts this more detailed classification, the fundamental problem

remains a conflict between the "weak in faith" and the "strong."20

The vegetarianism of 2, for instance, and the abstention from wine of 21 are not

required by Old Testament laws.21

As James D. G. Dunn notes (Romans 9-16[WBC 38b; Dallas, TX: Word, 1988]799-803), one is led to this conclusion (a) by the context of the chapter, (b) by the terminology

used (particularly the references to what is "unclean" [] in Rom 14:14 and to the things


6/18


possibility that the concerns of the "weak in faith" had other origins as well,22

it is clear that the dispute is about the acceptability of certain foods.

A detailed treatment of the apostle's response is beyond the scope of

this essay,23 but for our purposes it should be noted that Paul describesthe problem of the weak in this chapter as a weakness in faith, not a weakness

in conscience as in 1 Corinthians 8.24

Indeed in Romans 14-15 the word

"conscience" nowhere appears. Moreover, the two groups mentioned in

Romans 14-15 are "the weak [in faith]" and the "strong." Again, this stands

in contrast to 1 Corinthians 8, where those opposed to the "weak in conscience"

(as we shall see) are those who "have knowledge."25

A sign that the two passages are often assimilated (1 Corinthians 8

being read in the light of Romans 14-15) is the fact that in discussing1 Corinthians 8 many commentators adopt the terminology of Romans 14-15

and speak of the "strong" and the "weak."26

Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, for

instance, writing of the group opposed to the weak in conscience, chooses,

"for convenience," to call them "the strong," because it is "the most natural

antithesis."27

It may be "the most natural antithesis," but it is not the termi

nology the apostle himself uses. The use of the terms "strong" and "weak"

in discussions of 1 Corinthians 8 acts as a further encouragement to the reader

to identify the situation addressed in Corinth with that addressed in Rome.The problem is made all the more difficult by the fact that the modern reader

is inclined to think of the problem addressed in Rome as a "problem of

conscience."28

22C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paulto the Romans(MNTC; London: Hodder & Stough-

ton, 1932) 212.23

For a useful summary of scholarly views regarding Romans 14-15, see Cranfield, Criti

caland Exegetical Commentary on Romans, 690-98.24 Several authors simply assume that the two terms are identical. Hans Conzelmann

(7 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians [Hermeneia; Philadel

phia: Fortress, 1975] 147), for instance, writes that "for , 'conscience,'[Paul] says in

Rom 14f, 'faith'." Similarly, Rudolf Bultmann ( Theology of the New Testament[London:

SCM, 1952] 1. 220) writes that "since Paul takes for granted that the transcendent authority,

whose demand and verdict conscience knows, is known by Christians as God, he can substitute

'faith' for 'conscience'."25

Compare Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 382 n. 3226

Compare Murphy-O'Connor, St Paul's Corinth, 164, and Willis, Idol Meat, 89, al

though the latter notes, quite correctly, that "the 'strong' are never so designated."27 Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Freedom and the Ghetto (1 Cor., vm, 1-13; x, 23-xi, 1),"

RB 85 (1978) 544.28

Th i t k id tifi ti f th t bl i ti l l l i C l


7/18


We should also note that Paul's response to the situation in Rome is very

different from his response to the situation in Corinth. In Romans 14-15 the

apostle sidesin principlewith the position adopted by the "strong" (cf.

14:20: "for everything is indeed clean"). As Cranfield notes, "there is noindication in this section [of Romans] that Paul saw any harm at all in the

practice ofthe strong in itself, apart from its effect on the weak."29

The apostle

qualifies this agreement in principle (a) with a warning against passing judg

ment on one another (14:l-13a) and (b) with a warning that the behavior of

the strong could lead some of the weak to act in a state of doubt and thereby

sin (14:13b-23). This is in contrast (as we shall see) with 1 Cor 10:14-22; there,

Paul does not find himself in agreement with those "having knowledge," for

he suggests that confident behavior in the matter of sharing idol food is initself dangerous, since it risks communion with demons.

