1 cor 8.7-9.27 - rhetorical disposition

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-9.27 - Rhetorical Disposition

1/17

The Rhetorical Disposition

of First Corinthians 8:7-9:27

JOOP F. M. SMIT

Katholieke Theologische Universiteit

3584 CSUtrechtThe Netherlands

PAUL, IN HIS First Letter to the Corinthians, extensively discusses the

question of "the offerings to idols" ( ). The interpretation of this treatise, which comprises 1Cor 8:1-11:1, is disputed on all

counts.1

In a previous article I came to two conclusions: (l)that in these

chapters of his letter Paul discusses the public sacrificial meals which took

place at the numerous temples in Corinth and categorically forbids believers

to take part in them; (2) that within Paul's discussion 1Cor 8:1-6 fulfills thefunction ofapartitio, a brief table ofcontents, making the entire subsequent

argument perspicuous.2As a follow-up to thesefindings,I now wish to demon-

strate that 1 Cor8:7-9:27 contains a coherent train of thought following atraditional rhetorical pattern. Within Paul's exposition on offerings to idols

this passage forms the first round of the argumentation proper.3

1A fair impression of the problems may be found in J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief

(KEK; 2d rev. ed.; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977) 210-67; G. D. Fee, The First

Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 357-491.2 J. E M. Smit,

wl Corinthians 8,1-6, a Rhetorical Partitio: A Contribution to the Coherence

of1 Cor 8,1-11,1," The Corinthian Correspondence (BETL 125; ed. R. Bieringer; Leuven: Peeters,

1996) 577-91.3 In my article (Smit, "1 Corinthians 8,1-6," 587-91) I argue that in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 Paul

successively deals with two different aspects of a single problem namely the problem of partici


2/17

FIRST CORINTHIANS 8:7-9:27 477

At first sight, 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 shows little coherence. Scholarly research

confirms this impression. Two major problems prevent a clear view of the

structure and function of this passage.

The first point at issue is the question whether Paul always evaluates

participation in sacrificial meals in the same manner. Many exegetes think

that this is not the case, that in 1 Cor 8:7-13 Paul allows participation in sacri

ficial meals on condition that it not offend the "weak," while in 1 Cor 10:14-

21 he absolutely forbids it on account of idolatry. Thus, Paul apparently

contradicts himself. This finding has brought the unity of the letter into

discredit and has given rise to a host of hypotheses about partition.4

An

increasing number of scholars take a stand against this interpretation of

1 Cor 8:7-13, however. In their opinion, the contradiction is exaggerated.5

Paul's warning not to cause the weak to stumble actually implies prohibitionof participating in sacrificial meals.

6His initial rejection of it, simply on

account of its negative effect on the weak, forms part of his persuasive

strategy. From his point of view it is unwise, in the first part of the argument,

to confront the Corinthians straightaway with an unequivocal prohibition in

this sensitive issue.7

In my opinion this interpretation of 8:7-13 convincingly explains the

apparent inconsistency. It does have a weak spot, however. If, as is often

accepted,8

Paul, in 1 Cor 8:7-13, acknowledges as legitimate the right of the

(8:7-12), and confirmatio (8:13-9:27), (3) Argumentatio (b): refutatio (10:1-13), and confirmatio

(10:14-22), (4) Conclusio (10:23-11:1). W. A. Meeks (The First Urban Christians: The Social

Worldof the Apostle Paul[NewHaven/London: Yale UniversityPress, 1983] 97-100) holds that

in the whole of8:1-9:27 Paul deals with meat sold in the marketplace; however, 8:9-12 clearly

does not. B. Fiore (The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles

[AnBib 105; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986] 189) analyzes 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 as a chreia but

admits that the resulting disposition is very diffuse. C. H. Talbert (Reading Corinthians: A

Literary and Theological Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians [NewYork: Crossroad, 1987]56-65) holds that in these chapters Paul treats two different issues. With this approach Talbert

separates 8:8-12 from 8:7 as well as from 8:13-9:23. Given the close links between these three

units, this separation is unwarranted.4

A survey of various partition theories is given by J. C. Hurd, The Origin of I Corin

thians(NewYork: Seabury; London: SPCK, 1965) 43-47; H. Merklein, "Die Einheitlichkeit des

ersten Korintherbriefes," ZNWIS (1984) 153-83, esp. 154-56.5

Hurd, Origin, 132-37; G. D. Fee, " Once Again: An Interpretation of

1 Corinthians 8-10," Bib 61 (1980) 172-97, esp. 175-76.6

Merklein, "Einheitlichkeit," 165-66; Fee, First Corinthians, 378.7

P. D. Gooch, DangerousFood: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 5; Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1993) 83-84.8

Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, 227-29; H. Conzelmann, Der erste Briefan die Korinther


3/17

478 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 59, 1997

Corinthian believers to partake in sacrificial meals, then the contradiction

with his explicit prohibition of it in 1Cor 10:20-22 still remains. It is impor

tant, therefore, to examine particularly whether 1 Cor 8:9 contains such an

acknowledgment.

