1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics

1/33

[JSNT61 (1997) 83-114]

THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OR CHRISTOLOGICAL PRAXIS?

PAULINE ETHICS IN 1 CORINTHIANS 8.1-11.1*

David Horrell

Department ofTheology,

University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QH

Introduction

Among the many difficult and complex passages in the Pauline epistles,1 Cor. 8.1-11.1 must surely be included. These chapters comprise a

complex and varied argument in which the connections between thedifferent sections are not always easy to discern. Moreover, it has

proved notoriously difficult to decide what Paul's advice actually wason the simple question with which the passage is explicitly concerned:

should a Christian eat idol-food? His answer is hardly what we would

call direct.1 The passage may seem even more obscure and irrelevantto modern Western readers (though not necessarily for readers in

other cultures and contexts),2 for whom the issue of food that has been

sacrificed to idols is scarcely a matter of everyday concern. However,Paul's method of responding to this particular ethical dilemma, indirect

though it may be on the specific question at issue, makes the passage

more relevant than it might otherwise have been to the broader issuesconcerning the shape and foundations of Christian ethics (cf. Brunt

1985: 115; Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 543).

* A revised version of a paper presented at King's College London and to a

research seminar at Exeter University. I am grateful to all those who raised questions

and made comments, especially to Edward Adams for his response to the paper.


2/33

84 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 67 (1997)

Some solutions to the complexities of the passage should be rejected

at the outset. For some scholars, the seemingly digressive ch. 9, and

the apparent differences between the various parts of chs. 8 and 10

(especially between 10.1-22 and the rest of chs. 8 and 10) point to acomposite text comprising portions from originally separate letters.3

The problems are therefore solved (or should we say, evaded?) by

assigning different sections of the passage to different letters writtenat different points in time. However, there are strong reasons for

rejecting such a solution. There are no compelling textual or literary

grounds for the hypothesis of literary partition, and both the form of

the argumenta broadly chiastic ABA' pattern with an apparentdigression at its heartand the tensions between its various parts are

features encountered elsewhere in Paul, indeed in passages that seemto be classic examples of Pauline argumentation (e.g. 1 Cor. 12-14;

Rom. 1.18-3.20; 9-11).4

It has also been suggested that the two groups with which Paul is

concerned here, generally labelled the 'strong' and the 'weak', are a

construction of Paul's rather than a reflection of genuine disagreement

and difference in the church at Corinth. J.C. Hurd, for example,followed more recently by Peter Gooch, argued that in fact the

Corinthians were united on the issue of idol-food and that the 'weak'are a non-existent, hypothetical group created by Paul, who was trying

to impose on the Corinthians a policy agreed at the apostolic council

which contradicted Paul's earlier practice and teaching at Corinth.5 Ofcourse Paul's own literary construction of the situation at Corinth is

all that we have, and in a number of places in these chapters Paul does

present situations as hypothetical. However, there are no compelling

3. E.g. Weiss 1910: xl-xliii, 210-13; Hring 1962: xiii-xiv, 75, 100; Sellin

1987: 2964-82; Yeo 1995: 81-82.

4. On the ABA' pattern, cf. Fee 1987:15-16 with n. 40. The extended arguments

in Rom. 1.18-3.20 and 9.1-11.36 both contain passages that, when compared,

stand in tension, even contradiction, with one another, but that can be seen to serve

the overall direction and purpose ofthe argument, as they make a particular point at a

particular stage (cf., e.g., Rom. 2.12-16 and 3.20, or 9.14-18 and 10.1-13). On the

unity ofthis passage, see Hurd 1965: 131-42; Merklein 1984: 163-73; Schrge 1995:

212-15. Recent work on this passage by Gardner (1994), and on 1 Corinthians by


3/33

HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple or ChristologicalPraxis? 85

grounds to doubt that differences of opinion and practice existed at

Corinth; indeed, much of Paul's exhortation would be rather pointless

if it did not. Jerome Murphy O'Connor agrees: 'No evidence contra

dicts the traditional opinion that there were two groups within the

Corinthian church. One group had no doubts about the legitimacy of

eating idol-meat, the other had serious reservations' (1978b: 544; also

Brunt 1981: 30 n. 18; Willis 1985a: 92ff.; Horrell 1995a).

Other recent studies of this passage, notably those by Tom Wright

and Ben Witherington, also fail to do justice to some of the most central

and striking features of Paul's argument. While Witherington may be

partly right to argue that Paul effectively prohibits participation inpagan cultic worship, I do not think, for reasons we shall explore

below, that the thrust of Paul's instruction can be adequately encapsu

lated in the phrase 'it's not what you eat, it's where you eat it'.6

Wright's (1991) analysis of 8.6 produces some important reflections

on the similarities between the Christian credal confession of what

Wright calls 'christological monotheism' and the Jewish Shema, but, I

hope to show, is mistaken in terms of the role that it proposes for this

confession within the wider argument of chs. 8-10. I aim to outlinehere an interpretation that does justice to the complex passage as a

whole (including, importantly, ch. 9) and that illuminates the main

features of Paul's ethical argument.

1 Corinthians8.1-13

The passage opens with a clear introduction of the topic, ,

in a form that, by comparison with 7.1, suggests it was a subject raisedin the Corinthians' letter to Paul.

7Immediately, however, we have to

face questions concerning the presence and extent of Corinthian

'slogans' or quotations. While scholars disagree as to the precise form

and the number of places where Corinthian opinions are quoted by

Paul, there is widespread agreement that in 8.1 and 8.4 at least Paul

cites opinions that have been expressed by the strong at Corinth:8

'we

6. See Witherington 1994; 1993; 1995: 186-230.

7. See Hurd 1965: 65-74, though note the caution ofMitchell 1989; see further


4/33

86 Journalfor the Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)

all have knowledge' (8.1b); 'there is no idol in the world9

and there isno God but one' (8.4b).

10These statements represent the theological

legitimation for the strong's assertion of their freedom to eat idol-food without restriction (cf. Brunt 1981: 22).

However, disputes about the extent of Corinthian quotations hereare perhaps less crucial for the interpretation of the passage than issometimes assumed. For in 8.1, 4, 6 and 8 (where Corinthian quotations have been suggested) it does seem clear both that the opinionsquoted are ones associated with the Corinthian 'strong' but also thatthey are opinions that Paul basically shareseven though he may

qualify them sharply and differ as to their implications for conduct.Here, as in 6.12, he does not counter a cited opinion with an emphatic (as, e.g., in Rom. 3.4, 6, 31; 6.2, 15; 7.7, 13; Gal. 2.17;3.21) and he seems to include himself in the 'we' who have knowledgein 8.1, 4 and 6 (just as he includes himself explicitly among the 'strong'in faith in Rom. 15.1).

11

Right from the outset, then, Paul agrees that he and others haveknowledge. Yet also from the outset, he expresses his view that knowl

edge is of little value, at least compared to love. 'Knowledge puffs upa pejorative term throughout 1 Corinthians

12but love builds up'

(8.1). Indeed, the irony is that people who think they know13

do notyet know as they ought to know (8.2). True knowledge is actuallyconnected with those who love.

14Here in the first three verses of the

9. Probably in the sense 'has no real existence' rather than that 'an idol is a

nothing'; see discussion in MurphyO'Connor 1978b: 546; Schrge 1995: 236.

10.The likelihood of Paul's quoting in 8.4b is shown by the repetition of cm.

cm; see Giblin 1975: 530.

11. Hring (1962: 72) and Schrge (1995: 221: 'da sich V lb und V 7a formal

widersprechen') are therefore not quite correct to suggest that there is a formal contra

diction between 8.1 and 8.7, thus establishing that the former must be a Corinthian

quotation: the two statements may simply indicate that the 'we all' is a group that

does not include everyone in the congregation.

12. appears in the New Testament only in 1 Corinthians (4.6, 18, 19;

5.2; 8.1; 13.4) and once in Colossians (2.18), always with a pejorative sense.

13. , 'anything', is absent from $p46, which Zuntz (1953: 31) considers the

correct reading.

14. A rough paraphrase of v. 3, based on the shorter reading found in *p46:


5/33


passage Paul has encapsulated the heart of his argument. However, as

will become clear, despite Paul's powerful rhetoric counterposing

knowledge and love, it should be borne in mind that the 'love' he has

in mind is actually, in one sense, rooted in 'knowledge'; it is a love

informed and shaped by the pattern and example of Christ (cf. 2 Cor.

