| B.J. OROPEZA | Biblica 79 (1998) 57-68 |
Laying to Rest the Midrash:
Paul's Message on Meat Sacrificed to Idols in Light of the Deuteronomic Tradition
Some scholars have questioned the literary unity of Paul's message in 1Corinthians 8,1–11,1. This view is based on the apparent irreconcilable tensions this section of the letter posits. These scholars have often maintained that the message consists of more than one source 1.
A cursory reading of the pericope would appear to favour their position. The "strong" members of the congregation were apparently justifying their eating of meat sacrificed to idols by claiming they had knowledge that idols were not gods, and so they posed no threat to or influence on the food which is offered to them 2. Other members with a weak conscience, who had come out of an idolatrous background, would have found it offensive to eat such food 3. Paul opens the pericope by affirming that idols are not gods (1 Cor 8,1-6), but he exhorts the strong to refrain from eating idol meats for the sake of the weak (8,7-13). He then discusses his own self-restraint against exercising e)cousi/a in relation to his calling (chap. 9), and consequently warns the Corinthians to flee from idolatry, claiming that the idols of the Gentiles are really demons (10,1-22). Surprisingly, Paul ends his discussion by agreeing with the strong members that one could eat idol meat as long as it does not offend others (10,23–11,1). He himself apparently ate idol foods on occasions (10,30, cf. 9,4) 4.
In an effort to explain the apparent disjunction of Paul's words, 10,1-22 (or 9,24–10,22) is sometimes assigned to a separate epistle ("A"),
58
and 8,1–9,23 and 10,23–11,1 are said to form another letter ("B"). The former, argues Schmithals, is concerned with the worship of idols and it treats only cultic meals. The latter focuses on meat sacrificed to idols with no indication that some in Corinth wished to take part in idol-worship. More recently Lamar Cope has suggested that Paul did not originally write 10,1-22 – it came from an early midrash 5. Others have suggested or assumed that 10,1-13 or 10,1-22 was an earlier midrash or homily composed prior to its present form in the Corinthian setting 6.
It is not ultimately convincing, however, to posit that Paul is employing an earlier midrash or is combining two letters in this text. There are viable reasons to argue for the unity of Paul's thought in 1 Corinthians as a number of scholars have pointed out 7. Rather than reproduce these arguments, however, I intend to present a fresh one. Recent scholars who have written in this area have not properly recognised that the Israelite traditions Paul echoes in this discourse underscore the coherence of his message, as I will maintain in this article. One may note the similarities between the situation in 1 Corinthians and that in Romans over the issue of table fellowship. Romans 14,1–15,4 has in common with 1 Corinthians 8–10 the problem of strong Christians offending weaker ones by what they eat. In both letters, as well as both "A" and "B" in 1 Corinthians, Paul's argument includes citations from the scriptures of Israel's tradition which are then used to claim that what happened to Israel in former times was for Paul and the Christians' instruction (1 Cor 9,9-10; 10,6-7; Rom 15,3-4) 8.
If the scriptures play such a prominent role in Paul's estimation, then there is a need to examine more carefully the sources he might be alluding to in 1 Corinthians 8,1–11,1. I will argue that the Deuteronomic tradition is most significant in this regard and that Paul alludes to this source when he
59
discusses points related to idolatry and apostasy in both sections "A" and "B". I will examine this tradition, especially the Song of Moses (Deut 32), and then I will attempt a coherent assessment of Paul's message in relation to the major theme of the Song.
Deuteronomic Themes in Paul's Discourse on Idol Meals
The importance of the Israelite tradition as a backdrop for Paul's argumentation may be discerned in his appeal to the shema. At the beginning of his exhortation on idol meats, he sets in contrast the one true God with the "gods" of idols (1 Cor 8,1-6). Some Hebrew traditions are prominent in depicting the impotence of idols as false gods who are but lifeless products of human craftsmanship (Isa 40,18-20; 1 Chron 16,25-26; Jer 10,3-11). Others recognise the connection between demons and idols, yet they affirm that idols are still lifeless images (Deut 29,17; 32,17-21; Ps 105[106],28-37). Paul seems to accept the latter nuance. He acknowledges the tradition of worthless idols in 1 Corinthians 8,1.4-6 (cf. 12,2), but his focus shifts in chapter 10 to the idea that idols are demons (1 Cor 10,20-21). Perhaps he believed that although the idols are not gods but lifeless images, demons are a real power behind the idols.
