1 Cor 8-10 - Eating Meat Offered to Idols

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8-10 - Eating Meat Offered to Idols

1/23

Triti] 10 NS (1989) 49-70

EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS: CORINTHIAN BEHAVIORAND PAULINE RESPONSE IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8-10

(A Response to Gordon Fee)

BRUCE N. FISKBRIERCREST BIBLE COLLEGECARONPORT, SASKATCHEWAN,CANADA

I. INTRODUCTION

The collocation in 1 Corinthians 8-10 of complex exegetical problems and valuable paraenesis is well known. On the one hand,these chapters demand exegetical acumen; on the other, they deliver a wonderful test case in pauline ethics. Not surprisingly, numerous scholars have risen to the challenge. The publication in1987 of Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Corinthians1 is a case in point,and it affords an important opportunity to examine cherishedassumptions and to clear up fuzzy thinking.2 This is because Fee'sunderstanding of chap. 8 represents an important departure fromwhat we will call the "majority" viewpoint. The extent to whichFee has resolved the major interpretive difficulties and remainedtrue to the text is one of the main questions explored in this paper.3

Ultimately, any interpretation of these chaps, must grapplewith at least two crucial issues: (1) the nature and seriousness of theproblems in the Corinthian church; and (2) the logic and structure ofPaul's ethical argumentation. A final verdict regarding the successof Fee's analysis will be determined largely by our own conclusionson these two points; and this can only come after we have carefullyexamined the evidence. To that task we now turn.

lThe First Epistle to the Corintiiians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).2Fee is to be commended for the exemplary quality of his commentary. It is re


2/23

50 TRINITY JOURNAL

IL OUTLINING THEMAJORITYVIEW OF1 CORINTHIANS 8-10

The logical place to begin is with a brief summary of a widelyheld view on these chaps, and on the problems in Corinth they presuppose. According to this view, some in the Corinthian church, because of their knotdedge about God and idols (8:1-4, 7,10-11), do nothesitate to buy and eat food previously used in pagan ritual. OtherChristians are weakbecause they continue to struggle with elements of their former, pagan worldviewand cannot eat idol food

without violating personal standards of conscience. These weak

ones are being pressured to imitate those with knowledge and eatagainst their own better judgment. Against this backdrop, Paulspells out the danger of being a stumbling block(8:9-13) in order todiscourage those with knowledge from carelessly eating idol meatin the presence of impressionable weaker brothers.

4

Evidence that there are further problems comes in 8:10. Some ofthose with knowledge claimed the right, not merely to eat meat offered to idols, but actually to enter pagan temples and participatein feasts held to honor pagan deities. This group is the target of

10:1-22 with its warnings of the perils of idolatry.Paul's conclusion (10:23-11:1) comes full circle to address again

the original topic of idol meat. Here he insists that queries into thereligious background of a meal served in a friend's home are unnecessary. Christians are free to eat anything sold in the market.

III. IDENTIFYING PROBLEMS WITHTHEMAJORITY VIEW

This majority view is not without its problems, as Gordon Fee

has been careful to point out.5

He isolates at least five.

1. The SettingDescribed in 1 Cor 8:10

In all of chap. 8, only v. 10 details specifically the actions ofthose with knowledge. Significantly, this verse does not describeChristians eating idol meat sold in the market. Instead, it portrayssomeone actuallydining in an idol's temple, presumably sharing ina cultic meal before pagan idols. In that details of any other sce

nario are completely absent, Fee finds unsatisfying the view that 1


3/23

HSR: EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS 51

Corinthians 8 deals merely with eating marketplace food used previously in pagan religious observance.

2. The Parallel Between 1 Cor8:4-6 and 10:14-22

The argument of 8:4-6, including its distinction between manygods and one God, finds its closest parallel in 10:14-22 (esp. 19-20).The two are components ofone argument. Accordingly, says Fee, theargument of chap. 8 must relate to actual idolatrous practicesat the"tables of demons" (10:21) and not simply to the eating of meatformerly used in pagan ritual.

3. The Contradiction Between 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:23-29

The traditional view understands 1 Cor 8 and 10:23-29 to be addressing the same problem, viz., marketplace food. But this produces a contradiction. The former passage discourages eating thefood in question for fear that others might follow suit, to their owndestruction. By contrast, the latter encourageseating this food,without question or concern for onlooking weaker brothers (unless

the food's cultic history is publicized). In Fee's words, "If the'gnostic's' eating of marketplace idol food endangers a brother's lifein 8,7-13, then how possibly can Paul be so relaxed about their eating the same food in 10,23-28, even to the point of making it an imperative in 10,25?"

6

4. The Combative Force ofPaul's Argument

The "combative, apologetic force" ofPaul's argument throughout

8:1-10:22, including the whole of chap. 9, is overwhelming and itsintensity disproportionate if the problems addressed are littlemore than in-house quarrels about the propriety of eating idol-meat.

7

6"," 178.

7Fee, 1 Corinthians, 359, n.7. Fee's view on the role of chap. 9 in Paul's argument

will not be explored in any detail in this paper. For Fee, chap. 9 serves to reassertPaul's apostolic authority and thus the need to heed the sober warnings set forth inthe surrounding chapters (especially 8:9-13 and 10:1-22). Cf. pp. 363, 392-441.

