Post on 03-Apr-2018
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
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 "
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
4/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 85
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
6/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 87
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
7/18
88 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
8/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 89
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
9/18
90 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
10/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 91
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
11/18
92 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
12/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 93
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").
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
13/18
94 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996
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.
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
14/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 95
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"?
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
15/18
96 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
16/18
1 CORINTHIANS 8:7-13 97
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
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
17/18
98 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY I 58, 1996
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.
7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.7-13 - Danger of Idolatry
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.