The Deuteronomic tradition is likely the ultimate ground behind Paul's adaptation of the shema in 8,4-6 (Deut 6,4) and it is also his source when he warns against idolatry in 10,20-22 (Deut 32,17-21). His statement in the former passage may have presupposed a unity among community members based on the unity and love of God as emphasised in Deuteronomy. Discord between the strong and weak over the issue of idol meats would tend to violate an appeal to solidarity which is at the centre of early Christian messages (e.g., Matt 22,37-41) 9. Mitchell maintains that the content of 10,1-22 is concerned with the major theme of the letter: unity and discord (cf. 10,16-17) 10. This theme permeates the discourse on idol
60
meats in both sections "A" and "B". Moreover, Paul's stress on the language of "all ... not all" advances the idea of solidarity throughout the chapters (8,1.7; 9,19.24; 10,1-12.23.33) 11.
Also, in the Song of Moses (Deut 32), the Israelites lack proper wisdom and understanding. They did not realise how their behaviour adversely affected their standing with those outside their community (32,26-28). Yahweh wishes they would be wise enough to return to God when hearing the song (32,29-30). Likewise, Paul deals with a situation in which members of the congregation lack proper wisdom and discernment (e.g., 1 Cor 2,6-16; 4,8-20; 12–14). Though they claimed to have knowledge in the area of things offered to idols, they seemed to lack wisdom from Paul's perspective (8,1-3; 10,12.14-15). The strong were exercising their gnw=sij at the expense of becoming inconsiderate toward the weak, and this tended to disrupt the homogeneity of the community.
It is significant, then, that the climax of the Song of Moses – which is Paul's pervasive source in 1 Corinthians 10,1-22 – is also centred on a variant form of the shema. Van Ruiten has argued that the declaration of God in Deuteronomy 32,39 is the apex of the entire song: "I (am) he, and there is no god with me" (cf. 32,12.31) 12. In reference to God, the phrase )wh yn) in this passage is found nowhere else in the Hebrew scriptures except in Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 41,4; 43,10.13; 46,4; 48,12). It later became a prooftext for the Jews, confirming there is no more than one God. The Isaianic tradition, in turn, echoes the Song of Moses on several occasions (e.g., Isa 1,2/Deut 32,1; Isa 30,17/Deut 32,30; Isa 43,11-13/Deut 32,39), and it penetrates Paul's thought in 1Corinthians (e.g., 1 Cor 1, 19/Isa 29,14; 1 Cor 2,16/Isa 40,13; 1 Cor 10,2/Isa 63,10-13; 1 Cor 14,21/Isa 28,11-12; 1 Cor 15,54/Isa 25,8). Both traditions are concerned with idolatry and its relation to a new generation of God's people in a wilderness milieu – the same motif Paul discusses in 10,1-11 13. The message in Deuteronomy is intended as a witness for the wilderness generation if, after entering into the land of Canaan, they turned away from God to serve idols (Deut 31,16-22; cf. 8,10-20).
In the Song of Moses, God elected the Israelites from among the nations and protected them in the wilderness (Deut 32,7-14). But their blessings became their undoing; they forgot Yahweh and broke God's
61
covenant by turning to foreign gods (Deut 31,15-16.20). Although the Israelites are God's people and have been assured that God will never forsake them (e.g., 31,8), God declares that he will forsake them when they commit idolatry (Deut 31,16-17; 32,18-20; cf. Isa 8,17; Mic 3,4). Van Ruiten outlines the Song of Moses as follows 14:
32,1-6: Introduction and Yahweh's loyalty versus Israel's disloyalty 32,7-18: Yahweh's mercy in connection with Israel's apostasy 32,19-25: Yahweh's reaction and judgement against Israel 32,26-36: Complaint against Israel's enemies 32,37-42: Results of recompense 32,43: A call to joy due to judgement
Although Paul outlines 1 Corinthians 8–10 in a different direction, similar motifs appear: 1) God or Christ is the faithful one who bestows sustenance and spiritual blessings in the face of potential apostasy (9,7-11.17.24–10,11.23-28; cf. 6,12-13); 2) Divine judgement falls upon some of God's people (10,5-10; cf. 5,1-5; 11,27-34); and 3) Paul's warnings serve to remind God's people of the dangers and negative consequences related to idols. Both the Song of Moses and Paul's message in 1 Corinthians 8–10 serve to remind God's people about the implications of breaking their covenant with the one true God to serve idols. In other words, a warning against apostasy may be considered as a leitmotiv in Deuteronomy 32 and 1 Corinthians 8–10, and this aspect is almost categorically overlooked or not properly appreciated by scholars when interpreting Paul's message. Doubtless, Paul's clearest allusion to apostasy in this text is found in section "A" where he describes Israel's rebellion in the wilderness and then relates this to the contemporary problem of idolatry (10,1-22). The Corinthian congregation have separated themselves from their past and are on their way to an eschatological destination; but like the wilderness generation before them, they could fail to reach their "promised land" because of idolatry, related vices, and a lack of self-control.