8.9: 'For you know [] the grace of our Lord Jesus

Christ... '; also 1 Cor. 1.4-6; 2.11-16; 2 Cor. 2.14; 4.6).

In v. 4 Paul reiterates the question with which the passage opened

and begins to deal with the issue in greater detail. Following the out

line of what 'we' know in v. 4b, Paul carefully hedges round both sides

ofthe question of the existence of idols in v. 5: they are only 'so-called'

gods ( ) yet indeed there are many gods and many

lords (cf. Schrge 1995: 226). 'The pagan pantheon cannot simply be

dismissed as metaphysically nonexistent and therefore morally irrele

vant' (Wright 1991: 128). But what he is leading to is the emphatic

statement ofpractical monotheism in v. 6, introduced with the strongly

adversative ' , 'but for us... '

Here in v. 6, as Wright suggests, we find a concise credal confession

of early Christian faith with notable similarities to the Shema (Deut.

6.4). While I am not so sure that this actually represents 'a statement

ofthe highest possible christologythat is, ofJesus placed within the

very monotheistic confession itself' (Wright 1991: 132)Paul seems

to me, and not least in 1 Corinthians (3.23; 11.3; 15.28), to retain a

rather clear and careful distinction between God (the Father) and

Christ (the Lord)15

it surely does represent a formulaic and concise

expression of theological and christological belief which lies at the

heart of New Testament Christianity. 'For us there is one God, theFather, from whom are all things and we to him, and one Lord, Jesus

Christ, through whom are all things and we through him'. It has been

suggested that the verse is another quotation from the Corinthian strong

'knowledge'. However, v. 2 speaks of the kind of knowledge that one ought to

have, which contrasts ironically with the supposed knowledge of those who think

theyknowsomething (cf. 1 Cor. 13.2, 8).

15. Cf. Barrett 1971: 193: 'Jesus Christ is not described as God, and the fact that

Lord () serves very frequently in the Greek Old Testament as an equivalent of


6/33


(Willis 1985a: 84-86), but again it makes little sense here to divide theopinions of the Corinthians from those of Paul. It is more likely thatv. 6 comprises an already established credal formula, but even so it issurely one with which Paul is in wholehearted agreement.

16

All of this should make v. 7 strike the exegete with a forceful jolt.How does Paul follow this confession of the heart of early Christianfaith? With the simple, but remarkable little phrase: 'but the knowledge is not in all'. As the following verses make clear, Paul is certainlytalking here about members of the Christian congregation. Was thereever such a clear-cut example of the need for a programme of theolo

gical education? Does Paul really accept with such apparent nonchalance a situation in which believers can be said not to share suchfundamental 'knowledge'? It hardly seems likely that Paul actuallymeans that some of the congregation do not believe that 'for us thereis one God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ'; the confessionof Christ as Lord is the touchstone for Paul of genuine Christiancommitment (1 Cor. 12.3; Rom. 10.9) and he certainly knows nothingof Cupittite atheistic non-realism! What he does perhaps mean is that

not all possess this knowledge in a way that convinces them of thenon-reality of idols and of the consequent acceptability of idol-foodin this sense they do not have the gnosis of the strong.

17They are,

Paul says, accustomed to eating idol-food as belonging to an idol, and

16. Cf. Schrge 1995: 221: 'In V 6 greift Paulus wahrscheinlich nicht auf ein

Argument der Korinther, sondern auf eine berkommene Formel zurck.' Murphy

O'Connor (1978a: 254-59) argues that the text is a pre-Pauline baptismal acclamation.

His argument that it is 'soteriologicaT and not Cosmologica!' is less convincing.17. Cf. Schrge 1995: 254: 'Wohl aber rechnet Paulus offenbar mit einer

Diskrepanz zwischen dem, was auch die Schwachen erkennen, und dem, was ihr

Verhalten prgt.' Also Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 552-55. Martin (1995: 184) rightly

warns against modernizing Paul too easily by imputing to him modern psychological

ideas of knowing on a 'conscious' level but not working this through on the

'subconscious' level. Martin suggests that from Paul's point of view (which differs

from that of the strong), 'The Strong cannot simply hand over their gnosis to the

Weak, as if it could be taught; rather, in Paul's rhetoric, people either have it or

do not have it. Possession of gnosis is a matter of state or status, not education'

(p. 187). However, Martin's view that Paul regards gnosis as a 'prophylactic

talisman' (pp. 179-89) surely needs some qualification. The activity for which the


7/33


because they still have this awareness, if they eat, their weak

is defiled (v. 7).18

Whatever the precise explanation, this

juxtaposition of vv. 6 and 7 is a key to understanding this passage. It is

notable that Wright skips over it completely. His only reference to

v. 7 is the following sentence in a section stressing the importance of

love within the family which is 'the Messiah-and-his-people'. 'This',

he suggests, 'is essentially the point of vv. 7-13, whose focus is vv. 11-

12' (Wright 1991: 133). We shall return to this point.

In v. 8, Paul expresses a view with which the strong might at least

in part agree, though it is certainly Paul's view too (cf. Rom. 14.14-

15), and hence it is unnecessary and probablyunconvincing to see it as

another Corinthian quotation. Moreoever, the assertion that 'food will

not commend us to God' is used by Paul to show that the act of eating

brings no particular benefit, and equally, therefore, that abstaining

implies no loss. The strong will not suffer any spiritual lack if they do

abstain from (cf. Gardner 1994: 48-53). Food itself is

indeed a matter of moral indifference; what is crucial in this case is

the effect one's conduct has on others, whose 'consciences' are weak.

, 'watch out' (v. 9), is the first imperative Paul uses in thispassage. The problem is that the strong's exercise of their authority,

their , may become a stumbling block to the weak; seeing the

strong eating or elsewhere, they may be 'built up'

, an ironizing of the term Paul uses so positively

elsewhereto eat idol-food even while conscious of its idolatrous

connections. The conduct of the strong would therefore lead to the

destruction of the weak, who are, as much as anyone else, people for

whom Christ died (v. 11).In vv. 11-13, there emerges a clear emphasis upon christologically

based relational concerns. In contrast to the theological legitimations

which are cited in vv. 1-6 as the basis from which the strong argue

their right to eat idol-food, here the foundation for ethical action is

18. There has been much discussion of the meaning of the term here

and in the New Testament. It certainly has a sense somewhat different from the

modern use of the word 'conscience': those with a 'weak' are not those

with a slack or undisciplined approach to morality, but quite the opposite. It is gene


8/33

90 Journalfor the Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)

the status ofeach fellow believer as a brother orsister in Christ.19

The word appears four times in w. 11-13, in what MurphyO'Connor (1978a: 266) calls 'calculated repetition'. First the point ismade that each ofthese , is someone forwhom Christ died.Christ gave himself completely foreach one, even to death. Moreover,to offend orcause to stumble one ofthese is to sin againstChrist (v. 12), 'the only occasion on which Paul speaks ofa "sin againstChrist'".

20Thus in a hyperbolic summary ofhis point Paul declares

that he himself would go to extreme lengths, giving up meat completely rather than be a cause ofoffence and stumbling to anyofthesesisters and brothers (v. 13; cf. the extreme language ofRom. 9.3).

The shift between w . 6 and 7 is, I submit, crucial to this argument.Paul, it seems to me, does almost precisely the opposite ofwhat Wrightsees him doing. Wright proposes that

Paul, in addressing a very specific situation and problem, argues from

basic, and thoroughly theological, principles to a view which is, in terms

of the history ofreligions, specifically and uniquely Christian, and that in

the middle ofhis argument v. 6 functions as a Christian redefinition of the

Jewish confession of faith, the Shema (1991: 121).21

What we actually find in vv. 4-6 is Paul's outline ofthe theologicalprinciples upon which the strong base their freedom to eat idol-food.

Paul does not disagree with the theological principles (though v. 5reflects some ambivalence about the non-existence ofidols), nor withthe consequence drawn from them, that food is a matter ofmoralindifference and that idol-food can therefore be eaten without worry.There is no hint in ch. 8 that the ofthe strong is anythingotherthan entirely legitimate (v. 9). What Paul does do is to insist thatChristian conduct has quite a differentfoundation and motivation.

22

19. Cf. Furnish 1990: 154: Paul *shifts attention away from the question of what

rights believers have before God to the matter of what responsibilities believers have

for one another'.

20. See Murphy O'Connor 1978b: 563-65, who argues that it is the community

as the body of Christ which is in view here.