The second point at issue is the question whether in 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 Paul

keeps strictly to his subject matter, the offerings to idols. Many authors

maintain the contrary, considering 1Corinthians 9 a defense of Paul's aposto-

late which has nothing to do with the question of sacrificial meals. In their

view, 1 Corinthians 9 is an excursus.9 At the same time, one does often admit

that in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul holds himselfup to the Corinthians as an example.

The combination of these two objectives causes confusion.10 Criticism of the

traditional interpretation is increasing in this respect as well. A growing number

of authors deny that in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul is defending his apostolate.According to their view, in this chapter Paul is holding up his apostolic

practice as an example to the Corinthians.11 I am convinced that this is the

right approach, but further clarification is needed. Until now, the course of

the argumentation in 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 has not been set out in a convincing

manner; also the question why Paul places such emphasis in 1 Cor 9:1-2 on

his apostolate still awaits a clear answer.12

In the analysis of this passage I shall be guided by the grammar of

persuasive communication found in the classical handbooks of Greco-Roman

rhetoric, restricting myself to directions which are generally accepted.13 As

ptre de saint Paul aux Corinthiens (CNT 7; Neuchtel: Delachaux & Niestl, 1979) 113;

J. C. Brunt, "Rejected, Ignored or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul's Approach to the Problem

of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity," NTS 31 (1985) 113-24, esp. 114.9

Weiss (Der erste Korintherbrief 231) calls chap. 9 "eine groe Einlage."10

C. . Barrett, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Black, 1968) 200;

Fee, FirstCorinthians, 392-94; C. Wolff, Der erste Briefdes Paulusan die Korinther 2:Auslegung

der Kapitel 8-16(THKNT 7/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982) 17; D. B. Martin, Slavery

as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (New Haven/London: Yale Uni

versity Press, 1990) 77, 80, 140-41. According to the last author, the real issue of chap. 9 is

Christian leadership. In his interpretation, the fact that 1 Cor 8:1 -11:1 is about offerings to idols

is almost forgotten.11

W. Willis. "An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9," JSNT

24 (1985) 33-48, esp. 40; Merklein, "Einheitlichkeit," 171-72. M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the

Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An ExegeticalInvestigation of the Language and Composition of

1 Corinthians (HUT 28; Tbingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1991) 243-50.12

Martin (Slavery as Salvation, 132) finds in 9:16-18 a claim of Paul to authority as slave

of Christ. The text does not allow this reading, for, in that case, the slave would be disobeying

the explicit command of his Lord in 14. Besides, the of 18 should not be understood

as Paul's "authority" but as his "right to material support." In 9:1-2 Paul really does claim


4/17

FIRST CORINTHIANS 8.7-9:27 479

I searched for terms to define the functions of the various parts of 1 Cor 8:7-

9:27, I reluctantly arrived at what looked like the standard pattern of a

speech. I am very well aware of the need for caution in this matter and of the

danger of forcing texts, time and again, into conforming to this pattern;

nevertheless, parts of an argumentation also need a convincing disposition.14

The justification of my proposal is that it brings to the fore the logic of

rhetorical argumentation in an apparently disparate part of Paul's exposition.

I. Statement of a Fact (1 Corinthians 8:7)

In 1 Cor 8:1-6, the first person plural dominates as Paul expresses some

convictions which he and the Corinthians have in common, while in 7 the

third person plural appears. This is an important transition. In 8:1-3, the firstpart of the partitio, Paul summarily sets the negative effects of knowledge

against the positive ones of love. In 8:7-9:27, he amply elaborates this brief

announcement.15

"But not in all is knowledge," the statement opening 8:7, resumes the

thesis with which the exposition on idol offerings in 8:1 begins: "We know that

we all have knowledge." Paul addresses the Corinthians who have knowledge.