The Deuteronomic and Corinthian texts are concerned with the problem of God's elect offering sacrifices to demons (Deut 32,16-17.21.37-39; 1 Cor 10,20-22) 15. Both defend the monotheistic nature of
62
God who is provoked to jealousy by foreign gods who are really "no-gods" (Deut 32,16,21; 31,29; 1 Cor 10,22). But why would God be provoked by the Corinthians? Paul most likely has the presumptuous attitude of the strong in mind. After Paul tells them they cannot have fellowship at the Lord's table and the table of idol-demons, he rhetorically asks, "Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? We are not stronger than he is, are we?" The intention of Israel's provocation in the desert in 10,9 also seems aimed at the presumptuous attitude of the strong. The concept of tempting (e)kpeira/zw) in this verse appears in Deuteronomy 6,16 where the Israelites were warned not to put Yahweh to the test as they did at Massah (the place where they drank water from the rock: cf. 1 Cor 10,4). The passage is set in contextual proximity to the shema which Paul adopts at the beginning of his discussion (Deut 6,4, cf. 1 Cor 8,5-6). We might infer from this that the message in Deuteronomy never actually escaped Paul's thoughts throughout his discourse. These observations lead us to an important point: Paul never ceased to have the strong in view in his entire discourse. He is addressing them in both sections "A" and "B". One of the main differences in focus is that in chapter 8, he primarily warns that the strong could cause the weak to fall away; in chapter 10, they themselves are in danger of falling (10,12).
Moreover, Paul adds an interesting dimension to his account of Israel in the wilderness: the Israelites rebelled against Christ (10,9). Here again is another link to the Song of Moses. God is called the "rock" (Deut 32,4.15.18.30-31, cf. v.37). This metaphor highlights the unchanging nature of the covenantal God in contrast to the fickle nature God's covenantal people. Craigie rightly suggests that the Israelites' conception of God as the rock rwch emphasises "the stability and permanence of the God of Israel" (e.g., 2 Sam 23,3; Ps 18,3.31; 95,1; Isa 17,10) 16. The divine rock is associated with perfection, justice, and faithfulness (Deut 32,4). After the Israelites are nourished with honey and oil from the rock, they grow fat and abandon the Rock their saviour (32,13-15.18). Consequently, they are "sold out" by the Rock, and the promise of putting to flight their enemies is granted to their enemies who now put to flight the Israelites (32,30). The Rock of Israel will nevertheless have compassion on his people again and demonstrate that there is no god besides him (32,31.37-39). The Song of Moses thus emphasises the faithfulness of God as the "rock" in the wilderness who keeps his covenant with those who love him and destroys those who hate him (cf. Deut 7,9). God's faithfulness to his covenant suggests that God will not tolerate his own elect if they violate the covenant, and this is vividly spelled out in the blessings and cursings of Deuteronomy 28–30.
Since the "rock " is associated with the redemptive work of God (Deut 32,15.18), Paul perhaps considered this a venue for associating the
63
"rock" with the work of Christ. He would have been also attracted to the concept that God is faithful despite the unfaithfulness of his people in committing idolatry. The association between the Deity in Israel's desert wanderings and Christ is affirmed in 1 Corinthians 10,4: the rock in the wilderness "was" Christ, and the apostasy which Israel committed, they committed against Christ (10,9). Likewise, the strong would be sinning against Christ if they failed to receive Paul's instruction (1 Cor 8,12; 10,22).