21. Cf. p. 125: 'his [sc. Paul's] basic rule ofthumb for addressing this question

is, as one might have predicted from a Jewish background, the reassertion of Jewish-


9/33


There are some who do not see the theological knowledge or its con

sequences in the same way as the strong, and rather than seeking to

educate or enlighten them so as to change their views and practice, Paul

insists that a christologically based pattern of self-giving for one's

brothers and sisters in Christ must be adopted. Even a practice for

which one has an unquestionable 'right',23

which has an unquestionable

theological basis, must be set aside if it is a cause of stumbling. That

this interpretation of ch. 8 is correct is, I suggest, confirmed by what

follows in ch. 9.

1 Corinthians9.1-27

Chapter 9 may be digressive but I believe it plays a crucial role in the

argument of the whole passage. It is notable, and unfortunate, that a

good manystudies concentrate on chs. 8 and 10 (or parts thereof) with

out giving attention to ch. 9 and its role here.24 Just as 1 Corinthians

13 is a digression from the specific theme of spiritual gifts and their

exercise within the community, yet at the same time points to love

drawing attention to the way in which they are linked through the pattern of indicative

and imperative. Certainly, in a general sense (against the idea that Paul's ethics are

merely adopted ad hoc from various sources contemporary with him, cf. Hays 1997:

17) I would agree that Paul's ethics are thoroughly grounded in the Gospel (cf.

Furnish 1990; Hays 1994). However, what I am arguing for here is a rather more

nuanced expression ofthe broadly 'theological' foundations ofPaul's ethics. In this

passage at least, theological principles, such as the monotheistic confession (v. 6)

are not (pace Wright) used as a basis for ethical action. This does not mean, however, that Paul's ethics are merely 'relational' or contextual; rather, they are based

upon profoundlychristological foundations. When it comes to the ethical shaping of

action and relationships in the Christian community, it seems (here at least) that it is

the christological paradigm, rather than strictly ideological principles, which is

ethicallydeterminative.

23. Following many New Testament scholars, and BAGD, 277,1 have used the

term 'right' to translate in this passage, esp. in ch.9.1 recognize, however,

that there is an important contemporary debate as to whether the notion of 'rights' has

any legitimate part in Christian ethics. Winter (1994: 166-77) argues for the transla

tion 'right', and suggests that Paul has a specific 'civic right' in view, 'a civic privi-

lege which entitled Corinthian citizens to dine on "civic" occasions in a temple'


10/33

92 Journal for the Studyofthe New Testament67 (1997)

as the most important foundation for the whole discussion, so

1 Corinthians 9 points to issues that are of fundamental importance in

the context of the discussion of. The verbal and thematiclinks indicate the integration of ch. 9 into the wider argument to

which it contributes.25

There has been considerable debate as to whether this chapter should

be read primarilyas a defence or as an example (see Horrell 1996a:

204-206). Certainly there are elements of defensiveness here in rela

tion to Paul's apostleship (vv. 1-3) and perhaps also in relation to his

refusal of financial support from the Corinthians.26

Yet in the argu

ment ofthe passage as a whole it clearly serves as an example, spellingout for the strong the pattern of conduct that Paul calls them to imitate,

and that he perceives as an imitation of Christ (11.1).

The opening verses are a robust assertion of Paul's apostleship,

which may well reflect his defensiveness on this very question, not

least at Corinth.27 But the reason that it is so crucial for Paul to estab

lish his apostolicity at this point is that it is a necessary prerequisite

for the validity of the argument that follows. Paul will go into some

detail about his refusal to use his rights as an apostle, but if he werenot a true apostle then the whole argument becomes completely

worthless. However, having established his apostolic status he can then

list the rights of an apostle (vv. 4-6) with the clear and insistent pre

sumption that he and Barnabas are as entitled to these rights as any of

'the other apostles' (v. 5). Then he proceeds to list the grounds upon

which such rights are based, the principles with which they can be

legitimated.

In this list there is a clear progression, with more weighty anddecisive reasons drawn in, and reaching a rhetorical climax in v. 14.

28

25. E.g. (8.9; 9.4-6, 12, 18) and the various words related to the idea

of 'offence': (8.9); (9.12); (10.32);

(8.13); also (9.19-23). See further Willis 1985b: 39-40; Malherbe 1994;

Schrge 1995: 213.

26. I cannot see any evidence for the view that Paul is defending himself against

criticism that he ate idol-food in this chapter, as argued by Hurd 1965: 130-31; Fee

1987: 363, 393,425 etc.; contrast Gooch 1993: 93-95.27. Schrge (1995: 280-91) suggests that the 'defence' mentioned in v. 3 relates


11/33


First there are the reasons drawn from the logic of human affairs:

soldiers receive provisions from those for whom they fight; those who

plant vineyards enjoy the fruit of the vines; shepherds drinkthe milkfrom their flock (v. 7). The reasons become more important and

authoritative: it is not just human reason and experience that show this

principle to be right, the law of Moses says so too (vv. 8-9). The

regulation from Deuteronomy about the threshing ox was meant, Paul

insists, as a principle for human beings,29

a principle that Paul elabo

rates in v. 1030

and relates specifically to the Corinthian situation in v.

11. He and his co-workers, more than any others ( ),

have a right, an , which is surely unquestionable. However,strikingly, it is a right that they choose not to use, so as not to place

any stumbling block in the way of the gospel (v. 12). Having made

this point explicitly, the rhetorical climax comes as Paul returns to yet

further legitimations of these rights, followed by the personalizing of

the issue onto himself alone, as the shift from first person plural to

first person singular shows (cf. v. 12 and v. 15). First he mentions the

principle at work in the operations of temple and cult (v. 13), and

then 'clinches the argument' (Fee 1987: 412) with surely the ultimateChristian legitimation: the command ofJesus (v. 14).31

Paul has thus demonstrated the following: if ever there were a right,

an , which could be unquestionably legitimated, this is it. It is

undergirded by the logic of human affairs, by the scriptures, by the

way the temple operates, and even by a command of the Lord. Yet

how does Paul act in relation to this right? He sets it aside, and refuses

to use it, employing hyperbole once more as he declares that he would

beabsichtige Steigerung von Alltags- und Vernunftgrnden ber das Mosegesetz bis

zrn Herenwort,

(p. 295).

29. See further Listone Brewer 1992; Robbins 1996: 121-22,130.

30. Some have argued that v. 10b is a quotation from an unknown apocryphal

source introduced by . .. (e.g. Conzelmann 1975: 155; Schrge

1995, 302; it is italicized in NA27). However, while it may be based to some extent

on Sir. 6.19, with which it has notable similarities, it is more convincing to take the

verb to refer back 'to the cited passage in v. 9' and to read the in 'acausal or explanatorysense' (with Fee 1987: 409 n. 68).

31 'V 14 t P l di t h id d I t i i B i


12/33

94 Journal forthe Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)

ratherdie than be deprived ofhis boast in this matter (v. 15).32

Indeed,his proclamation ofthe gospel is something he undertakes not from

choice but undercompulsion, as a slave,33

and hence he can claim nowage, no (vv. 16-17). The answer to his rhetorical question'what then is my?' is deeply ironic: his pay orreward is presenting the gospel free ofcharge () so as ( plus articularinfinitive) notto use his (v. 18).

The argument goes further still: though Paul is unquestionably free(9.1, 19) he has enslaved himself to all (v. 19).

34He has commended

the gospel bybecoming 'all things to all people' (v. 22). In his list

here too there is a rhetorical climax in thefinalphrase 'to the weak, Ibecame weak', the only phrase in the series without the qualifying .35

There is no mention ofbecoming 'strong' in the list, both because thisseems to be the group with which Paul would naturally and initiallyidentify himself and, more importantly perhaps, because the strong arethe group he is addressing and challenging to imitate him in accommodation to others forthe sake ofthe gospel.

36Indeed, Paul concludes,

he does everythingforthe sake ofthe gospel.

This leads him to think about the strenuous effort and self-controlwhich such commitment demands (vv. 24-27). Using the analogyofathletes who run and box, he urges the Corinthians to similarly wholehearted and self-disciplined dedication (see Garrison 1997). Paul goesto the lengths ofbeating and enslaving his own body, lest he findhimself in the end (v. 27).

The argument ofchs. 8 and 9 maytherefore be summarized: Paulcites and accepts the theological principles which the strong use to

32. Cf. Willis 1985b: 35: 'Paul has established his rights so strongly so that he

can make somethingof his renunciation of them\

33. Paul's situation is that of one who acts , not ; see Martin 1990:

71-77; Horrell 1996a: 207; otherwise Malherbe 1994: 249; Robbins 1996: 85.