Support for this analysis comes from the recurring challenges to Paul's authority reflected throughout the Corinthian correspondence. But does this purpose explain allthe data, including the verbal linkwith chap. 8 established by repeating


4/23

52 TRINITY JOURNAL

5. The Insensitivity of the Gentile Christian's Conscience

Gentile Christians are under discussion in 8:7 and 8:10 as thosepotentiallyhurt by offensive behavior. But it is unlikely that Gentile consciences would be so sensitive as to be troubled simply byeating food previously offered to idols.

8

IV. OUTLINING FEE'SALTERNATIVE

In Fee's judgement, the weight of these problems is too much for

the traditional view to bear. What follows is a brief summary ofhis alternative.

1. The Corinthian Problem: Attendance at IdolatrousTemple Meals

1 Corinthians 8 does not address the question of eating foodpreviouslyset before pagan idols. The central problem, described in8:10 and 10:1-22, is "the eating of sacrificial food at the culticmealsin the pagan temples/'

9Those with knowledge claimed the

right (, 8:9) to continue this pagan practice, despite theirconversion to Christianity.

10

M. Thrall, J and II Corinthians, 66; F. W. Grosheide, The First Epistle to theCorinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953) 200-201, 210-11; H. Songer,"Problems," 366-68; and W. L. Willis, "Apostolic Apologia?" 40. If they are right,Paul's rights defended in chap. 9 would presuppose the existence of parallel rightsin chap. 8 to which the Corinthians were entitled, but upon which they should notinsist. In other words, chap. 9 would implicitly declare the act of eating to be, in some sense, a legitimate right. The implications of all this for Fee's view

are damaging for, as we shall see. Fee sees the eating in chap. 8 to be inherentlyidolatrous. While this writer does see a limited exemplary purpose in chap. 9, thispaper will seek to suspend judgment on the question as much as possible, and focusinstead upon relationships between chaps. 8 and 10.

8Fee's assessment of the Gentile Christian conscience mayfind confirmation in

the proscriptions of the Jerusalem decree (Acts 15:20, 29) which appear to implythat Gentile Christians were normally tolerant of food formerly offered to idols. Buttwo factors weaken the force of this argument:

First, Acts 15:29 does not require that most or all Gentile Christians felt free toeat marketplace idol meat. It is quite possible that many who turned from idolatry

became very scrupulous indeed, wanting to stay.as far as possible from anything re

motely reminiscent of their former life. Accordingly, the Jerusalem decree wouldsimply be affirming the moderate behavior of many Gentiles without asking them tobecome more conservative. The enthusiastic response to the letter (Acts 15:31) is


5/23

HSK: EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS 53

2. Pauline Responses: EthicalBefore Theological

11

Although Paul ultimately declares this practice to be inherentlyidolatrous in the eyes of God,

12his response begins in chap. 8 by

sounding an ethical note: Paul challenges their exaltation of knowledge at the expense oflove. One cannot use knowledge whetheraccurate or flawed nor exercise rights, without regard for theeffect they have on other believers. Only after a lengthy defense ofPaul's apostolic authority (9:1-27) does Paul finally challenge theactual content of their knowledge and, in doing so, condemn theiridolatrous temple behavior outright (10:1-22).

3. ClosingFootnote: Eat Anything Soldin the Marketplace

In his final comments (10:23-11:1), Paul addresses for the firsttime the private eating of food previously offered to idols. HerePaul is very "liberal/' encouraging all to indulge freely withoutconcern for the food's religious history. Only ifa pagan dinner guestpublicizes that history should the Christian abstain, so as to avoid

offending the pagan and shattering his understanding of Christianmorality.

13

The following chart is overly simplistic but it should help todistinguish Fee's view from what we are calling the majority view.

PrimaryFocus SecondaryFocus

Majority View Marketplace Idol Meat Pagan Temple Worship8:1-13; ( ) 10:23-11:1 10:1-22

Fee's View Pagan Temple Worship Marketplace Idol Meat8:1-13; 10:1-22 ( ) 10:23-11:1

Among the implications ofFee's view, two deserve special mention, for they correspond directly to the two crucial issues mentioned at the outset of this paper. One relates to the nature of the

participating in baptism and the Lord's Supper kept one safe from lapses intoidolatry (10:2-14, 20-22); (4) Paul's authority in general is open to question, in light

of certain peculiar practices: he declined financial support during his stayin Corinth(9:1-18) and he vacillated on whether or not to eat food sold in the marketplace(9:19-23). See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 362 393.


6/23

54 TRINITY JOURNAL

Corinthians' conduct and spirituality; the other to Paul's method oftackling difficult ethical issues in the church. Both implicationsare troublesome. First, Fee's view must presuppose relatively widespread idolatry among the Christians at Corinth. Although those

with knowledge would have passionately denied all charges ofidolatry how can you worship that which does not exist? boththey and the weak who follow their lead stand guilty of "theidolatry that is inherent in eating in the temples/'

14This is a se

rious charge and paints a picture.of the Corinthian church as syn-cretistic at best and, at worst, spiritually disqualified (cf. 1 Cor6:9).

1SWe will argue that this is neither fair nor accurate as a por

trayal of the Corinthian situation.Second, in Fee's analysis, Paul's tactics designed to combat such

idolatry reflect a calculated move from indicative to imperative.This, we are told, is Paul's normal way of developing ethical argument.