30

Who, then, are the weak in conscience in 1 Corinthians 8?31

And what

is the danger into which they are being led by the behavior of those who "have

knowledge"?

First, a more precise description ofthe group. Those to whom the chap

ter is addressed (those "having knowledge," 8:10) are warned of the existence

of another group, one whose members lack knowledge (v 7). Of these people

it is said either that their conscience is "weak" (vv 7 and 12) or that theythemselves are "weak" (vv 9-11). Who are these people? Verse 7 has already

made this clear: in this verse Paul qualifies his agreement with the principle

that pagan gods have no existence (vv 4-6) by saying "but not all have this

knowledge." Therefore, the text itselftells us that, in Willis's words, "the real

definition of the 'weak' in Corinth is 'those not having knowledge.'"32

The

"knowledge" they do not have has been referred to in the preceding verses.

They do not share the conviction of those "having knowledge" that idols

It is also clear m Richard Horsley ("Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians

1 Corinthians 8-10," CBQ 40 [1978] 581), he refers to "the parallel discussion of the same issue

m Romans 14," although later in the same article (p 588) he qualifies this and writes of "Paul's

subsequent treatment of virtually the same issue in Romans 14 "29

Cranfield, Criticaland Exegetical Commentary on Romans, 69230

If one distinguishes the two issues identified by Gordon Fee, then one may take

1 Cor 10 14-22 as a passage directed particularly against sharing the meals in the temples, the

activity m which those "having knowledge" were engaging (cf 8 10) In any case, it is difficult

to accept without further qualification Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's claim ("Freedom," 557) that

in 1 Corinthians 10 Paul "adopts the conclusions of the Strong "31

I have used the phrase "weak m conscience" because of its convenience, although I am


8/18


have no real existence.33

On the face of it, this may seem surprising. In

Horsley's words, "in the mission context of early Christianity, . . . the con

fession that there is no god but the One would have been central, . . . the

essence ofone's conversion to the true faith."34 Moreover, as Murphy-O'Connornotes, "the opposition between the one true God and idols was a key element

in Paul's own preaching."35

But it is precisely this knowledge which the

apostle claims some people lack. It may be, therefore, that "the Weak were

Gentile Christians whose intellectual conviction that there was only one God

had not yet been fullyassimilated emotionally."36

They could not bring them

selves to believe that these gods, who formerly seemed so real, were in fact

nothing.

What then is the danger? The danger is outlined in two places, first in 7, and then in vv 9-10.

37In 7 we are told that these people are so accus

tomed to the idol that they eat the food "as food offered to an idol" (

). The expression is an interesting one: it is not simply that they

eat the idol food, but that they eat it asidol food. As Fisknotes, this indicates

the attitude ofmind with which theyeat: "they recognize that what they eat

has been offered to an idol, and for them, this knowledge is highly signifi

cant."38

Yet the question remains: why does it matter that the weak eat this

food with awareness of its religious significance? What effect does this have?The immediate answer is that it results in their "conscience" being "defiled,"

but the meaning of this phrase is far from clear (as we shall see). The danger

is described more precisely in vv 9-10, where those "having knowledge" are

warned to ensure that their freedom in principle with regard to idol food does

not become a "stumbling-block to the weak." Again there are verbal parallels

33See E.-B. Alio, Saint Paul, Premire pitre aux Corinthiens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda,

1934) 203: "Cette 'science' qui n'est pas le lot de tous, c'est la conviction que 'l'idole n'est rien

dans le monde.'"34 Richard Horsley, "Gnosis in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 8.1-6," NTS 27 (1980) 36.35 Murphy-O'Connor, "Freedom," 545.36 Ibid., 554. Fee (First Corinthians, 381) suggests that the difficulty is a "dissonance

between their heads and their hearts . . . which would ultimately lead them back into idolatry

and thus destroy them." Such an explanation helps to resolve the apparent contradiction be

tween "we all have knowledge" in 8:1 and "but not all have this knowledge" in 8:7 (even leaving

aside the possibility that the first is a Corinthian slogan). In the words ofChristophe Senft (La

premire ptre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens [CNT 2/7; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1979]

112), the contradiction is "plus apparente que relle."37 The exegesis of the extremely difficult 8 need not detain us. It seems to be an affir


9/18


to Romans 14 (vv 13 and 20), but we should not allow these to mislead us.