Besides them, or among them, he now distinguishes a group of believers who

have not yet reached this level of knowledge. In the characterization of thisgroup two expressions stand out. The "familiarity up to the present with the

idol" suggests that beginning believers are envisaged, believers whose progress

is not yet equal to that ofthe "knowing" whom Paul addresses. The statement

that the "conscience," or "discernment,"16

ofthese people is "weak" suggests

Literaturwissenschaft(2d ed , Munich Hueber, 1973) A guide to primary and secondary litera

ture is provided by D F Watson and A J Hauser,Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible A Com

prehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method (Biblical Interpretation Senes 4,Leiden/New York Brill, 1994)

14For this approach, see J Smit, "Argument and Genre of 1 Corinthians 12-14," Rheto

ric and the New Testament Essaysfrom the 1992Heidelberg Conference (JSNTSup 90, ed

S E Porter and Ulbricht, Sheffield Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 211-30, D F Wat

son, "Paul's Rhetoncal Strategy in 1 Corinthians 15," Rhetoric and the New Testament (ed

Porter and Olbncht), 231-49, J Aletti, Comment Dieu est-il juste? Clefs pour interprter

Vptre aux Romains (Pans Seuil, 1991) Mitchell (Paulandthe Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 16)

objects to this approach, see my review of her study in JAC 35 (1992) 201-3 Compare also

Withenngton III, Conflict and Community in Corinth A Socio-Rhetoncal Commentary on

1 and 2 Corinthians(Grand Rapids Eerdmans, Carlisle Paternoster, 1995) 47 14015 See Smit, "1 Corinthians 8,1-6," 583-8416

The exact meaning of remains unclear J Torrison (Paul and the Jewish


5/17


that the addressees themselves are "strong." Paul appeals to the commisera

tion of the "knowing" Corinthians with these backward believers and makes

them responsible for these beginners.

Those characteristics of 7 point to a narrano. In the classical hand

books of rhetoric, this term designates a succinct description of a fact or a

presumed fact which lays the foundation for the ensuing argumentation.17

Verse 7 offers just that. Paul briefly introduces a group of "weak" believers.

He gives the impression that this group reallyexists, though he may very well

have made it up.18

The weakness ofthese believers is at stake in the ensuing

argumentation. Narratio admittedly is a very broad term for the limited

information which 7 contains. Nevertheless, the function this verse fulfills

apparently justifies this definition.

II. Two Theses (1 Corinthians 8:8)

At 8 the text abruptlychanges. In the first person plural Paul formu

lates two general pronouncements which are correctly reputed to be apho

risms or theses.19

Many authors are convinced that in this verse Paul quotes

Corinthian slogans to the letter, but there is no indication whatsoever that

this is so. As one can see in the commentaries, the translation, meaning, and

function of these pronouncements are most obscure.20 A new solution is

proposed here.

The first thesis: "Food will not bring us closer to God," implies that food

does not positively benefit the relationship which believers have with God.

Believers may renounce food, therefore, without damaging that relationship.

In my view, this first thesis forms the stepping stone towards the warning

in w 9-12: thus, it is better for believers to abstain from food if by eating they

cause the weak to fall, sin against Christ, and damage their relationship

with God.The second thesis: "Neither when we do not eat are we in need, nor

when we do eat do we have plenty," implies that believers may also renounce

food without harming themselves.21

Verse 13 directly follows this thought:

17Quintilian Inst. 4.2.31; Cicero Oratoriae partitiones 9.31-32; see Lausberg, Handbuch

289.18

The "weak brothers" whom Paul introduces in 7 are completely hypothetical and

indefinite. They are probably Paul's invention, representing his own scruples. For this interpretation, see Hurd, Origin, 125; Fee, "," 176; Gooch, DangerousFood, 61-72.

19Fee First Corinthians 382; Conzelmann Der erste Korintherbrief 175


6/17


"Therefore, if food causes my brother to fall, I will absolutely never eat meat,

so that I may not cause my brother to fall." So Paul begins his argument with

two general theses containing the message that "we," the believers, may

renounce food without being damaged in either a religious or a physicalrespect. At the end of this round of his discussion he resumes this thought,

this time in metaphorical language. "Everyone who competes in the games

abstains in every way. They do so to obtain a perishable crown, but we an

imperishable one" (9:25). Now for "us," the believers, renouncing food appears

not only innocuous but even honorable and advantageous.

So with two general theses in 8, Paul, in my view, sets the tone for the

ensuing argument. These theses, following upon the statement of fact of 7,

form the beginning of the argumentation proper. Quintilian remarks thataccording to many rhetors the narrano should be followed by a propositio

in one or more parts forming the beginning of the argumentation and con

sisting of the thesis to be demonstrated.22

1 suggest considering 1 Cor 8:8 such

a propositio. The function which this verse fulfils within Paul's argument

justifies this definition. In reverse, this defirfition demonstrates that the intro

duction of the two theses at this point of the discussion is not simply accidental

but fits into an approved rhetorical pattern.