34. On the distinctiveness of Paul's viewof self-enslavement here, compared

with Stoic and Cynic philosophers, see Martin 1990: 71-77,117-35; Malherbe 1994:

251-54.

35. See Horrell 1996a: 208-209; otherwise Tomson 1990: 274-79, whose reading

of the textual evidence seems to me rather strongly influenced by his own agendaabout Paul. He argues that both the in v. 20a and the phrase

( 20) are later insertions


13/33

HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple orChristologicalPraxis? 95

justify their to eat . Paul nowhere questions this

or the principles upon which it is based, but what he does do

is to maintain that Christian conduct involves a Christ-like self-givingfor others, a self-enslavement, a setting aside of one's own rights for

the sake of the gospel.37

This, Paul demonstrates, is precisely his own

practice. He has an unquestionable right to financial support from the

congregations, but he sets it aside in order to place no barrier in the

way of the gospel and in order to become weak alongside the weak

whom he seeks to gain. Christian life is not about the exercise of free

dom or authority, however legitimate that freedom and authority

might be. It is about a rigorous self-discipline rooted in concern forothers. In the words ofPaul's own summary: it is about acting on the

basis not ofknowledge, but oflove; a love whose paradigm is Christ.

But if this interpretation is correct, what are we to make of 10.1-

22? In the light of what Paul urges there, can it really be maintained

that he accepts as entirely legitimate the ofthe strong?

1 Corinthians10.1-22

It is often suggested, with some plausibility, that 10.1-13 is a midrashic

passage, based on texts concerning the wilderness wanderings from

Exodus andNumbers, which may well have existed in some form prior

to its inclusion here, perhaps created, or used previously, by Paul.38

The character and thrust ofPaul's argument seem quite clearly to shift

here, in a way that has led some to propose that 10.1-22 belongs to a

different letter altogether. However, this section is not entirely dis

junctive; rather, it picks up the train of thought begun in 9.24-27,

specifically the danger of being found in the end , that is,excluded from the company ofthose who are saved. This is clearly the

theme of 10.1-13.

The language which Paul uses in vv. 1-4 surely represents a careful

and deliberate attempt to parallel the Israelites' experiences with the

rituals of baptism and Lord's supper in which the Corinthians have

shared. Being under the cloud (an image of burial?) and passing

through the sea are described as a baptism into Moses (

37 Cf Hays 1994: 38 (= 1997: 42): 'The operative norm here is relinquishment


14/33

96 Journal for the Studyofthe NewTestament67 (1997)

, . 2). The food and

drinkthe wandering Israelites received are described as spiritual food

and spiritual drink(vv. 3-4). And just to make the parallels emphatically clear, Paul reads Christ explicitly into the wilderness narrative:

the spiritual rock from which they drankwas Christ (v. 4). So just as

all of the Corinthians have been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ

(1 Cor. 1.13-14; 12.13), and all share in the Lord's supper (1 Cor.

10.16-17; 11.17-34), so allof the Israelites also shared in the rituals

of membership and belonging. After the laboured repetition of 'all',

, five times in vv. 1-4, the rhetorical impact of v. 5, beginning

with the adversative ' , can hardly be missed. Despite the factthat all shared equally in these signs of belonging, 'God was not pleased

with the majority of them, for their bodies were scattered in the desert'.

And straightawaythe explicit linkis made: these things happened, Paul

tells his readers, as examples for us, , in order to warn us

against the forms of behaviour, the 'evil desires' (v. 6), for which the

Israelites were judged and condemned: idolatry, sexual immorality,

putting Christ( )39 to the test, and grumbling.40 The lesson

is clearly drawn out: so then, ,41 'if you think you are standing,

watch out that you do not fall' (v. 12, NRSV). The whole passage is a

warning against complacency: the Israelites all partook in the rituals

of community membership just as much as the Corinthians, yet this

was no guarantee of salvation. Each person should be aware of the

potential precariousness of their position within the communityjust

as Paul is too ( ... , 9.27). Evil desires and

practices have disastrous consequences and bring terrible judgment;

baptism and eucharist provide no guarantee of protection.42

This

39. Verse 9; which some scribes found too odd and changed to . Cf. 8.12

and the warning against 'sinning against Christ'.

40. The symmetrical structure of vv. 6-11 is notable, especially in the changes

between first and second person plurals:

6: . . . , Tiuc . . . [first person plural pronouns]

7: . . . [second person plural imperative]

8: . . . . [first person plural hortatorysubjunctive]

9: , . . . [first person plural hortatorysubjunctive]

10: . . . . [secondperson plural imperative]

11: . . . . . . [first person plural pronouns]


15/33


seemingly precarious situation is nothing other than what is normal

for human beings, and it is not as if God sets up traps hoping people

will fall. On the contrary, God is faithful and provides a way bywhich temptation can be avoided (v. 13). Not surprisingly the specific

sin Paul urges the Corinthians to avoid is that of idolatry (v. 14). He

appeals to them as people wise () enough to make the right

judgment themselves in this matter (v. 15).

In vv. 16-18 Paul uses what is well known and accepted about the

Lord's supper (cf. Gardner 1994: 161) and about Israel's sacrificial

system to illustrate how eating and drinking in a cultic context estab

lish a which embraces those who partake and that which theyshare. Paul is careful to point out (v. 19) that he is not thereby con

ceding any significance to (cf. 8.8) or any real existence

to an (cf. 8.4). But (unlike Israel , in v. 18) pagan

cultic acts make sacrifices to demons () and not to God, and

Paul does not wish his readers to share with demons. Paul

wants both to deny that an idol is anything (10.19, cf. 8.4) but also at

the same time to acknowledge the existence, or the danger, of spiritual

beings other than God (cf. 8.5).43

It is hardly adequate simply to saythat Paul denies the existence of idols but believes in demons. The

tension, rather, is one that runs through much of the Bible's polemic

against idols and idolatry. On the one hand, idols are nothing; they are

not gods, but ridiculous artefacts made by human hands (e.g. Isa. 44.9-

20), yet at the same time (or precisely for this reason?) idolatry

giving worship and allegiance to anything other than Yhwhis a

dangerous and heinous sin (e.g. Deut. 6.13-15). Whatever the ontolo-

gical status of the inhabitants of Paul's mythological universe, thestatement of v. 21 is clear: 'you cannot ( ) drinkthe cup of

the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of

the Lord and the table of demons.' (NRSV) To attempt to do so would

be to provoke the Lord and to test his strength and, as the bodies of

the Israelites scattered in the desert graphically and typologically

demonstrate, the result would be destruction and death. For Paul there

are not secure'. This passage surely raises questions against Martin's (1995: 179-89)argument that gnosis acts (in Paul's view) as a prophylaxis for the strong (see n. 17


16/33

98 Journal for the Studyof the New Testament67 (1997)

is clearly a 'mystical reality' about the believers' in the one

body of Christ (vv. 16-17). This is simply incompatible with

with demons; to risk the latter is therefore a dangerous thing, invitinga judgment of destruction. Similarly, failing to 'discern the body'

44at

the Lord's supper and acting 'unworthily' () brings the judg-

ment of sickness and even death (11.27-31).45 Here then, as elsewhere

in 1 Corinthians, it is a further christological foundationthe unity

of the community as the body of Christwhich forms a basis for

admonition (1.10-17; 11.17-34; 12.12-27; cf. also 5.3-13; 6.15-20).

So how does Paul's extended attack on complacency and warning

against idolatry and with demons relate to the argument ofchs. 8 and 9, and to what follows in 10.23-11.1? There is certainly at

least an apparent contrast between 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1 on the one

hand, and 10.1-22 on the other: in the former passages Paul seems

to regard eating as permissible unless another is offended,

whereas in 10.1-22 he stresses the danger of eating (cf., e.g.,

Conzelmann 1975: 137). Gordon Fee, however, argues that there are

differences between 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1 and 'that the alleged ten

sion between 8,7-13 and 10,14-22 has been considerably overdrawn'(1980: 176). In his view, 8.1-13 and 10.1-22 both concern temple

meals and only in 10.23ff. does Paul introduce the different subject of

idol-meat sold in the market place and meals taken in the home.