Verbal parallels do not mean that the issues being addressed are the same:

there are more ways than one in which one's behavior may cause others to

stumble.39

What does this mean in 1 Corinthians 8? If one of the weak seesone of those "having knowledge" reclining at table in the temple of the idol,

his conscience, being weak, will be encouraged to eat the idol food (v 10). It

is in this way that the behavior of those "having knowledge" may "wound the

weak conscience" (v 12), with the result that the person will be "destroyed"

( v l l ) .

Mysuggestion is that the danger into which the "weak" are being led is

that of idolatry. The apostle's concern is that the confidence with which those

who "have knowledge" take part in temple meals (8:10) may lead those wholack this knowledge to do likewise.

40The danger is that those who lack

knowledge regarding the nonexistence of pagan gods will eat these meals

precisely as , that is, as food offered to a pagan god. In other

words, while both groups may take part in the meals, for each, the food has

a different significance. For those "having knowledge" the meal in the temple

may merely be a social occasion, but the "weak" regard it also as a religious

one. The apostle's concern, I suggest, is not that the weak would thereby be

acting contrary to their own deeply held convictions but that the weak may

be led to take part in such sacrificial meals as a religious act. Such behavior

can be described only as idolatry, pure and simple.

A number ofcommentators have approached this solution, but at the last

moment most confuse the issue by assimilating this text to Romans 14-15.

Hans Conzelmann, for example, writes that in the eyes ofthe weak man "the

gods are still powers and by his compliance he honors them as such," being

therebyguilty of "idol worship."41

This claim corresponds to my suggestion

here: idolatry pure and simple is the sin into which the weak man is being led,

but in a footnote Conzelmann writes that, to express the issue in terms ofRomans 14-15, the weak man "does not act from faith, and therefore he

sins."42

However, one should not "express it in terms of Romans 14," for the

39Still less should one read 1 Cor 8 13, "if food should cause my brother to stumble"

(), m the light of the later (and narrower) connotations of the word "scandal "40

We knowthat it was the custom in contemporarysociety to take part in the cult (and

particularlythe cultic meals) of more than one divinity Ramsay MacMullen (Paganism in the

Roman Empire [New Haven Yale University Press, 1981] 36) speaks of the fact that there

existed, in at least one area of the Roman empire, "sanctuaries equipped with kitchens for anequal number of different gods " Therefore it may well have been that the behavior of the

" h ld


10/18


issue being addressed in Romans 14 is a different one. Gordon Fee comes

closer to the solution proposed here when he writes that "it is not the food

which destroys them, but the idolatry that is inherent in the eating in the

temples," noting that "what for the others is 'food' only, is for them 'foodsacrificed to the idol.'"

43He adds that "what is in view is a former idolater

falling back into the grips of idolatry."44

This is what has been suggested

here. Yet in another place Fee fails to make a clear distinction between this

problem and that facing the "weak in faith" in Romans 14-15.45

We may say, therefore, that Bruce Fisk is right in insisting that "the

ability of to contaminate is determined solely by the beliefsystem

ofthe one eating,"46

but that does not mean that the defilement springs from

"a bad conscience"; it comes rather from the fact that to eat without a clear

understanding that these gods have no existence is to fall into idolatry. Those

who "have knowledge" may feel that there is no difficulty for them: Paul will

later suggest (10:14-22) that even for them there is a danger. But his concern

in chap. 8 is to indicate that their behavior may lead others who do not share

their confidence into that sin of idolatry which he will condemn so forcefully

in chap. 10.

III. The Apostle's Rhetorical Strategy

If the behavior of those "having knowledge" is leading the "weak in

conscience" into the sin of idolatry, how can we understand the difference

between the tone of chap. 8 and that of 10:14-22? Rather than following-

Fisk's line and suggesting that "1 Cor 8:10 describes permissible temple at

tendance, while 10:19-22 clearly portrays what is off limits,"47

1 would sug

gest that the difference in tone may be explained by the apostle's rhetorical

strategy. The first thing to note is that 10:14-22 continues the argumentation

ofchap. 8. The rhetorical question found in 10:19 ("What then am I saying?That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?") picks up

43Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 387.