Christ as the " rock " of the Deuteronomic tradition is viewed by Paul as the one who also provided spiritual sustenance to Israel in the desert (10,3-4) 17. He is no doubt alluding to the Lord's Supper by giving this example, and he later brings out the irreconcilable contradiction of eating at the Lord's table and the table of demons (10,16-22) 18. The "rock" is thus referred to by the author in a milieu of eating, idolatry, and apostasy. These aspects are emphasised in the vices Israel commits against Christ: 1) "Lusting after evil things" (1 Cor 10,6) is derived from Numbers 11, which associates the vice with "eating". 2) Paul recollects the Israelites who committed idolatry before the golden calf, yet he emphasises the eating and drinking which take place at the event (10,7, cf. Exod 32,6). The Baal Peor incident which Paul echoes in 10,8 focused on Israel eating before the gods of Moab and having sexual intercourse with the Moabite women (Num 25). 4) Paul has the presumptuous eating of the strong in mind in 10,9 when he exhorts the Corinthians not to test Christ (10,20-22). 5) Paul may be anticipating the strongs' grumbling about his solutions to idol meats in 10,10. Hence, Paul primarily seems to have food in mind in 10,1-22, but food as it relates to idolatry and craving things associated with the elect's pre-converted status. Israel craved the foods of Egypt in the wilderness, and the strong craved idol meats (10,5-6, cf. Num 11; 14). It is virtually unmistakable, then, that there is a continuum between Paul's earlier discussion on eating meat in 8,1-13 and his later warning against idolatry in 10,1-22.
Finally, Paul may be echoing the rock motif again in 10,13, but this time he relates it more specifically to God. He originally discusses pisto\j de\ o( qeo/j in the introduction to the letter where he praises the Corinthians for their spiritual enthusiasm before addressing the excesses of their enthusiasm (1,1-9). The introduction implicates a number of Corinthian misperceptions which Paul intends to correct in the body of his message, including baptism (1,2, cf. 1,11-17; 10,2; 15,29), wisdom of speech and knowledge (1,5, cf. 1,18-2,16; 3,18-20; 4,18-20; 8,1-2; 13,2), spirituality (1,6-7a, cf. 3,1-4; 4,7-8; 10,3-6; 12–14), eschatological confidence (1,7b-8, cf. 3,11-17; 5,5-13; 6,9-10; 9,24–10,11; 11,26; 13,9-13; 15), and fellowship (1,10-17; 6,1-20; 10,16-22; 11; 16,10-11.15-18). In 1,9, then, the notions of Christian election, fel-
64
lowship, and the "faithful God" are probably some more areas in which Paul intends to correct a misperception on the congregation's part. At least some of the members possessed a false sense of eschatological immunity (4,7-8; 10,1-12) 19. They likely considered themselves as spiritually perfected in the final eschaton through their baptism, enthusiasm in the Spirit, and eucharistic fellowship in Christ. They did not take seriously the dangers related to idol meats. As such, Paul warns them that their election and spiritual privileges provide no guarantees against divine judgement: if God destroyed many of the Israelites in the wilderness, God will not spare the strong in Corinth (1 Cor 10,11-12). Nevertheless, the faithful God will make a way for them to escape temptation if they flee from idolatry in 10,13-14. If God's faithfulness in this passage resonates to the rock motif in the Song of Moses, it confirms that this section is interrelated with some of the major themes in the letter.
Apostasy in Paul's Argument Regarding ei0dwlo/qutoj
We have uncovered the motif of apostasy through idolatry which Paul adapts from the Deuteronomic text. The remainder of this article will focus on the coherence of 1 Corinthians 8,1–11,1 in relation to idol meats, idolatry, and apostasy. How have scholars attempted to resolve the tension between idol meats and idolatry in this discourse? Bruce Fisk summarises the position held by the majority of scholars and a second position held by Gordon Fee. He correctly gets to the heart of the issue: the majority, in essence, argue that Paul primarily focuses on marketplace idol meats that were previously used in idol worship (1 Cor 8,1-13; 10,23–11,1), and secondarily, pagan temple worship (1 Cor 10,1-22). Fee, on the other hand, argues that 8,1-13 and 10,1-22 focus on pagan temple worship, and 10,23–11,1 emphasises marketplace idol meat 20. While Fisk recognises Fee's contribution to the Corinthian situation and the problems Fee raises regarding the majority view, he criticises Fee's position on several points, including his interpretation of ei0dwlo/qutoj 21.