III. Warning (1 Corinthians 8:9-12)

In 1 Cor 8:9 Paul, using the second person plural, addresses a warning

to the Corinthians. He substantiates this warning with an example in which

the addressees are represented in the second person singular ( w 10-11). This

example leads to the general conclusion of 12, in which Paul again addresses

the Corinthians in the second person plural.The example is ofa hypothetical nature. Paul disguises this by presenting

it with great pathos and by providing a general conclusion. The incident is

told from the perspective ofthe "weak." Its appeal is heightened by a rhetorical

question and by periphrases inviting indignation and compassion, such as

"you who have knowledge," "the weak," "the brother for whom Christ died."

The conclusion forms the climax. By using synthetical parallelism Paul

enlarges on the guilt; by the repeated use ofthe verb "to sin" and by replacing

"the weak" with Christ he intensifies his reproach. This example is evidently


7/17


meant to deter. Paul demonstrates to the Corinthians what great harm they

may cause by participating in sacrificial meals. He brings all his persuasive

power to bear, in order to dissuade them from participating in such meals.23

As for the warning in 9, scholars generally agree that Paul acknowledges in principle the freedom of the Corinthians to take part in sacrificial

meals. This is incorrect, however. With such an interpretation the tone and

tenor of the words are misunderstood. A brief analysis

will show why.

Grammarians point out that sometimes expresses contempt. A

relevant example of this is Luke 15:30: "that son of yours" (

).24

Here in 1 Cor 8:9 is used in a similar sense. Paul speaks

dismissingly of"that power ofyours," thereby disassociating himself from thefreedom which the Corinthians allow themselves and disapproving of it.

25

Moreover, the freedom of the Corinthians seems to be deliberately

dubbed , "power." This looks like a sarcastic exaggeration. Three

indications support this view. (1) In the preceding part of the letter Paul has

already sarcastically exposed "the royal dignity, the wisdom, might and

honour" of the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:6-13); therefore, when he speaks now of

"your power," suspicion is called for. (2) Paul has already reproached the

Corinthians more than once for being "puffed up" (1 Cor 4:6,18,19; 5:2; 8:1).

Particularly 1 Cor 8:1-3, the verses he elaborates here, are important: knowl

edge puffs up, and it is often only presumed knowledge. The term

connotes Paul's verdict that the Corinthians are "puffed up" and that they

have awarded this "presumed" power to themselves. (3) The sarcastic tone is

not restricted to the warning of 9 but continues all through the supporting

example. It is generally accepted that the rhetorical question "Will not the

conscience of him who is weak be edified () to eat idol

offerings?" has a sarcastic tenor, for this "edification" of the weak brother

actually brings about his complete demolition.26 The emphatic repetition of

23In general, commentators are too easily swept away by Paul's rhetoric. Paul does not

elaborate on what, exactly, the exaggerated "demolition ofthe weak brother" consists of. Com

mentators fervently fill this gap; see, for example, Fee, First Corinthians, 387-88.24

Other instances are Luke 18:11; Acts 2:40; 17:18. See J. H. Moulton, A Grammarof

New TestamentGreek3: Syntax, byN. Turner (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963) 44; BDF 290;

W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der

frhchristlichen Literatur (ed. K. Aland and B. Aland; 6th ed.; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter,

1988) s.v. , 2a.25

Paul's disapproving tone is sometimes felt, but commentators do not stop at it; cf.


8/17


the Corinthians' knowledge () in 10 ("you with your knowledge") and

11 ("by your knowledge") also has a sarcastic ring.27

"Knowledge," which

brings a believer to recline in the temple of an idol and destroy the weak

brother for whom Christ died, is no good at all.By speaking of "that [presumed] power of yours,"

28Paul leaves the

freedom to take part in sacrificial meals entirely up to the Corinthians.

Moreover, his disapproval of this practice certainly rings through. It does not

come as a surprise, therefore, when later on in his exposition he forbids such

a practice (1 Cor 10:20-21). In this respect, he does not contradict himself.

In classical rhetoric narrano and propositio are regularly followed by

argumentatio, the demonstration. This usually consists of two parts, confir

matio or probatio, in which the speaker supports his own point of view withpositive arguments, and reprehensio or refutatio, in which he refutes the

opponents' point of view with counterarguments.29

Paul's discourse follows

this line. After the propositio of 8, w 9-12 are a reprehensio in which Paul

refutes the Corinthians' practice.

IV. Recommendation (1 Corinthians 8:13-9:23)

In 1 Cor 8:13 Paul obviously switches from the negative to the positive.