44Ibid.

45Of1 Cor 8:11 Fee (ibid.) writes that the "destruction" of the weak spoken of here refers

to the person's "eternal loss, not merely some internal 'falling apart' because one is behaving

contrary to the 'dictates of conscience,' " an idea which he rejects as "altogether too modern."

Regarding the reference to eternal loss, one cannot help but agree, but I would go further and

suggest that what is at stake here has nothing to do with behaving "contrary to the dictates ofconscience."

46Fisk "Eating M t " 60 altho gh he too follo s the i that the contamination comes


11/18


the argumentation of 8:4 ("we know that no idol is in the world and that there

is no god but one"). Verse 20 of chap. 10 then introduces a new considera

tion: what is offered to idols is in fact offered to demons. In other words, in

10:14-22 the apostle takes up the point made in chap. 8 (where he agrees with

those "having knowledge" that pagan gods are nothing), but here he carries

the argument further by introducing another fact which they have failed to

take into account, that of the danger of fellowship with demons.

It is my suggestion, therefore, that the tone ofchap. 8 may be explained

by the fact that Paul is replying here to those "having knowledge" on their

own grounds.48

He accepts the correctness of the knowledge they claim to

have (vv 4-6) but then qualifies this acceptance by pointing out that acting on

the basis of this knowledge may lead others into sin (vv 7-13). His funda

mental principle here is the one outlined in the opening verses of the chapter:it is not enough to have correct knowledge; one must also act out of love. In

10:14-22, however, the apostle takes issue with their behavior on another

ground: by eating in the temple of the god they risk communion with de

mons.49

As Cranfield, contrasting 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 with Romans 14-15

remarks, in 1 Cor 10:20-22 "there is a warning against a danger to which the

Corinthian were exposed, the reality of which was quite indepen

dent of the presence of the weak brethren."50

At this point it is interesting to note Richard Horsley's suggestion thatthe two chapters reflect the two different attitudes to pagan religion which are

found in contemporary Jewish writings. The first, he maintains, "derided the

heathen gods as nothings and their worship as foolishness" and is represented

by "Hellenistic Jewish literature . . . as well as Wisdom and Philo."51

This

attitude he attributes to the Corinthian Christians to whom Paul is writing

in chap. 8. On the other hand, the apostle's criticism of pagan worship in

10:14-22 draws on a second tradition, that represented by the apocalyptic

writings. Within this second tradition, "although it is agreed that idols are

'nothings' and lifeless human products," nonetheless their worship represents

"the service or the influence of demons."52

4 8

It seems clear that chap 8 is directed primarily to those among the Corinthians who

are claiming, on the basis of their knowledge, the liberty to eat in the temples (cf 10)4 9

In this I follow that line of interpretation in which the two issueseating idol food in

general (10 23-11 1), and eating such food as part of an act of worship (8 7-13 and 10 14-

22)are distinguished50

Cranfield, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Romans, 692 The same author,

nonetheless, follows the usual view of 1 Corinthians 8 in regarding the basic problem to be that

of the "scruples" of the weak


12/18


In anycase, the contrast between 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 and Romans 14-15

becomes particularly clear at this point. In Romans 14-15 (as we have seen)

Paul sided in principle with "the strong." In 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 he does

not side, even in principle, with those "having knowledge." He is not sug

gesting that the "weak in conscience" have unnecessary scruples. He agrees

that they "lack knowledge" (as we shall see) and may, therefore, be led into

sin, but in chap. 10 he makes it clear that eating in the temple of the god is

quite simply unacceptable, even apart from the effect it may have on others.