According to Fee, Paul prohibits participation in meals at pagan

temples, whereas he permits, or regards as indifferent in itself, to be

avoided only if it offends others, buying meat from the macellum, the

market, and eating whatever is served at meals in private homes.46

Witherington similarly proposes the solution that 'Paul distinguishesbetween eating at home and eating in temples and strictly forbids the

latter (10.14-23)' (1995: 188; also Wright 1991: 134-35). He argues

that the term ' means meat consumed in the presence of

an idol, or at least in temple precincts where the god's power and pre

sence was thought to abide' (1993: 242; cf. Fee 1980: 181-87) whereas

44. The possible meanings of this enigmatic phrase have been much discussed;

see, e.g., Barrett 1971: 273-75; Martin 1995: 194-96; Horrell 1996a: 152-53.45. Cf. Martin 1995: 194: 'what Paul means by "unworthily" has to do with


17/33


'is the proper term for food that has come from the temple,

but is not being eaten in the temple or as part of temple worship'

(1993: 248). Thus Paul prohibits but permits .

Witherington states that 'Paul comes to the nub of the argument in

8.10* where he refers to the strong 'eating in the temple of an idol'

(italicized in Witherington's paraphrase of v. 10; 1993: 246).47

Yet

the implication in ch. 8 seems clearly to be that eating is

not idolatrous or sinful per se9

but only if it causes problems for the

weak who eat it as of an idol. In 8.10 there is no hint that their

presence in a temple is of itself unacceptable, or idolatrous, and

Witherington's linguistic study does not sufficiently establish that theclear distinction he wishes to make can be based on Paul's use of the

two terms.48

Fee attempts to get around this difficulty49

by suggesting

that Paul begins (in ch. 8) by correcting the Corinthians' misunder

standing of the nature of Christian ethics and only gives the imperative

against idolatry and prohibiting attendance at temple meals in 10.1-22,

after what Fee sees as 'a vigorous defence of his apostleship' in 9.1-

23.5 0 In Fee's words: 'Paul seldom begins with an imperative... he

begins by correcting serious theological misunderstandings and thengives the imperative' (1987: 363 n. 23; cf. 1980: 196-97). However,

it is surely difficult to see why Paul should apparently leave unques

tioned the of the strong to eat , even in a temple,

in ch. 8, if he intended to prohibit that very activity in ch. 10.

The evidence ofchs. 8 and 10 together requires us to acknowledge

that for Paul 'eating need not be inherently idolatrous'

(Fisk1989: 59). Bruce Fisk is right to maintain that 'One of the greatest

obstacles to Fee's interpretation is its inability to explain Paul's toleration in chap. 8 of an activity declared idolatrous in chap. 10' (1989:

47. Witherington considers it 'probable that Paul is here referring to the temple's

adjoining dining rooms' (1993: 246 n. 22).

48. Witherington makes no reference (cf. his comment on p. 237) to Fisk 1989

(nor to Brant 1981), who also analyses uses of the term but comes to

quite different conclusions. Cf. for example their different comments on Did. 6.3

(Fisk 1989: 58; Witherington 1993: 242). The presence of in place of

in a number of (Western) manuscripts at 10.28 casts further doubt on the

terminological distinction Witherington wishes to make being understood as such in


18/33

100 Journal forthe Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)

59). This applies equally to Witherington's proposal. Fisk summarizes

the problem:

evidence within chap. 8 suggests strongly that Paul did NOT view those

dining in the temple as morally culpable (unless they scandalized someone

else), whereas chap. 10 contains a strong warning against the idolatry that

occurs around the idol's table in the temple. Paul appears inconsistent. Is

dining in an idol's temple allowable, or isn't it? (1989: 62)

It is important to note the vocabulary used in 10.1-22. Paul does notcondemn orprohibit but worship of

idols (10.14; cf. 10.7; also 5.10-11; 6.9).

51

So what is Paul attemptingto do in 10.1-22?Part ofwhat he is doing, surely, is giving a further reason whythe

strong need to be rather more cautious than they might be at presentabout partaking in at all sorts ofoccasions. The firstreason Paul gives is concern forthe weak, and it is this concern thatdominates his own practice as described in ch, 9 and that is reiteratedmost strongly at the end ofthe whole passage (10.23-11.1). As a secondreason, however, Paul warns the strong against complacency, againstregarding themselves as immune from judgment and punishment, andagainst idolatrytheir gnosis is no protection (10.1-14). Thirdly, he

warns them against the delusion that they can unproblematically share

in opposing spheres of (10.15-22).

Paul may also be concerned to show that his seemingly 'liberal' stanceon in no wayrepresents a lackofconcern about idolatry.Idolatry must always be rigorously shunned forfear ofjudgment (cf.Brunt 1981: 23). More than this, however, the clear implication of

10.20-21 is that certain occasions are idolatrous: cultic gatherings whenthings are sacrificed to what Paul calls demons. AChristian cannotshare in such occasions and also share around Christ's table.

This must surely be Paul's teaching at this pointthis is where he'draws the line' around the limits ofacceptable involvement in paganlife and cults

52yet what he does not do is define clearly which occa

sions he means. When is eating ? In the

51. Cf. Brunt 1981: 20,23,29n. 7; Fisk1989:63-64. According to Witheringtonthe teaching of 10.14 is explicit: 'Paul does not merely say "do not eat in dining areas


19/33


light ofch. 8 he does notseem to mean all occasions when

are eaten in the temple precincts (contra Fee, Wright, Witherington

etal). A simple temple/private home distinction does not seem to bewhat Paul enunciates (and if he had meant this surely it could have

been more clearly and directly stated). There are good reasons for this:

temples and their precincts were extensively used for a wide range of

purposes and gatherings in the Roman empirereligious, political,

social and economicand were central to social life.53

Moreover,

meals in the home often had a religious dimension too; the sacred and

the secular cannot be so neatly divided.54 Perhaps this is in part why

Paul does not give a clear answer as to precisely which settings orgatherings are acceptable or unacceptable. Fisk rightly observes, The

issue in 10.1-22 is neither what one eats (idol meat or other) nor

where one eats it (temple, home, etc.) Rather, Paul is concerned about

the nature of the meal' (Fisk1989: 63). Paul does indeed want to warn

the strong Corinthians against participation in pagan sacrificial cultic

celebrations, but this does not amount to a ban on , nor

necessarilyon activities at the temple.55

1 Cor. 10.1-22 does not, then,

contradict ch. 8, though it does state that certain occasions on which would be eatennamely pagan cultic sacrificesare pro

hibited, whether participation offends other Christians or not. However,

in view of chs. 8-9, 10.1-22 does not contain the dominant focus of

Paul's ethical instruction here. Witherington is misleading to suggest

that Paul's teaching here can be summarized as a concern 'about the

venue of eating such meat' (1994: 42). The issue to which Paul gives

most attention in 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1 (though he draws an absolute line in

53. See esp. Stambaugh 1978; also Willis 1985a: 7-64; and on the Egyptian cults

at Corinth, Smith 1977.

54. Cf. P. Oslo 157, P. Yale 85 (quoted in Horrell 1996a: 145-46); Gooch 1993:

1-46; Martin 1995: 183.

55. This conclusion is not perhaps as surprising or unlikely as many New

Testament studies might suggest, nor would it necessarily make Paul highly 'unusual'

or remarkably 'un-Jewish': see Borgen 1994 for evidence that there was greater

diversity among both Jews and Christians with regard to participation in pagan cults

than is often assumed. Borgen (p. 48) writes, 'Various Jews and various Christiansdrew the boundary differently with regard to sports, cultural activities, meals and


20/33

102 Journal forthe Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)

10.1-22) is that of eating ornot-eating when the only reason forabstaining is the interests and concerns of others. These primaryconcerns emerge again in his own summary of the whole passage(10.23-11.1).

1 Corinthians10.23-11.1

In 10.23 Paul begins to recapitulate and summarize his argument.56

Hebegins bytwice citing the Corinthian slogan 'all things are lawful', , quoted already in 6.12. As with the opinions Paul

cites in 8.1 and 8.4, he does not negate oroppose this slogan, but qualifies it byinsisting again (10.23 is closelyparallel to 8.1) that there aremore important values, higher priorities, which must inform ethicalpractice. It is not a matter only ofwhether one has the freedom, orthe right, to do something (), but ofwhether it is forthe common good (; cf. 12.7: ), whether it buildsup the community(). These values are fundamental to Paul'sunderstanding of Christian ethical practice, which is essentially a

relational, communal matter and is not primarily about an individual'sown rights orbenefits.