16Rather than exploding with forceful imperatives at the

outset and reducing gospel to law, Paul is concerned to show how incompatible their attitudes and actions are with their standing inChrist. For the Christian, knowledge cannot exist apart from love(8:1-6) nor can rights apart from responsibility (8:7-10). So Paul's

outright condemnation of idolatry (10:14-22), although justified asearly as 8:1, is postponed until he has laid as a foundation theirobligations to one another as fellow members of God's family.While this reconstruction solves some problems, it creates others,the most serious of which is the remarkable postponement untilchap. 10 of Paul's condemnation of idolatry. Fee himself calls thisthe "chief objection" to his view.

17Could Paul really wait that long

to challenge such serious sin? Was Paul really more concerned withthe selfishness of chap. 8 than with the idolatry of chap. 10?

18The

problem will not go away.

14Fee, 1 Corinthians, 387.

15To be sure, there are major theological problems at Corinth. One such problem

a Hellenistic preoccupation with human wisdom is confronted in chaps. 1-4. Inthat context, charges of syncretism would not be inappropriate. But in spite of the

very real spiritual dangers posed by problems such as this, the crisis in Corinthianspirituality presupposed byFee's exegesis ofchaps. 8-10 is far more urgent. For only

here are we face to face with demonic activity in the church, only here do we encounter actual worship of pagan deities. Such behavior, if widespread among theCorinthian Christians, threatens the very legitimacy of their claim to faith in


7/23

nSK: EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS 55

V. EXAMINING THEKEYISSUES

The stage is set for our own examination of four keyissues standing at the center of the debate.

1. The Semantic Range of

Paul's shift to a new topic is signalled by the phrase in 8:1, and by the resumptive - in 8:4. Clearly, establishing the semantic

content of is crucial. Traditionally, the term is defined in general terms as meat offered to an idol,

19or, more specif

ically, as idol meat sold in the marketplace.20

Fee's proposal,however, narrows its scope considerably to meat eaten in the idol'stemple. The semantic focus is not on the meat's religious past but onits present; the word tells us more about geographical location andless about historical contamination. Fee finds important support forthis view in 1 Cor 10:19, where two parallel rhetorical questionsindicate a close association of with . The

larger context (10:16-21) describing Christian, Jewish and paganrituals provides added confirmation. Fee concludes that in 10:19the term clearly "refersto sacrificial food that is partaken in theidol temple."

21From here, Fee feels justified in applying the same

sense to its occurrences elsewhere: "Since eating the food in thetemple is surely the meaninghere, the question is whether should carry another meaning in chap. 8."

22But this line

ofreasoning is open to criticism on two fronts. First, Fee has failedto preserve some crucial semantic distinctions. Second, the lexical

data simply do not justify narrowing the range of inthis manner.

a. PreservingSome Semantic Distinctions

First, Fee's comments appear to confuse word meaning (i.e., semantic content) with referent(i.e., the extra-linguistic reality to

19Cf. BAGO, s.v.: Robertson and Plummer, 1 Corinthians, 163; Conzelmann, 1

Corinthians, 139; J. C . Brunt, "Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The


8/23

56 TRINITY JOURNAL

which a word points).23

Our intent here is neither to indulge in semantic hair-splitting, nor to seize upon an unfortunate choice ofwords. Rather, we only point out that the two concepts meaningand referent must be kept distinct. In other words, even if , in 10:19, does refer to meat eaten in the idol temple, thisfalls short of establishing that the word means "meateaten in the idol temple." We will argue that the term simplymeans "meat offered to an idol" and that only a search of the context of each occurrence will reveal precisely where this meat was to

be found and under what circumstances it was eaten. It is alwaysdangerous to transfer to a word details from the context in order to

establish its semantic content.24

b. Surveying the Lexical Data

What then is the force of ? How certain is the claimthat it primarilyrefers to "the eating of sacrificial food at the cul-tic meals in the pagan temples"?

25At first glance ,

combining a noun () with a verbal adjective (), suggests the sense "idol-offered" and, as a substantive, "idol offering''

and thus "thing offered to an idol." No further details are suppliedin the form itself. Of course we cannot require that any compoundword be equal to the sum of its parts,

26but this gives us a place to

start.

occurs nine times in the NT, five of which are in 1Corinthians (Acts 15:29, 21:25; 1 Cor 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19; Rev 2:14,20).

27It occurs only once in the LXX, once in the Apostolic Fathers,

and not at all in Josephus. Each of these merits briefconsideration.Acts 15:29 and 21:25 record the Jerusalem leaders' request that

Gentiles abstain from eating idol meat. The intent of this decree

^To illustrate, the word , in John 16:7, refers to the Holy Spirit, butit meanssomething like "helper." Cf. the important discussions in J. P. Louw,Semanticsof New TestamentGreek(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982) 50-52;Stephen Ullmann, Semantics: An Introduction to the Science ofMeaning (NewYorkBarnes and Noble, 1962; reprint ed., 1979) 55-57.

24Eugene Nida's warning is apt: "the correct meaning of any term is that which

contributes least to the total context" ("Implications of Contemporary Linguistics forBiblical Scholarship" JBL 91 [1972] 86). Cf. also the comments of A. C. Thiselton,

"Semantics and New Testament Interpretation" in New Testament Interpretation:Essays on Principles andMethods(ed. I. H. Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1977) 84-85.