IV. What Happens to the Conscience of the "Weak"?

The apostle uses several different terms to describe what happens to the

conscience of the "weak" when they are misled by the behavior ofthose who"have knowledge." In 7, we are told that the conscience of the "weak in

conscience" is "defiled" () by eating food offered to an idol. In 10

we are told that when such a person sees one who "has knowledge" eating in

the temple of an idol, his conscience will be "encouraged" (-

) to the point of eating food offered to the idol. In 12 we are told that

by eating in the temple those "having knowledge" are thereby sinning against

their brothers and "wounding () their weakconscience." We should

examine these expressions, as well as the term "conscience" itself, to see ifthey support my contention that the sin into which the weak are being lead

is that of idolatry.

We may begin with the term , "conscience." Much has been

written about the use of this term within the New Testament and in contem

porary literature.53

A useful starting point, for our purposes, is the article by

Paul Gooch,54

with its threefold classification of the uses of the term -

.55

The first way in which the word is used, Gooch suggests, may be

regarded as its most fundamental sense: to indicate "self-awareness, a conscious knowledge ofthe self under some description or other."

56He describes

53See, for example, the survey in Robert Jewett, Paul'sAnthropological Terms: A Study

of Their Use in Conflict Settings (AGJU 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971) 402-21.54

Paul W. Gooch, "'Conscience' in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10," NTS 33 (1987) 244-54.55

A more complex classification is possible. C. A. Pierce (Conscience in the New Testa

ment: A Study ofSyneidesis in the New Testament[SBT 15; London: SCM, 1955] 21-28) divides

conscience into "philosophical-technical-indifferent (ethically)" conscience (PTI) and "moral"

conscience (M), the latter being subdivided into "moral-positively good" conscience (MPG) and"moral bad" conscience (MB). This last category may be further divided into three uses: MB-

Norm ("moral bad normal"), MBA ("moral bad absolute") and MBNeg ("moral bad negative").


13/18


this as "the minimal sense ofthe word,"57

noting Maurer's conclusion that

it seems to be one ofthe earliest uses ofboth the Greek term and

the Latin term conscientia.5* Drawing upon the work ofC. S. Lewis, Gooch

then distinguishes two further meanings of : that of "internal

witness" (conscience bearing witness against us, passing judgment upon our

past actions and finding them lacking), and that of"internal lawgiver" (con

science as "the repository ofmoral beliefs and principles," setting down rules,

prosecuting violations, and passing judgment).59

Gooch goes on to suggest

that while we mayread in 1 Cor10:23-11:1 in the Sense of"an

awareness ofbadfeelings" (the second ofthe three senses identified),60

in

1 Corinthians 8 the word "can . . . bear only its minimal sense, consciousness

of the self" (the first sense identified).61

Gooch arrives at this meaning of in 1 Corinthians 8 on the

basis ofthe usual interpretation ofwhat is happening to the "weak" as a result

of the actions ofthose "having knowledge," forhe assumes that the problem

is their eating despite their scruples, resulting in a sense ofguilt: "their former

customs still haunt them so that they experience themselves as tainted bythe

idol associated with the meat."62

Since one cannot speak ofconscience in the

sense ofmoral lawgiveras "polluted" (v 7), or "wounded" (v 12), or "built up"

(v 10), another sense ofthe word must be chosen. He opts forthe minimal

sense, noting that as a result ofhis interpretation "we have been unable to

formulate a single meaning for which will make intelligible all of

Paul's uses in both chapters."63

However, the interpretation ofthe danger

facing the "weak" which I have offered has the advantage ofallowing us to

posit a single sense forthe word in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, for

if the danger facing the weak is not that ofeating despite their scruples (as

in Romans 14-15) but rather that ofbelieving that participation in temple

meals is acceptable, then in both places one may understand in

its developed sense ofmoral arbiter. Gooch has already shown that this is apossible sense of in chap. 10,

64rejecting such an interpretation

only after his discussion ofthe meaning of in chap. 8.65

57ibid.

58Christian Maurer, ", ..." TDNT, 7. 904, 907.

59Gooch, "Conscience," 245.

60Ibid., 251.

61Ibid., 249. The same conclusion is arrived at byHorsley ("Consciousness," 581-82), who

suggests the sense "consciousness" for all but two of the apostle's uses of .62

Gooch, "Conscience," 249.


