1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Worship of Idols

7/28/2019 1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Worship of Idols

1/14

ProblemsArising from the Worship of Idols:1 Corinthians8:1-11:1Harold S. Songer

In 1 Corinthians -:!.1

Paul deals with one of the most serious problemsin the Corinthian church. The problem itselfthe eating of food sacrificed toidolsno longer exists in American Christianity, but the questions this issue

poses are very much alive. What limits are set for the freedom of one Christianby the immaturityofanother? Is the Pauline statement that "if meat makes mybrother to offend, Iwill eat no flesh while theworld standeth" (KJV) to be takento mean that a Christian should not do anything that another Christian feelsinappropriate? If this be the principle for Christian conduct"Do nothing thatoffends"how are the disagreements of Paulwith other Christians to be under-stood?

Even more pertinently, how is the principle"Do nothing that offends"to be harmonized with Paul's confession, "I tryto please all men in everything Ido"? If Christians disagree about what the right course ofaction is, as they did

in Corinth and still do today, how can one "please all men" and at the same timeoffend none?

These provocative questions rise out of 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 as Pauladdressed the issues posed by the problem of "food offered to idols" (1 Cor. 8:1).Paul's conclusions resolve the apparent contradictions and call all Christians tomeasure their conduct by authentic Christian freedom.

The Circumstances in Corinth

In the first century in Corinth, as in other Hellenistic cities, the worship of

the gods was a pervasive and prominent feature of social and civic life. Marriages, funerals, banquets, and public festivals were preceded by the sacrificing

of animals or foodstuffs which were calculated to bring the protection and thefavor of the gods. What remained after the sacrifice was often consumed in a

banquet, either in the home or in rooms reserved for that purpose in the temple

ofthe god. On other occasions, part or all of the remaining food was sold in the

stores or given to friends.2

For the Jews in Corinth, the cycles of banqueting and the sale of meat froma sacrifice to a god posed no questions. Their law decreed that their meat had tobe slaughtered in a specified way. The rabbis taught that a Jew should notpurchase meat until he or she was confident that the animal had been properly

363


2/14

slain by a Jew and that the animal had no connection with any pagan cult.3

This attitude toward the gods of the Hellenistic world had been tempered inthe fiery struggles of the Maccabean revolt in the second century B.C. and wasnot up for debate in the first century A.D. in Corinth. Jews would eat meatsacrificed in their own festivals, such as Passover; but for a Jew to eat meatrelated to any other god was always, everywhere forbidden. Jews, therefore,had to create considerable social and economic isolation from their non-Jewishneighbors to be faithful to their duty. Jews married Jews, Jews shopped inJewish stores, and Jews ate in Jewish homes and Jewish restaurants.

For the Christians in Corinth, many of whom had been accustomed toparticipate in eat ing food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor. 8:7), the question of whetherthey should eat things sacrificed was more difficult. Some of the CorinthianChristians claimed tha t eating meat related to the worship of the gods was quiteall right, because as Christians they had the knowledge that there was only onetrue God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 8:6). Other Christians inCorinth, whom Paul described as "weak"4 (1 Cor. 8:9), felt neither so free nor sobold and avoided eating meat sacrificed to idols. Apparently some of theseChristians had indulged in eating such meat after observing Christians in theother group doing so, and they felt their Christian lives had been "destroyed"and their conscience "wounded" (1Cor. 8:11-12).

The Corinthian Christians decided to write to Paul for advice about "foodoffered to idols" (1 Cor. 8:1). The difficulties he faced in answering their questionare clear. For Paul to have held that "food offered" was forbidden would be toreplace Christian freedom with a new legalism, but to say that such food wasallowed would run the risk of replacing Christian love with a reckless libertinism. Paul was not trapped by their expectations of a positive or negativeanswer. He placed the issue under the spotlight of the true nature of Christianfreedom.