9/23

FISK: EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS 57

was to establish a minimal standard Gentiles would keep in orderto avoid alienating their conservative Jewish brethren. In this context, is most likely a reference to food available in themarket

28which Jews rejected as contaminated because of its asso

ciation with idols. A more narrow reference (e.g., that the food waseaten in the temple) is certainly not required to make good sense ofthe passage.

29

The only other NT occurrences outside the pauline corpus are inRev2:14, 20 where two sins are condemned: .

30In the context, this does appear to be a denunci

ation of Christian participation in idolatrous feasts and not simplythe rejection of marketplace idol food. It would be hard to explainthe strident tone otherwise, and the association of this sin with"the teaching of Balaam" suggests that some form of "compromise

with paganism in idolatry and immorality" is in view.31

On theother hand, this does not necessarily mean that , per

se, means"idolatrous feasts"; once again we must distinguish between meaningand referent. Indeed, the writer of Revelation provides several other clues about the nature of the offense;

32only

when we consider allthe evidence does a clear picture emerge. In

support of Fee, these verses do establish that mayrefer to that which is eaten at pagan feasts, but they also underscorethe role ofcontext in determining a word's referent.

The only LXX reference, 4 Mace 5:2,33

lists alongsideswine's flesh ( ) as something Antiochus sought to forceupon the Jews. The collocation of these two makes it clear that theformer, like the latter, refers simply to a type of food forbidden byJewish food laws. Significantly, Antiochus is portrayed as confident that he could persuade the Jews to eat (5:8-9). It is highly

unlikely he would entertain such a hope if he was asking them toengage in raw idolatry. All this suggests that the most natural

^Fee concurs (1 Corinthians, 357, n.l.).^Added confirmation comes from the wording ofJames's initial recommendation

(Acts 15:20) which is parallel in almost every respect to Acts 15:29 except that, inplace of, it speaks of abstaining from (things polluted by idols).

3COn the sense of in these texts. Fee's commentary is rather confusing.

He variously condudes that "the two passages . . . are ambiguous" (pp. 357-358);that they refer to the "hot issue" of marketplace food (pp. 424, 481); and that theydescribe two sins that "really belong together" at pagan temple meals (p. 455; cf.


10/23

58 TRINITY JOURNAL

reading of is simply "food (formerly) sacrificed toidols."

34

In Didache 6:3, the sole reference in the Apostolic Fathers, thereader is counselled to "keep strictly from that which is offered toidols, for it is the worship of dead gods" ( ... * ). Clearly, inthe author's mind, there is an association of idol meat with idolatry. But it is unlikely that the activity in question is eating meatduring pagan feasts, for one simple reason: the matter is introducedwith an unadorned "And concerning food" ( ).There is no mention of temples or meals or pagans; the verse in

structs readers about whatto eat, not where to eat it.This brief survey of Jewish and non-pauline Christian literature

suggests strongly that normally carries the generalsense "meat offered to idols." Nothing more elaborate or more specific is required. Accordingly, Fee must establish his case basedupon evidence within 1 Corinthians itself.

c. Examining in 1 Corinthians.

Although the term occurs 4 times in chap. 8 (1,4,7,10), Fee'sstrongest evidence comes from 10:19. He is right to point out thetemple setting of this verse. Like the participants in Christiancommunion (10:16-17) and in Jewish acts of sacrifice (10:18), the focus is on eating in a particular location, during religious ritual. Butthe warning Paul issues in 10:14 (cf. v. 7) is not about

but (idolatry); Christians cannot worship idolswithout serious consequences. Are we to understand that throughout8:1-10:22 eating is always a form of ?

Several factors suggest that we should not.First, consider the twin rhetorical questions of 10:19. The answer

to both is, obviously, an emphatic No. Neither nor possesses any inherent significance.

35Paul clarifies in v.

20: the ritualemploying the idol meat and the demonsbehind theidol are the real problems. IfFee's narrow range for iscorrect, v. 19 becomes a contradiction. Conversely, if v. 19 is givenits natural force, we have compelling evidence that (a) the semantic range of is broad enough to include any food placed

before an idol, and (b) eating is not always idolatry.Second, the parallel vocabulary in the final paragraph of chap.10 (10:23 11:1) is significant Here Paul employs the synonym


11/23


ketplace and prepared in the home. Although the setting has

shifted from temple to home,

37

Paul continues to describe the food as"idol meat." This must mean that designations such as and apply equally well whether the food is inside oroutside the temple.

All things considered, it is best not to narrow the range of as Fee suggests. Even in 1 Cor 8:10, which portrays thosewith knowledge dining in an idol's temple and "strengthening" theweak to do likewise, eating need not be inherentlyidolatrous. But this conclusion must await confirmation as the details of chaps. 8 and 10 are examined.

2. The Objective Neutralityof EatingIdolMeatin 1 Corinthians 8

One of the greatest obstacles to Fee's interpretation is its inabil-ity to explain Paul's toleration in chap. 8 of an activity declaredidolatrous in chap. 10.

38In stark contrast to the warnings in 10:1-22

about lapsing into idolatry (10:7, 14, 20-22), chap. 8 implies thatsome Christians can eat idol meat with no transgression. Five observations should firmly establish this point.