His word "therefore" () marks the turning point. In contrast to the

warning of 8:9, positive advice is now given, and Paul changes to the first

person singular. Just as he previously supported the warning with an example,

so now again he uses an example to undergird the recommendation.30

As a

positive example he chooses his own apostolic practice, two aspects of it in

particular. In 9:1-2, using the first person singular, he brings himself into

prominence as an apostle, then in 9:3-18 he demonstrates that, in contrast tothe Corinthians, he, as an apostle, renounces the use of his (w 12,

15,18). This part begins in the first person plural but later changes empha

tically to the first person singular. The keyword is , which occurs six

times in these verses. Finally, in 9:19-23 Paul demonstrates that, in contrast

27According to Weiss (Der erste Korintherbrief, 230), Paul speaks here "mit ironischer

Feierlichkeit."28 With Willis, "Apostolic Apologia," 40.29

Rhet. Her. 3.4.8; Quintilian Inst. 3.9.1; Cicero Inv. Rhet. 1.14.19. For a good survey,


9/17


to the Corinthians, he accommodates himself to all, notably to the weak, in

order to win them. This part again has the first person singular. "To win"

() obviously is a key word; it occurs five times in these verses.

That these are the main articulations ofthis section is also apparent fromthe striking accent which Paul places on the beginning ofeach part. He says

three things which do not fit very well in their immediate context: "Am I not

free?" (9:1), "My answer to those questioning me is this" (9:3), and "Although

I am free from all, . . ." (9:19). These three clauses are logically connected.

When I discuss 9:3 I shall return to this. Having established this broad

division, I shall now discuss Paul's extensive recommendation, part by part.

A. The General Rule of Conduct (1 Corinthians 8:13)The rule Paul gives here is general in purport. The pronoun "I" in this

verse is a rhetorical "I" presenting a general rule in a lively manner.31

His

statement of this rule is made emphatic by the chiastic repetition of"to cause

my brother to fall" (which, at that, is superfluous) and by the exaggerated

emphasis on what "I" should not do, "absolutely not... for ever" ( . . .

). Against the urgent warning of 8:9, "Beware lest that power

ofyours become a stumbling block for the weak," Paul states here with equal

vigor this general, positive rule of conduct, "If food causes my brother to fall,I will absolutely never eat meat, that I may not cause my brother to fall." In

contrast to the supposed practice of the Corinthians, which includes the risk

of causing the weak to fall, Paul brings forward an alternative and recom

mended practice which excludes this risk.

B. The Authority of Paul'sExample (1 Corinthians9:1-2)

The striking rhetorical form exhibited by the next two verses marks a

new beginning. Four rhetorical questions follow each other in rapid, asynde-

tical succession, each of them opening with (a case ofanaphora). The last

question is elaborated ad hominem by negation of the opposite and by repe

tition through metaphor.32

The first question, "Am I not free?" is detached

from what follows. Paul, of his own accord, raises an objection which may

be brought against the rule of conduct recommended in 8:13: the proposed

renunciation of participation in sacrificial meals in order not to cause the

brother to fall means a curtailment of freedom. In this question the pronoun

"I" is still of a general, rhetorical nature.


10/17


In answer to this virtual objection Paul now presents himself as an

example. He vigorously states that he is an apostle, but he states even more

vigorously that he is an apostle to the Corinthians. The accent is on this last

point. Not "I" but "you" is emphatic. Paul thereby achieves a twofold result.First, he shifts attention to his apostolic practice from which he will take the

examples confirming the rule of conduct of8:13 and pushing the Corinthians

into accepting it. In addition, he corroborates the position of authority which

he, as the Corinthians' own apostle, holds towards them. Paul first of all

places himself here in a position of power. Because he is the apostle to the

Corinthians, they are obliged to imitate his example. This implicit call for

imitation is clearly an example of that "discourse of power" which Castelli

has recently analyzed.33

C. Paul's Example, First Part (1 Corinthians 9:3-18)

1. Verses 3-4. Paul begins his description of the first example from his

apostolic practice with a well-known rhetorical figure of style, the anticipatio

or prokatalepsis.u With the words "my answer to those questioning me is

this,"35 he represents what follows as an answer to presumed questions which

critical listeners might ask. Paul plays a rhetorical game. He answers ques

tions raised by himself, and they concern the recommendation of 8:13 not to

partake in sacrificial meals. As a matter of fact, Paul's text itself containsthese questions. "Am I not free?" (9:1) is one of them. As we have already

seen, this is Paul's way of anticipating the question whether renunciation of

sacrificial meals does not curtail freedom. Later on, in 9:19, this question is

taken up again.