65
Perhaps the most crucial weakness in Fee's argument is that it is not able to explain adequately why Paul is lenient toward idol meats in chapter 8 if idolatry or a pagan cultus is primarily in view both here and in 10,1-22. Why is it that Paul does not forthright condemn eating idol meats in a cultic setting or call it idolatry in chapter 8? How is it that he grants some liberty in an apparently cultic context (cf. 8,8-10)? Apart from 1 Corinthians, ei0dwlo/qutoj appears in early Judeo-Christian literature in Acts 15,29; 21,25; Rev 2,14.20; 4 Macc 5.2; Did 6,3. While some have argued that ei0dwlo/qutoj has a cultic connotation in Acts and Revelation 22, this is no indication that Paul also located it in only a cultic milieu or shunned it as such. While it is true that eating of idol meals and committing fornication may be understood as cultic practices in 1 Cor 10,7-8, cf. 6,12-20), Paul's exhortation regarding idol meat is not because it is a cultic practice (8,10; 10,27). He believed that eating idol meats in such a setting could but not necessarily would lead to idolatry 23. Maybe Paul believes there is an entire range of idol meat predicaments the Corinthians may find themselves in.
Some have therefore affirmed that what is at stake in the Corinthian situation is not the eating or location of the idol meats per se, but the nature of idol meats 24. Perhaps more precisely than this, the problem with idol meats is more a question of who than what. Temples and meals in Greco-Roman society functioned in a variety of ways. Some meals were knowingly offered to a god while others were not; some meals were held in temples, others were not. The line between the "secular" and "sacred" was not always clear 25. Paul's ambiguity in relation to idol foods may thus reflect that of the larger Corinthian culture. In 10,1-22 his tension with ei0dwlolatri/a centres not on where it is located but on the strong sharing in a unified fellowship with idolaters and demons. Moreover, social dissimilarities seem to be at the heart of the problem in chapter 8: the problem with ei0dwlo/qutoj rests in a disunity of fellowship between the strong and weak over idol meats. It is significant that Paul begins the
66
pericope rebuking the strong's high-mindedness about the issue of idol meats and offers a0ga/ph as the alternative to gnw=sij (8,1-3). If love were to dominate their fellowship, the strong would not insist on their right to eat meat sacrificed to idols; they would refrain for the sake of the weak.
For Paul, then, the potential apostasy connected with idol meats is relational in scope: through the strong's knowledge that idols are not gods (8,1,4-6) they were defiling the sunei/dhsij of the weak and destroying their faith as a result (8,7-13). He reformulates this problem again in 10,23–11,1 26. If the strong insisted on their liberty and knowledge rather than love, they would be sinning against the weak and against Christ (8,11-12). In 10,1-22, Paul could not refrain from being concerned about another potential sin the strong were in danger of committing. No matter how knowledgeable or spiritual they may be, they could still fall into idolatry or some other vice just as Israel did in the wilderness. By having fellowship with idolaters in an idolatrous setting, there is always the risk of being unified with them in their worship and practices (10,1-22).
It therefore seems consistent to affirm that in 1 Corinthians 8–10 Paul is describing various ways congregation members could fall away. In essence, Paul stresses four potential apostasies in the situation, one committed by the weak as a result of the strong's error, two committed by the strong, and one by Paul himself: 1) the error of the weak who may be defiled and perish because they eat meat as if to an idol (8,7.9-13); 2) the error of the strong who sin against the weak and thereby sin against Christ (8,11-12); 3) the error of idolatry or related vices committed by the strong (10,1-22); and 4) the hypothetical error of Paul who may not finish his own apostolic mission if he loses self-control (9,24-27). Here Paul uses himself as an example with the implicit intention of deflating the over-confidence of the strong - even an apostle can be rejected if he is not careful. A brief outline of the range of overlapping problems and solutions to apostasy in 1 Corinthians 8–10 might be depicted in the outline below:
67
*
*
*
Our study has led us to some important conclusions regarding the literary unity of 1 Corinthians 8,1 to 11,1. Observations relating the Deuteronomic tradition with Paul's discussion on idol meats provide another link between the situation described in chapters 8–9 ("B"), the problems of idolatry in chapter 10,1-22 ("A"), and some of the major themes in 1 Corinthians. Both Paul's message and the Deuteronomic tradition uphold the monotheistic nature of God as they warn against idolatry and apostasy. The motif of the faithfulness of God and Christ, and oppositely, the unfaithfulness of God's people, run through both the Song of Moses and Paul's discourse. As well, Paul's entire message seems coherent even though he does not clarify the precise relationship between idolatry and meat sacrificed to idols. Yet the danger of apostasy permeates his discussion on both issues. This study provides another reason why the integrity of the entire discourse as a coherent unit be successfully maintained. It does not appear to be coincidental that in 1 Corinthians 8,1–11,1 Paul's language reflects Deuteronomic themes such as monotheism, idols/eating, and apostasy throughout the message. Put differently, it seems hard to imagine that Paul would have placed all these relevant innuendoes in an already existing "midrash". Such a view lacks crucial evidence. If there were such a midrash behind the message in 10,1-22, Paul has worked it over so thoroughly that it seems pointless to recover it.