14/18


The question of the meaning of in 1 Corinthians 8 may now

be revisited. The word is used first in 7, where we read that those who do

not have knowledge eat this food "as food offered to an idol" and therefore,

that "their conscience is defiled." The apostle uses the verb , "defile,"nowhere else, but its figurative usage is illustrated by Rev 14:4, where "to be

defiled" seems to have the sense "to have sinned." We have seen that in the

usual interpretation of 1 Cor 8:7 the expression "their conscience is defiled"

is taken as equivalent to "they are led into acting contrary to what they

themselves believe to be correct." On this basis, conscience can only be

understood as "awareness of oneself (morally)"; having one's conscience

"defiled" in this sense can only mean being led into a situation where one is

made to feel uneasy, in the wrong. But we know from Romans 14-15 that to

indicate this problem Paul uses another phrase, "not (acting) out of faith"( , Rom 14:23). The interpretation I am offering suggests that

"their conscience is defiled" means "they are led astray in their moral judge

ment."66

Conscience in this sense is the internal judge of one's actions: it is

this which is being led astray.

In 10, we read that when those who "have knowledge" recline at table

in the temple of an idol, the conscience of the weak person is encouraged

(literally, "built up") to the point that "he eats food offered to an idol." On

the usual interpretation, this would mean that such a person is encouragedto eat, even though in his heart he believes it to be wrong; but if this inter

pretation is followed, in what sense would his "weak conscience" be "built

up"? As many commentators note, in 10 may well be

ironic: the "edification" which those having knowledge are providing by

eating in the temples is no true edification at all.67

This does not solve the

problem, for what can a weak person's conscience's being "built up" mean,

even in an ironic sense? Gooch, retaining the minimal sense of

as "self-consciousness," is forced to paraphrase, "he will come to regard

himself as truly edified when he is not."68 Does it not make better sense tounderstand in 10 as "moral arbiter"? Paul would then be saying

in 10 that the weak person is encouraged by the behavior of those "having

66Fee (First Epistle to the Corinthians, 381), who comes closest to recognizing that the

sin into which the "weak" are being led is that of idolatry, offers another interpretation of the

phrase "their conscience is defiled": the "past association [of the weak] with idols means that a

return to the worship of the god by eating in his/her honor causes them to defile their new

relationship with Christ." It is difficult to square this reading of 7 with Fee's understanding of

conscience here as "moral consciousness." In what way does this act of idolatry defile their

"moral consciousness"?


15/18


knowledge" to believe that it is acceptable to take part in such sacrificial

meals. Those "having knowledge" may be able to argue that for them it is

acceptable (although Paul will question this claim in 10:14-22). The problem

addressed by Paul here is that by following their example the "weak" are

eating this food "as food offered to an idol" (v 7); therefore, for them to take

part in these meals is an act of idolatry.69

In 12 we are told that those having knowledge are "wounding the weak

consciences" of others. On the usual interpretation of chap. 8, how does this

"wounding" occur? It can only be by causing the "weak" to eat in a state of

doubt. Fee suggests that in this context the word "wounding" ()

means "to be responsible for the wounds that such a person has received."70

"Wounding," then, would have the sense of "causing pain to."71

But in the

light of the interpretation proposed here, may be more coherently understood as "doing harm to the other person's

moral sense," for if Paul's real concern is idolatry, then their consciences are

being wounded by being led into the false belief that participation in the

worship of pagan gods is acceptable.

We may note finally that the very phrase "weak conscience" in 7 is

difficult to understand if "conscience" is understood in its minimal sense of

"self-awareness," as Gooch and Fee wish to understand it. In this context,

what can it mean for a person's awareness ofselfto be "weak"? We know from 7 that the weakness of conscience is a lack of appropriate knowledge

regarding the nonexistence of idols; therefore, "weakness of conscience" is

most clearly understood in reference to the inability of these people to make

appropriate moral judgements. The apostle agrees with those "having knowl

edge" that these people lack due enlightenment, but he points out that it is

precisely for this reason that they can be led into what is for them an act of

idolatry.