33E. A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Literary Currents in Biblical

Interpretation; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1991) 86. In my view, a serious defect of

Castelli's study is that she does not include 1 Corinthians 9 in the material from Paul's letterswhich she examines more closely. Fiore (Function of Personal Example, 164-90, esp. 190) is not

fully aware of the fact that authority and imitation are two sides of the same coin.34

Quintilian Inst. 9.2.16-18; Lausberg, Handbuch 855. H. F. Plett (Einfhrung in die

rhetorische Textanalyse [4th ed.; Hamburg: Buske, 1979] 64) gives the following definition of

this figure of style: "vorwegnehmende Widerlegung mglicher Einwnde des Gegners, hufig

gekleidet in die Form einer Antwort auf eine Frage (subiectio)." He follows this with the obser

vation that "der prokatalepse eignet daher ein argumentativer Charakter." Willis ("Apostolic

Apologia," 34) describes this stylistic figure without naming it. Martin (Slavery as Salvation,

77-79) also holds that Paul is debating proleptically here with hypothetical adversaries; in his

view, the supposed criticism comes from the Corinthian leaders of high status and has to do withPaul's support of himself by manual labor. Of this, however, there is no indication in the text.

As I show, the critical questions have to do with the rule of conduct in 8:13.


11/17


Verse 4 contains a second question raised by Paul of his own accord,"Do we not have the right to eat and drink?" This verse is ambiguous.

36

When it is seen in connection with the recommendation of 8:13 and the

question of9:1a, "we" appear as supposed questioners objecting, against thecurtailment of our freedom, that we still have "the right to eat and drink,"that is, to participate in sacrificial meals. When the verse is seen in the lightofwhat follows, "we" are Paul and Barnabas, who also have "the right to eatand drink," that is, to be provided for by the church community. In this versePaul cleverly couples the question of the sacrificial meals and the answer ofhis exemplary apostolic practice. With "the right to eat and drink" he brings

both under a common denominator, suggesting that the example of hisapostolic practice does apply to the question at hand.

2. Verses4-12. With great rhetorical force Paul first demonstrates that"we," that is to say, he and Barnabas, have the right "to eat and drink," theright to receive material support from the Corinthian church ( w 4-12a). Heproves this right consecutively with three rhetorical questions using three setsof"colleagues" as examples: the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, andCephas (w 4-6). Then there are three more rhetorical questions, this time

with three examples from ordinary social life: those of the soldier, the vinedresser, and the herdsman (v7); what follows is a game of question-and-answer

(subiectio) in which he brings to bear the authority of the Law of Moses andskillfully explains the sentence "You shall not muzzle a threshing ox"(Deut 25:4). The conclusion (v 12a) is as ambiguous as the opening questionin 4. Even more than the other workers for the gospel "we," Paul andBarnabas, have the right to a living, the right to eat and drink, so we sharein your presumed right to eat and drinkat public sacrificial meals. Over theone denominator of "the right to eat and drink" Paul closely connects theactual question at Corinth with his apostolic example.

His purpose in doing this is immediately evident in the next sentence,

"We did not use that right, but we endure all things in order to put noobstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ" (v 12b). In this sentence the goalofthe preceding argument is reached.

37If Paul and Barnabas renounce at all

costs their legitimate and undisputed right to eat and drink, in order not tobe of hindrance to the gospel, then in imitation of them the Corinthianscertainly ought to renounce their presumed right to eat and drink, in orderto avoid putting a stumbling block in the path of their weak brothers.

3. Verses 13-18. In form and content, this passage is a repetition of theprevious one. First, Paul again confirms his right to material support; he doesso by advancing two more examplesrhetorical questions at thatplus an


12/17


argument from authority ( w 13-14). Next, he states once again that he did

not use this right ( w 15-18). The differences from the previous presentation

of this topic are in tone and motivation. The tone in which Paul speaks in

this section is even higher than in the previous one. The examples and theargument from authority which he now adduces are of a higher quality.

Ministers of the temple and the altar rankhigher than the soldier, the vine

dresser, and the herdsman. An order of the Lord has more authority than a

command in the Law of Moses ( w 13-14).

Subsequently, Paul presents information that he does not use his right

with even greater pathos. Here in w 15-18 this information is about four

times more voluminous than the same information in 12b. Paul now speaks

emphatically in the first person singular and applies some stylistic figures ofa highly rhetorical character: the studied interruption of a sentence {Inter

ruptio, 15c), the self-curse (exclamatio, 16c), the self-correction (correc-

tio, 18, "What then is my reward? Nothing at all, except that . ..").

In this section, Paul also provides motives which he did not provide in

the preceding section. The negative motive of not inflicting harm yields to the

positive motive of obtaining honor and advantage. Paul now turns the fact

that he does not exercise his right to a living, but voluntarily offers the gospel

free of charge, to good use as a title to glory and reward. In all this, he hasthe Corinthians in mind. By promising them honor and advantage he moti

vates them to renounce their "right" to take part in sacrificial meals. In the

first part ofPaul's example (9:4-18) he places much emphasis on his apostolic

right to a living. This has nothing to do with defending his position as an

apostle. It is a means of putting pressure on the Corinthians. He highlights

his right to a living by emphasizing that it is inherent in his apostolic office,

and that he is undeniably entitled to it. By increasing the weight of the right

which he voluntarily renounces, he heightens the pressure on the Corinthiansto follow his authoritative example and act likewise.