First, the links between verses 1,4 and 8 strongly suggest that theissue at hand is not objective idolatry. The verbal ties are set forth

below:

8:1 \ &

8:4

8:8

8:4 both resumes the topic of8:1 and sharpens its focus: the issue is

not idol meat perse but whether or not eatingidol meat brings spiritual contamination. Paul first denies the spiritual reality and potencyof idols in no uncertain terms (8:4). And because these idols arelifeless and impotent, it follows that food set before them is cleanin God's sight (8:8). And since the food () is declared harmless (v. 8), eating () must also be insignificant, in andof it-

self(8:4,13).39

The flow of Paul's thought is as follows:

Impotent Idol -> Uncontaminated Idol Meat -> Unaffected Consumer


12/23

60 TRINITYJOURNAL

Second, the logic of8:7 is only compelling if at least some can eat

idol meat with impunity. Those in this verse lacking knowledgeare Gentile40

Christians saved (recently?) out of pagan idolatrywho, because of their prolonged association with idols, cannot noweat idol meat without feeling defiled. This must be the sense of .

41They recognize that what they eat has

been offered to an idol and for them, this knowledge is highlysignificant. But since this applies only to some (), it must bepossible for others to eat . Paul's point is this:the ability of to contaminate is determined solely bythe belief system of the one eating. Accordingly, when an individ-ual has no subjective difficulty with eating, there is no objective defilement.

42

Third, Paul describes the freedom some claimed to eat idol meatas "this right (authority/freedom) of yours" ( , 8:9). The emphatic combination of pronouns may suggest sarcasm, or at least that Paul is picking up a term used in theCorinthians

7letter.

43Nevertheless, Paul does not deny outright

that theypossess a degree of freedom. Would Paul employ the term without qualification in the context of blatant idolatry?

Rather than reject their terminology, Paul cautions them that theirfreedom could easilybecome () dangerous. And even then,the danger is not to themselves (as it would be if they were engaging in idolatry) but to other Christians (i.e., the weak). Exercising will sometimes be selfish and destructive to others, but itneed not involve idolatry.

Fourth, apart from problems arising when the weak are on hand,Paul describes the behavior of those having knowledge withouthint of disapprobation (8:10). It does not appear that reclining in an

idol's temple ( ) is synonymous withidolatry.

44To avoid this conclusion, some construe this temple sce-

^Some have suggested that the weak in v. 7 were Jewish Christians who hadalways believed in the impotence of idols but also had a deep repugnance towardanything associated with them. But surely the decisive change implied by is sufficient to establish that actual converts out of idolatry are in view. Cf.Cnzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 147, n.19; Brunt, "Love," 21; Fee 1 Corinthians, 379 n.17;

Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 194. Interestingly, Murphy-O'Connor's conclusion that theweak were "probably" Gentile rests on logical and historical factors, rather thanupon the grammar and syntax ofv. 7 ("Freedom," 552-54).


13/23

HSR: EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS 61

nario as merely hypothetical.45

Others take it to be an extremecase.

46But Fee is right to point out that neither alternative is to

tally satisfactory. We have here a practice that is familiarenough to Paul and his audience that he can refer to it in passing,without explanatory comment. On the one hand, Fee is right to seedescribed in 8:10 the actual practice of some believers in Corinth

but, on the other hand, he has not conclusively established thatthis practice is idolatrous.

Fifth, the only mention of "sin" in chap. 8 has to do solelywiththe violation of the weaker brother (8:12). To be sure, it is sin"against () Christ" but this is notbecause one of Christ's objec

tive standards has been violated. Rather, Christ is mentioned asthe One with whom each believer is vertically connected and identified. On the basis of this union with Christ, a horizontal, familyrelationship between believers is established;

47in light of this

union with Christ, an act that causes spiritual damage to aChristian brother is infinitely more serious. In this context, sinningagainst Christ is accomplished indirectly, so to speak. Any mention(directsins against Christ (e.g., actual idolatry) is conspicuouslyabsent.

The conclusion is unavoidable: to see objective idolatry in chap. 8is to miss Paul's point. In fact, it is precisely because eating a&- is morally neutral that many enlightened CorinthianChristians will eat without fear of sinning. Paul's concern is thatwhen they eat in the presence of the weak, harmless actions readily become harmful.

3. The Fundamental Difference Between 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:1-22

We have noted that Gordon Fee quite justifiablypoints out theclear links tying 1 Corinthians 8 with 10:14-22.48

To this extent,Fee's view assists those unable to explain the abrupt intrusion of10:1-22 into an otherwise cohesive literary unit,

49and corrects those

^So John Hurd maintains the scene was fashioned only to make a point (TheOrigin of1 Corinthians[NewYork: Seabury, 1965] 125). But note that the third classcondition ( . . . ) provides little support. It may be employed toplace only the seeingin the realm of possibility while the fact of the diningmay be

assumed.46So Robertson and Hummer who, with Fee, see reclining in an idol's temple as"perse idolatrous" (1 Corinthians, 171). So also Schmithals, Gnosticism, 227, n.151


14/23

62 TRINITY JOURNAL

who dismiss 8:10 as hypothetical or extreme.50

But if we grant that8:10 stands alongside 10:19-22, we are faced with a problem:evidence within chap. 8 suggests strongly that Paul did NOT viewthose dining in the temple as morally culpable (unless theyscandalized someone else), whereas chap. 10 contains a strongwarning against the idolatry that occurs around the idol's table inthe temple. Paul appears inconsistent. Is dining in an idol's templeallowable or isn't it?

Explaining this apparent contradiction is possible only if one assumes that some activities and meals within a pagan temple aremorally objectionable for Christians while others are not. 1 Cor 8:10

describes permissible temple attendance, while 10:19-22 clearlyportrays what is off limits.