We may conclude that the term can be understood in the

same sense in both 1 Corinthians 8 and 1 Corinthians 10, namely, as the internal

judge of what is right and what is wrong.72

In coming to this conclusion I am

parting company with the results of C. A. Pierce's influential study. Pierce

summarizes his research bysaying that "conscience in the New Testament. . .

69Jewett (Anthropological Terms, 422) draws attention to the subtle shift between 7 and

10 The earlier verse speaks of the "weak conscience", the later verse speaks of the weakness

of the person ( ) See also Murphy-O'Connor, "Freedom," 56770

Fee, FirstEpistle to the Corinthians, 388 n 6471Cf Robert W Wall, "Conscience," A A 1 1129 So also Pierce, Conscience, 81

72Gooch ("Conscience " 246) draws attention to C S Lewis's claim (Studies in Words


16/18


is the painful reaction of man's nature, as morally responsible, against infringements ofits created limits."

73In another place he defines conscience as

"the painful consciousness that a man has of his own sins, past or, if present,begun in the past."

74In particular, Pierce insists that the word always has

reference to past acts,75

and to acts committed by the subject himself, whichare normally viewed as bad.

76Paul's use of the word, Pierce claims, is in

conformity with its use elsewhere, and here, too, therefore, has no referenceto future actions.

77

These conclusions might seem to be fatal to the interpretation of the word offered here, but more recent authors have taken issue with thenarrowness ofPierce's definition and leave room for a more flexible approachto the meaning of. Robert Jewett, for instance, suggests that "the

word . . . shifts in its connotation as the occasion demands,"

78

and that thesevariations indicate "how little Paul was concerned to workout a truly systematic anthropology."

79Jewett parts company with Pierce in suggesting that

there are occasions when conscience is "the agent of rational discernment, notofone's own deeds, but rather of external matters."

80Margaret Thrall, antici

pating Jewett's conclusion, also takes issue with Pierce's claim that consciencenever makes reference to future actions.

81She concludes that "it remains

probable that Paul did think ofconscience both as giving guidance for futureconduct and also as judging the actions of others," admitting that in these

ways Paul takes the word beyond the ordinary meaning, documented byPierce, which it had in the Hellenistic world.

82The apostle may have done so,

she suggests, because he "had come to regard conscience as performing in theGentile world roughly the same function as was performed by the Law amongthe Jews. . . .The Law gave guidance beforehand. It did not merely condemnafterwards."

83

V. Conclusion

It has been my aim in this essay to cast doubt upon a widespreadassumption regarding the problem facing the "weak in conscience" in

73Pierce, Conscience, 108.

74Ibid., 111.

75Ibid., 43, 109.

76Ibid., 45.

77Ibid., 81-82.

78Jewett, Anthropological Terms, 439.

79

Ibid., 459.80

Ibid., with 2 Cor 4:2 and 2 Cor 5:11 cited as examples. Cf. also 432-34.81

Margaret Thrall "The Pauline Use of " NTS 14 (1967 68) 119 21 She


17/18


1 Cor 8:7-13. Most, if not all, writers on this passage assume that the sin into

which the "weak" are being led is that of acting contrary to their own beliefs.

I have argued that this reading comes from an assimilation of this passage to

Romans 14-15 and that it makes little sense in this context. My suggestionis that it is better to understand the sin into which the "weak" are being led

as that sin of idolatry which is so forcefully condemned in chap. 10. In

particular, the behavior of those "having knowledge" is leading the "weak"

into the mistaken judgment that they may take part in cultic meals in pagan

temples. Because the "weak" lack a clear conviction regarding the nonexist

ence of pagan gods, this action is for them an act of idolatry. The difference

in tone between this passage and chap. 10 may be accounted for in terms of

Paul's rhetorical strategy: in 8:7-13 the apostle responds to those "having

knowledge" on their own grounds, while in 10:14-22 he introduces a newconsideration in opposition to their behavior.


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation 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 journaltypically 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 specificwork 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

1 cor 8.7-13 - danger of idolatry

Documents