| Department of Theology University of Durham Abbey House, Palace Green Durham DHI 3RS United Kingdom |
B. J. OROPEZA |
SUMMARY
Some scholars have suggested that Paul's discussion on meat sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8, 1–11,1 is composed of two separate documents: 8,1–9,23 and 10,23–11,1 form letter B, and 10, 1-22, forms letter A. Unit A
68
is often regarded as an early midrash which was written prior to its present form in 1 Corinthians. This article argues that the Deuteronomic tradition which Paul echoes in 8, 1–11,1 posits another reason why the literary integrity of his entire discussion on idol meats may be maintained. In this section of his letter Paul adopts the Deuteronomic motif of apostasy through idolatry which is prevalent in the Song of Moses (Deut 32). The language and ideas derived from this theme are integrated throughout the apostle's discourse.
© 1998 Biblica
________________________________
1 E.g. W. SCHMITHALS, Gnosticism in Corinth. An Investigation of the Letters to the Corinthians (Nashville 1971) 14, 92-95; cf. J. WEISS, Der erste Korintherbrief (KKNT; Göttingen 1910) 211-213, 250-251; H. VON SODEN, "Sakrament und Ethik bei Paulus: Zur Frage der literarischen und theologischen Einheitlichkeit von 1 Kor 8–10", Urchristentum und Geschichte (ed. H. VON CAMPENHAUSEN) (Tübingen 1951) 254-255. For a summary of early reconstructions, see H. MERKLEIN, "Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Korintherbriefes", ZNW 75 (1984) 154-156; J.C. HURD, The Origin of 1 Corinthians (London 1965) 41-47.2 The "strong" and "weak" may be somewhat oversimplified terms to designate the two groups in dispute (e.g., the "strong" are perhaps better classified in Corinth as those who have gnw=sij). For the sake of brevity and dialogue, I will use "strong" and "weak" nonetheless.
3 The force of e3wj a1rti in 8,7 suggests the position that the weak were not Jews but Gentiles who formerly practised idolatry (cf. 9,20-22). The serious tone of Paul's message, and his attempt to side with both parties, seem best explained by the reality of the positions of the weak and strong.
4 This observation would at least be hypothetically consistent with his pastoral principle to become all things to all people (including those without the law) that he might save some (1 Cor 9,19.21-22.33). If his primary objective was to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles (cf. Gal 1,15-16; 2,2), it seems difficult to accept that Paul would refuse a meal oitered to him by those he was trying to reach.
5 L. COPE, "First Corinthians 8-10: Continuity or Contradiction?" ATRSS 11 (1990) 114-123.
6 E.g., W.A. MEEKS, "And Rose up to Play: Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22", JSNT 16 (1982) 64-78; cf. E.E. ELLIS, "A Note on First Corinthians 10,4", Prophecy and Hermeneutic in Early Christianity. New Testament Essays (WUNT; Tübingen 1978) 209. Less affirming are: G. D. COLLIER, "That We Might not Crave Evil: The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians 10:1-13", JSNT 55 (1994) 55-75; K.-K. YEO, Rhetorical Interaction in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10. A Formal Analysis with Preliminary Suggestions for a Chinese, Cross-Cultural Hermeneutic (BIS; Leiden – New York – Köln 1995) 156-158; D.G. HORRELL, "Theological Principle of Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8. 1–11.1", JSNT 67 (1997) 95-96.