57Indeed, as the concise imperative of v. 24

declares, it is an ethic oriented fundamentally to 'the other', and to thebenefit and support ofthe other rather than ofthe self. This ethic isgrounded, forPaul, in Christology. Richard Hays suggests that thereare 'two fundamental norms to which he [sc. Paul] points repeatedly:the unity ofthe community [we should perhaps add: as the body ofChrist] and the imitation ofChrist' (1997,41).

58These basic principles

of Pauline ethics are thus summarized in vv. 23 and 24: the unity andwell-being ofthe community (... ) and the imita-

56. Cf. Hurd 1965: 128: 'Closer comparison reveals that the whole of 1 Cor.

10.23-11.1 is a point by point restatement and summary of the argument of 1 Cor. 8

and 9'. See also Watson 1989: 312.

57. Cf. the uses of and elsewhere in 1 Corinthians: 3.9;

14.3-5, 12, 17, 26. Hays (1997: 57 n. 27) points out that this language refers to 'the

edification ofthe community as a whole'.5 8. Wright ( 1991: 135) also points to the christological basis ofthe argument here:


21/33

HORRELL TheologicalPrinciple orChristologicalPraxis? 103

tion ofChrist ( ).59

In . 25 Paul turns to more specific and practical conclusions, dealingfirst with the issue of meat purchased in the market and second withinvitations to meals from unbelievers. In the first case the Christian isfree to buy and consume anything sold in the market without feeling

the need to raise questions about it. Paul justifies this advice with a

quotation from scripture, Ps. 24.1. While this verse was used in rabbinic literature 'to justify the use ofbenedictions over food' (Barrett1982: 52), Paul seems to use it here as a scriptural basis for declaringall foods sold in the market place 'clean' and acceptable for the

Christian (cf. Mk 7.14-20; Acts 10.14-15; Rom. 14.14).60 In the caseof invitations to meals hosted by unbelievers, Paul allows the freedom

to go, 'if you wish' ( ), and to eat whatever isserved (v. 27). Although 10.1-22 certainly makes clear that pagancultic sacrificial gatherings are not included in this permission, it is

not necessarilyto be assumed that the only invitations Paul has in viewhere are those to a private home (as most interpreters do; see Schrge1995: 468 n. 523). On the contrary, it is likely that invitations to

various kinds of social and celebratory occasions in the temple restau-rants are included.61 The only reason given here for 'not eating' is

if someone62 points out that the food has been offered to an idol

(). Then one should abstain, for the sake ofthe otherperson's; that is, not because you yourself are in danger from suchfood, but out ofconcern forthe well-being ofthe other.

The rhetorical questions that follow in vv. 29b-30 have puzzledcommentators for years.

63However, Duane Watson's (1989) analysis

ofthe use of such questions in ancient rhetoric has shown that the lackof direct answer to the questions need not be problematic. Certainly

59. NA2 7

lists in the margin by this verse Rom. 15.2 and Phil. 2.4, both pass

ages where the paradigm ofChrist's self-giving is expounded; see further below.

60. Cf. Barrett 1982; otherwise Tomson 1990: 205-206.

61. Cf. Borgen 1994, esp. 55-56; Martin 1995: 183; Schrge 1995: 468-69,461.

Schrge suggests, 'Zudem pat dann auch die Zurckhaltung ( ) besser,

weil die Grenze des Erlaubten hier eher zu verschwimmen droht' (p. 469).

62. There has been much discussion as to whether the *someone' Paul has inmind here is a believer or an unbeliever. I thinkthe evidence just tips in favour of a


22/33

104 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament 67 (1997)

Paul has already shown that the Christian way, as he embodies it, may

indeed require the limitation of one's own legitimate freedom, for the

sake of others and for the gospel (9.19-23), and an abandonment of

rights which one could justifiably enjoy (9.4-18). Watson suggests that

here the questions 'allow Paul to progress in his argumentation from

the specific examples of 10:23-29a to the more general principles of

10:31-1 i.V.64 Paul's first general principle, in the conclusion to the

passage as a whole (10.31-11.1), does perhaps concede the importance

and force of these questions. The Christian's calling, in whatever they

do, is indeed to glorify God and not to please people (v. 31). But this

also implies, of course, that Christian living is not primarily about exercising one's legitimate freedom and enjoying one's rights, but about

glorifying God. Next Paul reiterates his basic conviction, so central to

this whole passage, that one should avoid causing offence or stumbling

either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God (v. 32).65 Just as

Paul believes that he does, so they too must seek to please others rather

than seeking their own benefit, in order that others may be saved

(v. 33). And the concluding sentence urges imitation of Paul, revealing

also that he regards his own practice as an imitation of Christ (11.1).Notable in this concluding section is the lack of any reference back

to 10.1-22. All the reiterations and repetitions relate to chs. 8 and 9

(cf. Hurd 1965: 128-31). Wolfgang Schrge suggests that after making

clear the necessary limits, especially the rejection of participation in

pagan cultic meals (in 10.1-22), Paul turns back in the conclusion to

the more fundamental statements ofch. 8 and summarizes and clarifies

these with concrete examples (1995: 461).

This concluding section also raises wider questions concerningPaul's ethics and practice. For example, what does Paul understand by

the 'imitation of Christ', and how central or otherwise is this to his

ethics here and elsewhere? And how does Paul's exhortation to be

without offence () to both Jews and Greeks (10.32; 9.20-21) relate both to his insistence in 1 Corinthians that the gospel ispreciselyan offence to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (1.23) and to

his blunt and angry confrontation with Jewish Christians whom he

hardlyseems concerned to please (Phil. 3.2; Gal. 1.8-10; 5.1-12 etc.)?These questions will be taken up briefly in the conclusion that follows.


23/33


Conclusion

Fundamental to Pauline ethics, in this passage at least, is a christologi-cally patterned orientation to others. Ethics is not about the actions ordecisions that an individual justifies on the basis oftheological principles, but is about the common good, about building up the Christiancommunity. The contrast is sharply drawn in ch. 8, where the theological principles that could legitimately justifypartaking of(vv. 4-6) are supplanted as a basis for action by the relational con

cerns rooted in Christ's self-giving love. Each member of the community is an forwhom Christ died; each is a memberofthebody ofChrist, and to cause anyone to stumble is therefore to sinagainst Christ (vv. 11-13). It is these concerns that should determineone's actions. Murphy O'Connor's analysis is in some ways similar tothat argued here, but he is too psychologically speculative about theCorinthian Christians and also underplays the christological basis ofthe practice to which Paul calls the Corinthian 'strong'. He writes,

The Strong had Paul's support on the level of objective truth, but it stoppedthere. He could not accept the cold speculative reasoning which dominated

their approach. Stripped to its essentials his objection was that their strictly

rational logic failed to take into account the complexity ofreal life.66

Paul's objection, I suggest, is hardly summarized adequately as a pragmatic appreciation of 'the complexity ofreal life'. It is based on theconviction that in certain situations even practices that can be justifiedand legitimated byunquestionable theological principles should be

renounced out ofconcern forothers, a concern rooted in an orientationto the interests ofthe other which forPaul is essentially an imitationof Christ. In essence Paul argues here that Christian ethics are foundednot upon theological principles but upon a christological praxis.

67The

66. 1978b: 558. According to Murphy O'Connor both strong and weak are

challenged and criticized by Paul; their 'behaviour betrayed self-centered superiority

and fear respectively' (p. 568). The contemptuous superiority of the Strong was

opposed by the spiteful malice of the Weak' (p. 556). The Weakhad to change.

Their aggressivity was in its own wayjust as destructive as the lack ofconcern of theStrong' (p. 568). However, I cannot see in the passage the criticism of the weak


24/33


basis for action is not (theological, monotheistic) knowledge, but(christomorphic) love (8.1-3).

68This, perhaps, is essentially what Paul

means by his being , 'in the law of Christ' (9.21).Schrge writes, 'The law of Christ is the command to love. However,

in the light of 11.1 this must be seen more precisely in the sense of

conformity to Christ' (1995: 345; cf. Gal. 6.2).69

Particularly in Protestant exegesis there has been a tendency to under-

play or deny the importance of imitatio Christi in Pauline thought.70

But here, of course, the passage concludes with the explicit call to

imitation (11.1), imitation of Paul which is in turn imitation of Christ.