51Three points should help to make this

clear.

a. Pagan temples had extremely diverse functions in Roman society.

Among these many functions,52

the most significant were occasions of religious worship, sacrifice and corporate dining; some suchcultic meal is clearly in view in 1 Cor 10:19-22. These communal

meals would inevitably involve the eating of sacrificial meat. Thedifficulty is establishing precisely what significance these mealshad for their participants.

53Did eating constitute worship?

Although G. H. R. Horsley wisely cautions against dismissing as

sions of the integrity of the epistle and especially chaps. 8-10, cf. Brunt, "Love," 19-20; Fee, 1 Corinthians, 15-16; Hurd, Origin, 43-47.

50See above, notes 45 & 46.

51So von Soden, "Sacrament," 264; Brunt, "Love," 25. Contra W. L. Willis, Idol

Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Chico: ScholaPress, 1985) 217. Willis, like Fee, sees no fundamental distinction between the scenarios of 8:10 and 10:19-22; Paul considers all pagan meals to be religiously significant and therefore out of the question.

52In addition to the important work of W. L. Willis, cited above, temple activi

ties are described and documented in numerous sources. Cf. James Moffatt, The FirstEpistle of Paulto the Corinthians (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1938) 140-141;Fee, 1 Corinthians, 360-61; Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 147; Chan-Hie Kim, "ThePapyrus Invitation" JBL 94 (1975) 391-402.

^Willis draws together many strands of evidence to show the nature and significance of these meals, (IdolMeat, 17-64). He concludes that the temple meal was

neither a sacramentalact designed to establish unity with the god contained in themeal, nor a communalact viewed as a meal shared between worshipper and deity.Rather, the meal was a socialact which, although acknowledging the presence and


15/23


insignificant the "fundamentally religious character" of templebanquets held in honor of pagan deities,

54W. L. Willis's findings

cannot be overlooked: "cult meals... were generally regarded fun-damentally as occasions for social association and conviviality/'

55

Part of the problem was that lines between religious and civic ceremony were fuzzy, if drawn at all.

56Recently converted pagans

would doubtless have numerous social obligations, many of whichmight involve ceremonies and meals within or near a pagan temple.

57Beyond this social obligation, the warmth and cheer of such

shared gatherings made them hard for Christians to repudiate.Willis comments: "the assessment of the cult meals as occasions of

good company, good food, and good fun makes it obvious why theCorinthian Christians would not have wanted to miss out."

58

All of this suggests that we shall have to imagine a continuumalong which various pagan temple activities could be placed. Atthe one end was harmless fun and social convention; at the otherend was raw idolatry. 1 Cor 8:10 assumes that many CorinthianChristians were entering temples to engage in the former, while 1Corinthians 10 holds out the real possibility that some were getting perilously close to the latter. The precise danger facing these

bolder members of the Corinthian church has yet to be delineated.

b. Paulcondemns not idolmeatbut idolatry59

Paul's shift from (8:1, 4, 7, 10) to (10:7) and (10:14) is significant. The former ismorally neutral; the latter are damnable. The issue in 10:1-22 isneither what one eats (idol meat or other) nor where one eats it(temple, home, etc.). Rather, Paul is concerned about the nature of

the meal. Many temple activities were indeed theologically andmorally "neutral," but others were blatantly idolatrous. Apparently, some in the Corinthian church were inclined to go, or had alreadygone, beyond attendance at harmless social events to share intemple meals which included actual worship of pagan deities.

60

Their pride of and their elevation of had blinded

5ANew Documents Illustrating Early Christianity (Australia: Macquarie

University, 1981) 6.55

Idol Meat, 49.56Ibid., 52. Cf. the comments of von Soden, "Sacrament/' 264.57Ibid., 63. Cf. the appendix to Kim's "The Papyrus Invitation" which catalogues


16/23


17/23


4. The Common Ground Shared By 1 Corinthians 8and 10:23-11:1

Fee objects to the traditional linkage of 1 Corinthians 8 with10:23-11:1 because of the fundamental shift in perspective: theformer strongly discourages while the latter clearly encourages eating the food in question. How can such contradictory attitudes pertain to the same situation? How can Paul endorse an activity(10:25-27) which endangers a brother's spiritual life (8:11 J?

68This

leads Fee to propose that the topic of harmless marketplace food isintroduced for thefirsttime at 10:23-11:1. Prior to this, throughout8:1-10:22, only idolatrous temple meals are in view. But the problem with Fee's objection is that it exaggerates the differences between the two sections and overlooks important similarities. Thetable on the following page shows the major parallels between thetwo;

69the most natural reading must posit considerable common

ground.Significantly, neither passage suggests that , perse,

is harmful (8:8; 10:25, 27), and, in both, the basis for treating like any other food is God's sovereign dominion over all

creation (8:4-6; 10:26). Furthermore, both passages call for lovingrestriction of one's freedom to eat when the spiritual welfare ofothers is at stake (8:9-13; 10:24, 28, 32-33)

70and both are concerned

that harm may befall those whose sensitivities regarding are trampled on (8:7,9-13; 10:23,28,32-33). The cumulative

of worship. Christian and pagan, are mutually exclusive. Just as one shows hismaster by whom he serves (Rom 6:16-20), so also one shows his allegiance by theworship in which he participates" (cf. also p. 222).

^Recall our discussion of the third problem Fee identifies with the majorityview.