7 E.g., MERKLEIN, "Einheitlichkeit", 153-183; Hurd, Origin, 115-142; W.L. WILLIS, Idol meal in Corinth. The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS; Chico 1985) 267-296; A.J. MALHERBE, "Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9", Paul in His Hellenistic Context (ed. T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN) (Minneapolis 1995) 231-255. On the unity of the entire letter, see M. M. MITCHELL, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation. An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUZT; Tübingen 1991).
8 Cf. VON SODEN, "Sakrament", 257, who writes, " Man vergleiche noch im einzelnen den parallelen Aufbau beider Abschnitte [Rom 14–15 and 1 Cor 8; 10] und die Wiederkehr der gleichen Motive in denselben Gedanken zusammenhängen bei völliger Freiheit und gegenseitiger Unabhängigkeit des Ausdrucks hier und dort".
9 N.T. WRIGHT, "One God, One Lord, One People: Incarnational Christology for a Church in a Pagan Environment", Ex Auditu 7 (1991) 49, recognises this point. Against Wright, Horrell suggests that Paul's discussion of love is grounded in a Christological praxis and that 8,4-6 is a claim made by the strong; HORRELL, "Praxis", 86, 90, 105-106. However, language strikingly similar to "e0c ou[ ta\ pa/nta... di ) ou[ ta\ pa/nta" in relation to God and/or Christ (8,6) is used in other Pauline contexts, which suggests that 8,6 is more likely to have originated from Paul (1 Cor 11, 12b; Rom 11,36; Col 1, 1 6; cf. Eph 1,22-23). It may be better to view 8,1-3 as the basis for a love praxis in Christ and that Paul's echo of the shema (8,6, cf. vv.4-5) is his theological presupposition against idolatry. The former is emphasised in chapters 8–9 and 10,23–11,1, while the latter is stressed in 10,1-22. I find it unnecessary to choose between a theological and practical ground for the text. On the other end of the spectrum, J. Smit perhaps goes too far in claiming that 10,1-22 does not discuss a social issue but a theological/idolatrous; cf. J. SMIT, "Do not Be Idolaters": Paul's Rhetoric in First Corinthians 10:1-22", NT 39 (1997) 43, 46, 53. He does not seem to consider the interrelationship between the two. The paradigms for social unity are both the monotheistic unity (8,1-6) and solidarity of eucharistic fellowship (10,16-17) which are diametrically opposed to fellowship with idols/demons (cf. 10,20-22).
10 MITCHELL, Rhetoric, 237-258.
11 Cf. P. J. TOMSON, Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT-JTECL; Assen – Maastricht – Minneapolis 1990) 192.
12 J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN, "The Use of Deuteronomy 32:39 in Monotheistic Controversies in Rabbinic Literature", Studies in Deuteronomy. In Honour of C.I. Labuschagne (eds. F.GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, A. HILHORST, J.T.A.G.M. VAN RUITEN, A. S. VAN DER WOUDE) (VTS 53; Leiden 1994) 224-225.
13 Both the Deuteronomic and Isaianic traditions emphasise God's power through the parting of the Red Sea; one uses this motif as an incentive for keeping God's commands (Dent 11,1-8) while the other points to a new eschatological fulfilment for God's redeemed people (Isa 43,16-17; 51, 10-11; 31,5; cf. Mic 6,4). On the Isaianic tradition, see B.W. ANDERSON, "Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah", Israel's Prophetic Heritage. Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (eds. B. W. ANDERSON - W. HARRELSON) (London 1962) 177-195.
14 VAN RUITEN, "Deuteronomy", 224.
15 This passage, however, follows the Septuagint which replaces the Hebrew term "rock" for "God" in Deuteronomy 32. Hays suggests that Paul uses a text similar to the wording of the Hebrew rather than the Greek text in 10,4. This is perhaps why he does not actually cite a Deuteronomic passage in 10,1-13: "To explain to the Corinthians the difference between their Greek Bible and its Hebrew Vorlage would interrupt Paul's argument"; cf. R.B. HAYS, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven 1989) 94. More likely, Paul utilises another witness in this passage altogether – he does not always follow closely the MT or LXX in 1 Corinthians. For a study on the OT sources Paul alludes to which follow neither tradition, see D.-A. KOCH, Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums. Untersuchungen zur Verwendung und zum Verständnis der Schrift bei Paulus (BHT; Tübingen 1986) 35, 61-65, 107, 115, 203-204; M. SILVA, "Old Testament in Paul ", Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (eds. G. F. HAWTHORNE, R. P. MARTIN, D. G. RIED) (Downers Grove – Leicester 1993) 630-632.