We must surely relate this back to ch. 9, where Paul has spelt out at

length the nature of his personal example and where we find precisely

the pattern of renunciation of an unquestionable right for the sake of

others and for the gospel. Paul's assertion that, though free, he has

enslaved himself to all ( , 9.19) recalls thelanguage of Phil. 2.7 ( ), as does the phrase'humbling myself ( ) in 2 Cor. 11.7, anotherpassage where Paul is speaking of his practice of proclaiming the gospel

'free of charge' ().71 That well-known passage in Philippiansis introduced with the exhortation 'let each of you look not to yourown interests, but to the interests ofothers' (Phil. 2.4, NRSV). Christ'sattitude of self-giving and self-emptying is an attitude to be imitated.

72

The example ofChrist is also used in Rom. 15.3 to support the assertionthat each should seek to please their neighbour and not themselves,'for Christ did not please himself. Here in 1 Corinthians 8-10 Paul

about the shaping ofaction and relationships in community.

68. Cf. Hays 1997: 46: 'the fundamental norm of Pauline ethics is the christo

morphic life'.

69. See further Hays 1987; 1997: 27-28; Furnish 1990: 155.

70. See, e.g., Michaelis, TDNT 4: 668-73; and the comments of Kurz 1985;

Hooker 1990: 7, 36 n. 21, 47 n. 7, 90-93. Recent studies of Pauline ethics seem

more inclined to appreciate this important theme: see, e.g., Matera 1996: 174-83;

Hays 1997: 31,41. Castelli 1991 is much more suspicious and critical of the theme

of imitation in Paul, regarding it as a discourse ofpower which functions 'as a call to

sameness with its implicit indictment ofdifference' (p. 116).

71. Hays (1997: 42) states that 9.19-23 'bears a striking structural similarity to


25/33


demonstrates that this ethical imperative has priority over the theolo

gical or scriptural justifications which otherwise might legitimate a

particular practice. In 1 Cor. 9.9, as Richard Hays correctly observes,

Paul cites Scripture but then 'follows a course opposed to what the

texton his own readingrequires' (1989: 166). Hays continues,

'What this extraordinary fact demonstrates is that Paul allows the

imitatio Christiparadigm (renunciation of privilege for the sake of

others) to override all particular ethical rules and prescriptions, even

when the rule is a direct command of scripture' (1989: 225 n. 36).

We should also add, 'and even when the rule is a direct instruction of

Jesus' (9.14-15).73 In this particular situation Paul clearly believedthat the imperative of the gospel demanded from him the setting aside

of his right to material support from the church, and demanded from

the strong Corinthians the willingness to set aside their to

eat .

It should not be thought, however, that this is the be all and end all

ofPauline ethics. 1 Cor. 10.1-22 shows that there are other considera

tions to be taken into account. Concern for others is certainly not the

onlynecessarybasis for ethical decision-making. Avoidance of idolatry,like the avoidance of sexual immorality, is an absolute imperative

which is not to be compromised even if people happen to be over-

tolerant (cf. 1 Cor. 5.1-13). The strong's right to eat with impunity

is limited by factors other than a Christ-like concern for the interests

of others, and 10.1-22 shows (albeit without clear and unambiguous

definition) where Paul draws the line. Here though, interestingly,

another aspect of Pauline Christologythe of believers in

the body of Christis prominent.Pressing questions about Paul's consistency are raised by his asser

tion that he seeks to please everyone and to cause no offence to Jews,

as well as Greeks and the church of God (10.32-33; 9.19-23; cf.

Richardson 1980). It hardly needs to be pointed out that Paul else

where causes great offence to Jews and to Jewish Christians, and shows

no sign of amending his behaviour or standpoint in order to please

them. Indeed, he insists that he is not seeking to please people (Gal.

1.10; 1 Thess. 2.4). A full answer to this complex issue cannot be


26/33

108 Journal for the Studyof the NewTestament67 (1997)

attempted here, though the following points are perhaps worth making.

First, it is clear, as we have already noted, that factors other than a

christologically patterned self-giving for others also play a part in

Pauline ethics. The case of, as has often been pointed out,

is one where for Paul the question of eating or not-eating (exceptin

cultic sacrifices) is a matter of indifference; it is an adiaphoron. The

only reason to abstain in this situation is out of concern for others.

Other actions are for Paul quite clearly wrong and intolerable, what

ever the reaction of others. Secondly, it is perhaps not too simplistic

to say that Paul's harshest criticism is often directed towards those

judaizing Christians who in his view seek to impose additional requirements other than faith in Christ upon Gentile converts, or seek to

exclude them from full with Jewish Christians (Gal. 2.11-

21). It is the right of all converts to be full and equal members of the

community which Paul so vehemently defends.74

Indeed, the unity

of the community as one in Christ is basic to his ethical concerns, and

not least in 1 Corinthians. Thirdly, it is not insignificant that it is

apparently the strong of the community whom Paul is urging in

1 Corinthians 8-10 to act with the interests of the weak in mind.75

Paul seeks to become weak in order to gain the weak, and urges the

strong to do the same, even though this very practice and exhortation

are and remain a cause of offence to the strong (Martin 1990: 117-24;

Horrell 1996a: 199-235). Similarly in 2 Cor. 8.9-15 it is those who in

Paul's view have a present abundance (v. 14) who are challenged to

follow Christ's example and become poor that others might be enriched,

and that there might be equality (see Horrell 1995b). This is an

important consideration, for while the imitation of Christ's self-givingmay be a valuable ethical paradigm, it may also become an ideological

tool for sustaining oppression and injustice, as for example in 1 Pet.

2.18-3.6, where the socially weakwomen and slavesare urged to

bear unjust suffering in silence and submission, in explicit conformity

to the example of Christ (see further Corley 1994). It can become the

basis for a psychologically and socially damaging pattern in which

Christians, especially those who are already weak and vulnerable,

74. This means, ofcourse, the community as defined by Paul's convictions as to

h t ' b hi ' t il d h P l l h tl d i l d f d


27/33

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? 109

believe that they have no 'rights', no right to assert their own needs or

their own value, and sense that imitating Christ is akin to imitating adoormat. Such an ethic is the worm-like humility and self-abasement

that Nietzsche so despised. If one is inclined, as I am, to believe that

there is contemporary value in Paul's presentation of imitating Christ,then one must be equally and acutely aware of the dangers of such a

paradigm.

The imitation of Christ's self-giving, in the renunciation of rights

and concern for the interests of others, is not, then, the only basis for

Pauline ethics. It is certainly not a complete or coherent foundation

for Christian ethics, nor is it without its dangers. Yet I suggest that itis close to the heart of what for Paul is an authentically Christian

ethic, a way of living that is patterned primarily by the self-giving ofChrist. For, as Paul shows in 1 Cor. 8.1-11.1, there are times when

the demands of such christological praxis override theological prin

ciple, scriptural warrant and even dominical command. What remains

unclear from Paul is precisely which situations call for such Christlike renunciation of one's own freedom or rights, and which areas of

conduct are rightly the subjects for such flexibility. Paul obviouslybelieved that his own conduct could be offered as an example of theimitation of Christ, which was in turn to be imitated by others. We,

like the Corinthians, might wish to be somewhat suspicious, certainly

critical and cautious, in assessing how justified such a claim mightbe.76 But after all, whether he meant it or not, Paul did urge his

readers to 'judge for yourselves what I say' (1 Cor. 10.15).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrett, CK.

1971 The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black).

1982


28/33

110 Journal for the Studyof the New Testament67 (1997)

Borgen, P.

1994

Brunt, J.C.

1981

1985

Castelli, E.A.

1991

Collier, G.D.1994

Conzelmann, H.

1975

Corley, K.

1994

Dautzenberg, G.

1969

Fee, GD.

1980

1987

Fisk, B.N.

1989

Furnish, V.P.

1968

1990

Gardner, P.D.1994

Garrison, R.

1997

* "Yes", "No", "HowFar?": The Participation ofJews and Christians in

Pagan Cults', in T. Engberg-Pedersen (ed.), Paul in his HellenisticContext(SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark): 30-59.

'Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1 Cor. 8-

10 to an Understanding ofPaul's Ethical Thinking', SBLSP20: 19-33.

'Rejected, Ignored or Misunderstood? The Fate ofPaul's Approach to the

Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity', NTS31: 113-24.

ImitatingPaul: A Discourse ofPower(Louisville, KY: Westminster/John

Knox Press).

4 "That we Might not Crave Evil": The Structure and Argument of

1 Corinthians 10.1-13', JSNT55: 55-75.

A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Hermeneia;

Philadelphia: Fortress Press).

Peter', in E. Schssler Fiorenza (ed.), Searching the Scriptures. II. A

Feminist Commentary (London: SCM Press): 349-60.

'Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht: eine exegetischeUntersuchung zu 1 Kor 9', Bib 50: 212-32.

' Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8-10', Bib

61: 172-97.

The First Epistle to the Corinthians(NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI:

Eerdmanns).

'Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behaviour and Pauline Response

in 1 Corinthians 8-10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)', TrinityJournal 10:

49-70.

TheologyandEthics in Paul(Nashville: Abingdon Press).

'Belonging to Christ: A Paradigm for Ethics in First Corinthians', Int44:

145-57.

The Gifts ofGodand the Authentication ofa Christian: An Exegetical

Study of 1 Corinthians 8-11.1 (Lanham, MD: University Press of

America).

'Paul's Use ofthe Athlete Metaphor in 1 Corinthians 9', in The Gracco-

Roman Context ofEarlyChristian Literature (JSNTSup, 137; Sheffield:


29/33

HORRELL Theological Principle or ChristologicalPraxis? I l l

Gooch, P.D.

1993

Hays, R.B.

1987

1989

1994

1997

Hring, J.

1962

Hooker, M.D.

1990

Horrell, D.G.

1995a

1995b

1996a

1996b

1997

Horsley, R.A.

1978

Hurd, J.C.

1965Hurtado, L.

1984

Instone Brewer,

1992

Kurz, W.S.

1985

Malherbe A J

Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Studies in Christianity

and Judaism, 5; Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press).

'Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law ofChrist', CBQ 49: 268-

90.

Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul(New Haven: Yale University

Press).

'Ecclesiology and Ethics in 1 Corinthians', ExAuditu 10: 31-43.

The Moral Vision ofthe New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to

New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

The First Epistle ofSaint Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth

Press).

From Adam to Christ: Essays on Paul(Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).

Review ofDangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in its Context by Peter

D. Gooch, 77546:279-82.

'Paul's Collection: Resources for a Materialist Theology*, Epworth Review

22.2: 74-83.

The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests andIdeology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (SNTW; Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark).

Review ofThe Corinthian Body by Dale B. Martin, JTS 47:624-29.

' "The Lord commanded... But I have not used": Exegetical and

Hermeneutical Reflections on 1 Cor. 9.14-15', NTS (forthcoming).

'Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 8-10',

CBQ 40: 574-89.

The Origin of I Corinthians (London: SPCK).

'Jesus as Lordly Example in Philippians 2.5-11 ', in J.C. Hurd and P.

Richardson (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis

Wright Beare (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 113-26.

D.

Corinthians 9.9-11 : ALiteral Interpretation of"Do not muzzle the ox" ',NTS 38: 554-65.

'Kenotic Imitation ofPaul and of Christ in Philippians 2 and 3', in F.F.

Segovia (ed.), Discipleship in the NewTestament(Philadelphia: FortressPress): 103-26.


30/33


Martin, D.B.

1990

1995

Martin, R.P.

1983

Matera, F.J.

1996

Maurer, C.

Meeks,W.A.1982

Merklein, H.

1984

Michaelis, W.

SlaveryasSalvation: The MetaphorofSlaveryin Pauline Christianity

(NewHaven: Yale UniversityPress).

The Corinthian Body(NewHaven: Yale UniversityPress).

Carmen Christi: Philippians ii.5-11 in Recent Interpretation and in the

SettingofEarlyChristian Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

NewTestamentEthics: The LegaciesofJesusandPaul(Louisville, KY:

Westminster/John Knox Press).

', ', TDNTl: 898-919.

' "And rose up to play": Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10.1-

22',.AWri6:64-78.

'Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes',ZNW15: 153-83.

', , ', TDNT4: 659-74.

Mitchell, .,

1989

1991

'Concerning in 1 Corinthians', 31:229-56.

Paulandthe Rhetoric ofReconciliation: An ExegeticalInvestigation of the

Language andComposition ofl Corinthians(HUT, 28;Tbingen: J.C.B.Mohr).

Murphy O'Connor, J.

1978a Cor. Vffl,6: Cosmology or Soteriology?', RB85: 253-67.

1978b 'Freedom or the Ghetto (1 Cor. Vin,l-13; X,23-XI,1.)\ RB85:543-74.

Richardson, P.

1980 'Pauline Inconsistency: 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 and Galatians 2.11-14',

NTS26: 347-62.

Robbins, V.K.

1996 The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society and

Ideology(London: Routledge).Sanders, E.P.

1990

Sanders, J.T.

1997

Schrge, W.

1995

Jewish LawfromJesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (London: SCM Press).

'Paul between Jews and Gentiles in Corinth', JSNT65: 67-83.

Der erste Brief an die Korinther (1 Kor 6,12-11,16) (EKKNT, 7.2;

Zrich: Benziger Verlag: Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag).

Sellin, G.

1987

Smith, D.E.1977

Stamba gh J E

'Hauptprobleme des ersten Korintherbriefes', ANRW, .25.4: 2940-3044.

'The Egyptian Cultsat Corinth', HTR 70: 201-31.


31/33

HORRELL Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? 113

and to his Own Christian Foundations', in J.C. Hurd and P. Richardson

(eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare

(Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press): 127-41.

The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity (ed. and trans. J. Schtz;

Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark).

Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters ofthe Apostle to the

Gentiles (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis: Fortress Press).

Corinthians 10:23-11:1 in the Light ofGreco-Roman Rhetoric: The

Role ofRhetorical Questions', JBL 108: 301-18.

Dererste Korintherbrief(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10

(SBLDS, 68; Chico, CA: Scholars Press).

'An Apostolic Apologia? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9',

JSNT24: 33-48.

'Theological and Ethical Responses to Religious Pluralism1 Corinthians

8-10', TynBul41: 209-26.

Seek the Welfare of the City: Christians as Benefactors and Citizens(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

'Not so Idle Thoughts about EIDOLOTHUTON\ TynBul44: 237-54.

'Why not Idol Meat? Is it what you Eat or where you Eat it?', Bible Review

10.3: 38-43, 54-55.

Conflict andCommunity in Corinth: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on

1 and2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

'Humility and Self-Denial in Jesus' Life and Message and in the Apostolic

Existence of Paul', in A.J.M. Wedderburn (ed.), Paul and Jesus:Collected Essays (JSNTSup, 37; Sheffield: JSOT Press): 145-60.

'Monotheism, Christology and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8', in The Climax of

the Covenant: Christ andthe Law in Pauline Theology (Edinburgh: T. &

T. Clark): 120-36.

Yeo, Khiok-Khng

1994 'The Rhetorical Hermeneutic of 1 Corinthians 8 and Chinese Ancestor

Worship', Biblnt 2: 294-311.

1995 Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and10: A FormalAnalysis with

Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-cultural Hermeneutic(Leiden: E.J. Brill).

Theissen, G.

1982

Tomson, P.J.

1990

Watson, D.F.

1989

Weiss, J.1910

Willis, W.L.

1985a

1985b

Winter, B.W.

1990

1994

Witherington, B.

1993

1994

1995

Wolff, C.

1989

Wright, N.T.

1991

Z t G


32/33


ABSTRACT

This article offers a coherent reading of a complex and difficult passage (1 Cor. 8.1-

11.1). It is argued that Paul accepts as legitimate the 'right' ofthe strong to eat idol-

meat and does not rule out participating in activities at the temples, but offers his own

example (in chapter 9) as a Christ-like pattern of the giving up of legitimate rights in

the interests of others. He calls the strong Corinthians to imitate him in imitation of

Christ (11.1). Paul agrees with the theological principles cited by the strong in sup

port of their right (8.1-6), but argues that Christian ethical conduct is founded not

upon such principles, but upon a Christological praxisa pattern of action shaped by

the self-giving of Christ.

Kim Paffenroth

THE STORY OF JESUS ACCORDING TO L

Using stylistic, formal, and thematic criteria, Paffenroth reconstructs a pre-

Lukan source (L) for much of the unique material in Luke 3-19. This source

portrays Jesus primarily as a healer and teller of parables, a portrayal verydifferent from that of the suffering Son ofMan in Mark, the aphoristic

teacher of Wisdom in Q, or the depiction of Jesus as universal saviour that

Luke himself prefers. This source is quite primitive, probably earlier than

Mark, perhaps as early as Q, to which it is quite similar in form, if not

content.

Dr Kim Paffenroth is Visiting Assistant Professor, Program ofLiberalStudies,

University of Notre Dame, Notre Darne, Indiana.

cl 35.00/$58.00ISBN 1 85075 675 9


33/33

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Pauline Ethics