6 9John Hurd likewise charts similarities between 1 Corinthians 8-9 and 10:23-

11:1, though in less detail; but he interprets his data to mean that the invitation of

10:27 is to a temple meal (cf. 8:10), not to a pagan's home (Origin, 129).^The tension between these two passages alleged byFee hinges precisely on this

point B t s rel Fee is o erstating things hen he sa s Pa l is "so rela ed" abo t


18/23

66 TRINITY JOURNAL

Parallel Teachings in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:23

1. The Basic Issue: Idol meat

8:1,4,7,10

2. The Sovereignty of God

8:4

8:6

3. The Moral Neutrality ofFood

8:8

10:28

10:26b \

10:25

10:27

.

.

The Christian'sObjective Freedom to Eat8:9 10:29

(cf. 1 Cor 9:4,5,6,12a, b, 18) (cf. 1 Cor 9:1,19)

5. The Perspective/Worldview of Pagansor RecentConverts from Paganism8:7 10:28 " "

6. The Impact of the Behavior of Those with Knowledge

'

\

...

...

8:1 , 10:23 10:28

8:7 .-.8:9 ... 8:10 ...- 10:32

... 10:33

8:11 ...

8:12

8:13

7. The Subjective Nature of the Problem of the Weak: 8:7 10:25

10:27

8:10 10:28

10:29a ...

8:12 10:29b

8. The Use of Illustrative Scenarios

8:10 .,. ... 10:27

10:28 .,.

9 Th B i I t ti E t U l It Will H Oth


19/23


force of these parallels suggests that, while the emphases are dif-ferent/

1the basic message is almost identical:

8:1-13 Eat idol meat UNLESS SOMEONE WILL BE SCANDALIZED.

10:23-11:1 EAT IDOL MEAT unless someone will be scandalized.

Nevertheless, two major points of difference threaten to unravelany argument that depends on these similarities First, Fee pointsout that while chap. 8 is concerned with a weaker brother who will

be tempted to follow the example of those with knowledge, inchap. 10 "there is not the slightest hint that someone will fall by

imitating another's action/772 Furthermore, since Fee takes the informant of 10:28, for whose sake the Christian should abstain fromidol food, to be a well-meaning pagan, it turns out that the situation bears no resemblance whatsoever to the weakerbrother scenario of8:7A3PBut against this objection, we would point out thatif the informant is a non-Christian, 10:28b-29a becomes verypeculiar. How could the pagan's conscience be adversely affected bya Christian eating idol meat?

74This has convinced many scholars

that the informant of 10:28 is probably a weaker Christian

brother,75 in which case an additional parallel with chap. 8 isestablished and we may assume that this weaker brother is vul-nerable to the same temptation described in 8:10.

76

Second, and more significantly, the only setting explicitly mentioned in chap. 8 is the pagan temple (8:10). In 10:23-11:1, however,

we find ourselves first in the market and then in a private home.77

71While chap. 8 is clearly directed at those with knowledge, and comes very

close to prohibiting all eating of, 10:23-11:1 is best understood as bothreiterating the basic danger of chap. 8 as well as declaring clearly to both sides theobjective neutrality of all forms of food. Accordingly, 10:25 & 27 function both toreaffirm the views of those with knowledge and to admonish the weak. Note alsothat in chap. 8, the weak appear only as vulnerable victims; in this section, they areaddressed directly as individuals who need to develop in their attitudes towardsmarketplace food.

^"," 177.73

1 Corinthians, 483-85.74

None of the proposed solutions to this question is persuasive. Cf. Fee, 1 Corinthians, 484-85. Contra Fee, the use of rather than does notrule out a Gentile Christian informant. He may simply want to avoid offending thehost; he may be speaking out of habit (cf. 8:7); or more probablyPaul's lexical choice

may be designed to reflect the informant's lingering pre-Christian perspective onthings pagan. See above, note 36.

^B tt 1 C i thi s 242; Br ce 1 & 2 C i thi s 100; Robertson and


20/23

68 TRINITY JOURNAL

Although this contrast cannot be ignored, our interpretation thusfar strongly suggests that chap. 8 sets forth general ethical principles applicable to any setting: pagan temple, private home or thehome of a friend, so long as idols were not being worshipped. Thishelps to explain why Paul's final remarks (10:31-11:1) sound familiar; he wants to reiterate and generalize those principles so thattheyapply to all dimensions of life.

VI. Conclusion: Corinthian Behavior andPauline Response

We have sought to show that both halves of chap. 10 havestrong ties to chap. 8. 10:1-22 shares the temple setting of 8:10

while 10:23-11:1 follows chap. 8 in defending the moral neutralityof idol meat. Chap. 8 is the common denominator. Missing thispoint, some interpreters have integrated the argument of chap. 8

with only part of chap. 10.78

Accordingly, both sides in the debatemay have something to learn. Those in the majority camp need torecognize 8:10 as a real, even commonplace, situation in the Corinthians' experience and they need to understand that Paul was theremaking reference to what were spiritually harmless temple meals,

as he sought to apply his ethical principles. On the other hand,Fee should not paint all ofchap. 8, including 8:10, with the brush ofidolatry on the basis of ties with 10:1-22. When Paul does talkabout idolatrous behavior, there is no mistaking it (10:7, 14, 20-22),

79whereas that kind of language is completely absent from

chap. 8. Fee would probablycounter that our view fails to explainwhy Paul chose the temple setting for his sole illustration in chap.8. But the answer to that is simple: the pagan temple complex waspreciselywhere the problems had emerged in the first place. For

Paul's illustration to be both plausible and relevant, he selectedthe most familiar public eating place, where the weak would readily see and potentially imitate the participants.