16 P. C. CRAIGIE, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; London 1976) 378.
17 Unfortunately, Paul never bothered to reconcile in a logical way the association between the literal rock at Massah and God as the rock. He may have simply collapsed the categories of the literal and metaphorical on this point.
18 Paul's allusion to the eucharist in this passage likewise intimates his later discussion on the issue in 1 Corinthians 11. This observation seems to underscore once again that 10,1-22 was originally written with the Corinthian situation in view.
19 Cf. A. J. THISELTON, " Realized Eschatology at Corinth ", NTS 24 (1977-78) 510-526.
20 D. FISK, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8–10", Trinity Journal 10 (1989) 53. He lists in the first camp, among others, H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia 1975) 146-180; J. MURPHY-O'CONNOR, "Freedom or the Ghetto (1Cor., VIII, 1-13; X, 23-Xl, 1)?", RB 85 (1978) 547-549; H. S. SONGER, "Problems Arising from the Worship of Idols: 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1", RevExp 80 (1983) 364-366. On Fee's perspective, see G. D. FEE, "Ei0dwlo/quta Once Again: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 8–10", Bib 61 (1980) 172-197; id., The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids 1987) 357-491.
21 Against Fee's suggestion that ei0dwlo/qutoj means "meat eaten in an idol's temple" (cf. 1 Cor 10,19), for instance, Fisk argues on semantic grounds that ei0dwlo/qutoj is best defined as "meat offered to idols". He also rightly argues that ei0dwlo/qutoj (1 Cor 8,1.4.7.10; 10,19) and i9ero/quton (1 Cor 10,28) are virtually synonymous for Paul in the text. In the latter verse, it seems that Paul places i9ero/quton in the mouth of a Gentile because they probably used the word on a normal basis instead of the more Jewish (and apparently more pejorative) ei0dwlo/qutoj. The former word may be understood as "sacrificed to a divinity" ("holy-offered") implying the Gentile belief that idols are in fact gods (FISK, "Eating", 56-59). This does not necessarily mean, however, that the informant in 10,28 is the unbeliever who invited the Christian to dine. It seems that the one who may be offended is still the weak Christian; Paul's use of i9ero/quton may reflect the weak person's belief that idols were gods (cf. 8,7) or the non-offensive language commonly used by Christians in the presence of unbelievers. It is also possible that Paul's thought arbitrarily shifts from a generic informant to a weak Christian.
22 E.g., B. WITHERINGTON, "Not So Idle Thoughts About Eidolothuton", TynBul 44.2 (1993) 237-254.
24 J. C. BRUNT, "Love, Freedom, and Moral Responsibility: The Contribution of 1Cor 8-10 to an Understanding of Paul's Ethical Thinking" (SBLSP 20; Chico 1981) 25-27; CONZELMANN, 1 Corinthians, 171; FISK, "Eating", 62-63. 69.
25 For Greco-Roman sources, see P. D. GOOCH, Dangerous Food. 1 Corinthians 8–10 in Its Context (SCJ; Ontario 1993) 1-46; H.-J. KLAUCK, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief (NTAbh 15; Münster 1982) 91-163; WILLIS, Idol Meal, 17-62.
26 A perspective of 10,29b-30 which emphasies deliberative rhetoric may cause the tension between this passage and Paul's argument in the context of 8,1–11,1. The former passage has been problematic with regard to coherence because it seems that in this passage Paul turns against the weak by justifying the liberty of the strong. It is not that Paul now approves of the liberty of the strong against the weak so that he contradicts what he wrote earlier; rather, he may be utilising a form of rhetoric which recollects what was affirmed earlier in his argument. Duane Watson suggests that Paul is using a diatribe in 10,29b-30 in a form known as deliberative rhetoric of recapitulation. This style of rhetoric aims at the weak points of the opponent. In this case Paul reiterates in 10,23–11,1 the weak points of the strong: 1) a lack of respect for others; 2) a defense of eating despite offending others (through the blessing of the food). See D. F. WATSON, "1 Corinthians 10,23–11,1 in the Light of Greco-Roman Rhetoric: The Role of Rhetorical Questions", JBL 108 (1989) 311-318.