D. Pauls Example, Second Part (1 Corinthians9:19-23)

With the word "free" () Paul recalls the question he raised in

9:1: Does not the practice which he recommends to the Corinthians mean a

restriction of their freedom? This introduces the second example, which Paul

takes from his apostolic practice, and which he formulates in the first person

singular. This example, like the first one, concerns eating and drinking, but

a real shift takes place. The first example dealt with the living to which Paul,


13/17


under the Law, the lawless, the weak.38

They show that the Jewish dietary

laws form the new frame of reference.

With some appropriate stylistic figures Paul pictures himself as "the

great adapter."39 This is obvious from 19, "Though I am free from all, Ihave made myself a slave to all, to win as many as possible," and from 22b,

"I have become all things to all people, so that by all possible means I might

save some." Together, these verses form an inclusion. They include four simi

lar sentences {parallelism, anaphora, epiphora) enumerating the extremes

which "all" comprises {distribuito), so the form of this example shows that

Paul accommodates himself to all. The reason for this is easy to guess. Paul

again holds himself up as an example to the Corinthians. He, their apostle,

adapts himself to many divergent groups, among whom are the weak, inorder to win them, so the Corinthians, in imitation of him, should adapt

themselves at least to their weak brothers.

E. The Rhetorical Function of Paul'sExample

Handbooks of classical rhetoric include a systematic exposition of the

different kinds of proof. Within that section the use of examples {exempta)

is amply discussed.40

That section throws light on the manner in which Paul

holds himself up as an example to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 9:1-23.Rhetoricians notice that an example is drawn from without and pressed

into the service of the case.41

This observation is clearly relevant here. Whereas

the case regards offerings to idols, the example consists of Paul's apostolic

practice. The change of subject in 9:1-23 is explained by the fact that Paul

is adducing an example; we should not understand it as the indication of an

excursus, as commentators usually do.42

The action serving as example may

correspond completely or partially to the case under discussion. The speaker

38Martin (Slavery as Salvation, 118-24) argues that "weak" should be taken here in its

social sense. As he admits, this does not fit the Jew-Gentile schema of the context.39

Weiss (Dererste Korintherbrief, 242) calls this section "ein Kabinettstck berlegtesten

Aufbaues." He regards stylistic figures, however, merely as formal characteristics. The expressive

function ofrhetorical figures is clearly illuminated by O. Vickers, In Defence ofRhetoric (Ox

ford: Clarendon, 1988) 294-339.40 Quintilian Inst. 5.11; Rhet. adAlexandrum 22.1439a; see Lausberg, Handbuch 410-

25. Fiore (Function ofPersonal Example, 26-33) offers a brief survey ofearly rhetorical theory

on example.41 Quintilian Inst. 5.11.1.42 W. Wuellner ("Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation," Early Christian Literature


14/17


should carefully examine this and should mention only those parts of the

action which are relevant to the case.43 Paul adduces as the example his

apostolic practice, selecting from it two parts which correspond somewhat to

the Corinthians' practice. Eating and drinking form the common denominator connecting participation in sacrificial meals, renunciation of liveli

hood, and sharing food with Jews and non-Jews.

Examples may be similar, dissimilar, or contrary to the case they serve.44

In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul employs examples at two distinct levels. Of the examples

supporting his apostolic practice some are similar to it (the other apostles,

the brothers of the Lord, Cephas), the others are dissimilar (the soldier, the

vinedresser, the herdsman, the ministers of temple and altar). At a higher

level, the examples taken from Paul's apostolic practice are contrary to thecase they serve. In contrast to the Corinthians, who use their right to eat and

drink, Paul renounces the use of this right. In contrast to the Corinthians,

who cause the weak to stumble, Paul adapts himself to the weak precisely in

order to win them.

Finally, a distinction between examples whose rank is equal to that of

the case to which they refer and those whose rank is not equal is important.

This last category again consists of examples arguing e maiore ad minus and,

vice versa, examples arguing e minore ad maius.A5 As we have noticed, in

using both examples from his own practice Paul argues e maiore ad minus.

The insistent announcement of his apostolic rank, which in 9:1-2 precedes

the examples proper, has the function of bringing just this to the fore. As an

apostle, Paul is the superior of the Corinthians, who are the fruit of his

apostolic endeavor. The superior's example obliges the rank and file to obey.