80

With the foregoing analysis in hand, it is appropriate and necessaryto shift our focus from the horizon of Corinthian problems toour own. Numerous points of application emerge.

81In 8:1-13 and

10:23-11:1 Paul has sought to guide the Corinthians in their daily

But the evidence for a home setting is more compelling. Barrett remarks: "if it were a

cult banquet there would be no need to inquire, or to pass on self-evident information;nor would a weak Christian be present" (1 Corinthians, 242.) Cf. Bruce, 1 & 2Corinthians 99; Brunt "Love " 23; Fee 1 Corinthians 483


21/23


encounters with . Although he shared their knowledgethat God is one and that idols are impotent (8:4), this knowledgeexisted for him within a framework of love (8:1-3), responsibility(8:9) and Christian community (8:11-13). In stark contrast, manyCorinthians were characterized by pride, selfishness, a preoccupation with their rights, and an inclination to flaunt their freedomwithout regard for others. Left unchecked, their potential to do irreparable spiritual damage to weaker brothers was staggering.This explains Paul's high-powered rhetoric and driving ethicalargumentation designed to make misbehaving Corinthians feel thegravity of the problem, and draws our attention to Paul's own ex

emplary conduct. His every move was calculated to bring glory toGod (10:31) and to avoid causing others to stumble (10:32). His owninterests were all but forgotten for, in his mind, selflessness, flexi

bility and compromise on non-essential matters were totallyconsistent with his apostolic credibility and authority. In fact, heexpected such behavior of all who claim to follow Christ (11:1).Christian leaders inclined to wield authority in order to advancetheir own agendas will do well to take note.

Interpreters on every side of the debate outlined in this paper

will also be impressed by Paul's persistent demarcation betweenthe permissible and the profitable (6:12; 10:23). On the one hand,Paul resists pressure from legalists and traditionalists on the rightto redefine Christian morality (i.e., the permissible) according totheir narrow vision. To that extent, Paul sides with those whohave knowledge and he refuses to compromise his Christian liberty. On the other hand, however, Paul rejects strenuously the slogans and pseudoenlightenment of the left, arguing that theologicalknowledge and Christian liberty can never, by themselves, deter

mine the wisdom or profitabilityof a course ofaction.As all agree, Paul's response also confronted an additional prob

lem, at least as serious as their blatant disregard for the welfare oftheir Christian brothers (10:1-22). Some Corinthians, though probably not many, had begun to flirt with idolatry by participatingcarelessly in temple activities that bore all the hallmarks of pagan idol worship.

82Here, Paul's approach changed dramatically,

weaving illustration with admonition and sober warning. Butagainst Fee, we have sought to show that Paul's intent was not to

declare all temple meal attendance off limits; the nature of themeal, not its location, was the issue. For some, this tack will ap-


22/23

70 TRINITY JOURNAL

pear alarmingly "liberal,"83

for we do not find him demanding thatChristians flee certain places (i.e., pagan temple sites), on thegrounds that they commonly shelter ungodly activities (i.e., idolatry). Rather, Paul insists that they flee the ungodly activitiesthemselves (10:7, 14, 20-22). Either way, of course, the effect may

be the same; the Christian consumed by a vision of God anddwelling in the light of his holiness will not readily jeopardize hiscommitment by frequenting places of moral darkness. Nevertheless,Paul's decision to focus upon a Christian's behaviorin its socialcontext rather than upon location is noteworthy, for it preservesimportant distinctions along three lines, each of which is fre

quently ignored today.First, Paul distinguishes between what is amoral (food, places,

buildings, etc.) and what is moral (human conduct), in languagereminiscent of Jesus' teachings.

84Certainly Paul would never pro

mote pagan temple attendance, but neither does he desire to defineChristian morality in terms of how scrupulously one distances oneself from pagan territory. Second, Paul is not only concerned withsurface behavior but also with underlying attitudes and intentions.He saw that the same act (i.e. eating idol meat) could be innocent

for some but devastating for others (8:7). It is always dangerous todefine sin exclusively in terms of violating God'smoral law (Rom14:23; 1 Cor 8:7). Finally, while Paul is deeply concerned about dangers threatening weak individuals, there is a distinctly corporatedimension to his thought. This dimension surfaces when Paul showsthat any act which harms an individual Christian is really an affront to Christ himself (8:12), and especially when he argues thatalthough an act performed in isolation may be insignificant andharmless, as a social act it can become intensely meaningful (10:16-

30). This takes us to the heart of Paul's understanding of.Celebration of the Lord's Supper clearly presupposes Christiancommunity; only those who share corporately in the life of Christshould share the bread of communion (10:17). And the same holdsfor non-Christian worship as well; any Christian who casually

joins the circle of those worshipping another god, gratuitously assuming spiritual immunity, is open to charges of idolatry. In our ownage, characterized at all levels by moral relativism, rampant individualism and an accelerating return to pagan forms of spiritual

ity, these principles serve as desperately needed correctives.


23/23

^ 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 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 8-10 - Eating Meat Offered to Idols

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 8-10 - Eating Meat Offered to Idols