After refuting in 1 Cor 8:9-12 the practice advocated by the Corinthians,

Paul presents in 1 Cor 8:13-9:23 the practice which he personally advocates

and adduces a two-part example from his apostolic career as an argument

confirming it. Thus, the reprehensio of1 Cor 8:9-12 is followed by the confirmatio of 1 Cor 8:13-9:23.

V. Conclusion (1 Corinthians 9:24-27)

In 9:24-27 Paul compares the Corinthians to professional athletes. He

gives his verdict on the Corinthians' participation in sacrificial meals in covert

terms borrowed from the games. His manner bespeaks prudence, but at the

same time it enhances liveliness and persuasiveness.


15/17


In 23 Paul appeals to the knowledge which the Corinthians have from

their own experience ofcontests like the Isthmian Games.46

He chooses the

image of the runner winning the race, and in the imperative plural he exhorts

the Corinthians to run in a way that will get them the prize. The mainintention ofthis verse is motivation. The hope ofhonor and advantage should

move the Corinthians towards the course Paul wants them to follow.

In 25 Paul points out the practice which he expects from the Corin

thians. The general rule that "everyone who competes in the games abstains

in every way" contains in metaphorical language the outcome of the entire

preceding argument. Believers should abstain from sacrificial meals.

In w 26-27 Paul speaks in the first person singular about himself. He

brings out in particular what he does not do and holds this up as an example

contrary to that of the Corinthians. If they do not go into strict training, inother words, iftheycontinue their participation in sacrificial meals, their faith

is lost laboraimless running, beating the air. They are then in danger of

inglorious elimination. In these verses, motivation dominates again. Fear of

damage and shame should induce the Corinthians to bring their practice into

line with what Paul desires.

According to the classical rhetoricians, a speech should end in a pero-

ratio or conclusio. Separate parts and important rounds of argument may

also be provided with such an ending.47

In a perorano the speaker brieflysummarizes his point ofview, appealing at the same time to the emotions of

the listeners.48

In the deliberative genre, hope and fear are prominent.49

The

speaker thus strives to lead the audience to the right decision at the end of

the discussion: to reject the disparaged course of action and accept the

recommended one. Clearly 1 Cor 9:24-27 corresponds to the perorado.

VI. Epilogue

The preceding analysis of 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 can be summarized in fourconclusions.

1. In 1 Cor 8:9 Paul takes a very reserved and disapproving stand on the

presumed "power" of the Corinthians to take part in sacrificial meals. The

conclusion in 9:25 confirms this. So in 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 Paul leads the Corin

thians to hear the same prohibition he franklystates in 10:1-22. The conclu

sions of these two rounds of argument are in entire agreement.

4 6

On the Isthmian Games, see O. Broneer, "The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games,"BA 25 (1962) 2-31; J. Murphy-O'Connor, St. Paul's Corinth: Texts and Archaeology (GNS 6;

Wilmington DE: Michael Glazier 1983) 14-17


16/17


2. In 1 Cor 9:1-23 Paul describes two practices regarding eating and

drinking which he, as an apostle, observes. He thus holds himself up as an

example to the Corinthians. The emphasis which he places in 9:1-2 on his

apostolic office is meant to urge the Corinthians to follow in his steps. Hisauthoritative example corroborates his recommendation not to participate in

sacrificial meals (8:13). As a supporting example, the description of his

behavior as an apostle is an integral part of the argument in 1 Cor 8:7-9:27.

There is no reason to consider 9:1-23 an excursus.

3. In 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 Paul develops a coherent line of thought following

a traditional rhetorical pattern. This passage resembles, on a small scale, the

articulation of the classical speech, for it contains anarrano (8:7), ^propositio

(8:8), a reprehensio (8:9-12), a confirmatio (8:13-9:23), and ^perorano (9:24-

27). In the treatise on offerings to idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1), the partitio of 8:1-6

is followed by 8:7-9:27, which forms the first round of the argumentation

proper.

4. In 1 Cor 8:7-9:27 we see all the characteristics of the genus delibera-

tivum.50 Participation in sacrificial meals is a political issue. Believers refusing

to participate as Paul advocates place themselves outside the established

political order. The Corinthians have to decide which line of conduct they will

follow. Paul's strategy consists of dissuasion and recommendation. The motives

by which he urges his audience are damage and advantage, shame and honor,fear and hope. Examples are his main proofs.

50 The characteristics of the genus deliberativum are given by Smit, "Argument and Genre,"

211-30, esp. 222-24; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 20-64.


17/17

^ 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.

1 cor 8.7-9.27 - rhetorical disposition

Documents