The Measure of Christian Freedom: Knowledge or Love (8:1-13)

Paul's beginning makes it clear tha t he is responding to what the Corinthians had written him (see 1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 12:1; and 16:1), and a crucial key tounderstanding this section is the recognition that Paul quoted parts of theirletter as he dealt with the problem. Putting the quotes together reveals theirline of thought: "All of us possess knowledge" (8:1) and are aware that "an idolhas no real existence" (8:4) and that "there is no God but one" (8:4). "Food willnot commend us to God" (8:8), and this leads to the conclusion that eating foodsacrificed to idols is a legitimate expression of our freedom in Christ.5

Paul's choice of words reflects their letter in part, but eidofathutos, theword translated "food offered to idols" or "meat sacrificed to idols" (8:1), was a

Jewish term designating meat that was connected with sacrifice or offerings toany deity other than Yahweh. The compound word incorporates the term eido-lon (idol), which was used in the Septuagint to refer both to pagan deities and to


3/14


4/14

by being believed in, and faith in the one God and the one Lordcreates freedomno longer to recognize these powers."11 What some of the Corinthians wereoverlooking was that there were Christians in Corinth who still believed idolshad power, and this belief made the idols gods for them. Paul referred to theseChristians as the "weak" (8:9) and identified them as having eaten food sacrificed to idols, perhaps all their lives, in the belief that it was a ritual which hadpower in their lives (8:7). For such persons, eating ritually offered meat hadreligious meaning, and to consume it would defile their conscience or make themfeel they were disloyal to Christ (see 8:12).

What meat offered to idols meant to Christians just converted from pagan

ism was in sharp contrast to what i t meant to those who felt free to eat such foodand stoutly maintained, "Food will not commend us to God" (8:8). Clearly, theslogan is correct (Mk. 7:18-23), and Paul agreed with it. But Paul did not agreethat the truth of the slogan mandated eating in order to demonstrate Christianfreedom. The reality that food did not commend one to God left the Christianfree on both sides, to eat or to refuse to eat.

With this affirmation tha t the Christian is free to go either way, Paulwidened the context of the issue. If Christian freedom allows both options, thenthe implications of one's conduct weigh heavily. As Hans Conzelmann puts it,"The neutrality of food does notmean neutrality ofconduct."

12

Paul thus warned those who had been eating ritually sacrificed meat thatthey should "take care lest this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to theweak" (8:9). Paul drove his point home with irony as he picked up the termbuilds up, which he used of love in verse 1, and employed it in verse 10 to refer toa weak person's conscience being built up (encouraged, RSV) to eat thingssacrificed and thus perish. Paul charged that such conduct is a sin againstChrist (see Mt. 25:40, 45).

Paul's majestic understanding of Christian freedom allowed him to dealwith the issue of food offered to idols in a way which reveals abiding principles ofChristian conduct. The freedom Christ brings must always be exercised in the

context of Christian love, and the exercise of such freedom must be in thecontext of the welfare of the Christian community. Paul's respect for individualdecision shines brightly in his conclusion. He indicated what he would do (8:13),but let others decide for themselves. He pledged that his freedom as a Christianwould be exercised so as not to cause "my brother's falling" (8:13). The term

falling is a strong one (skandilizo), and it is crucial to note tha t Paul does not a tall promise to avoid what others disapprove of or dislike. His pledge relates towhat will damage the faith of others. In his statement, Paul used the moregeneral term meat rather than the word translated "food offered to idols" (8:1),which seems to anticipate the issue he deals with in chapter 10.

Paul's Practice of Christian Liberty (9:1-23)The inital stage of Paul's response to the Corinthians' question about "food

366


5/14

ProblemsArising from the Worship ofIdols:1 Corinthians8:1-11

Review and Expositor

offered to idols" concludes with his personal testimony that "if food is a cause ofmy brother's falling, Iwill never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall" (8:13).That Paulwould live by this pledge could easily be challenged by the CorinthianChristians who were inclined to flaunt their freedom. Tb defend himself againstsuch an attack, Paul carefully describes in chapter 9 how he had already beenpracticing what he was preaching.

The Renunciation ofRights(9:1-18)

Paul began his discussion byaffirming his apostleship because apostles andtraveling missionaries were supported by the Christian communities theyserved. In addition, those who were apostles had the right to be accompanied by

their wives, and the Christian community was obligated to maintain them.14

In order to meet the strong criticism he anticipated, Paul adopted theforceful argumentative style used by the Cynics. Four piercing questions areposed: "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Are you not my workmanship in the Lord?" (9:1). The form of the questions inGreek assumes an affirmative answer. With the four, Paul sought to make twopoints: that he had the same freedom as the Corinthians (question one) and thathe was an apostle (questions two, three, and four). The first question could only

be answered affirmatively by those who flaunted their freedom; the third isanswered by Paul in the letter (1 Cor. 15:1-11); and the response to the fourth

was indisputable. The second question"Am I not an apostle?"was crucial toPaul's argument, and he clinched it with the observation that "you are the sealofmy apostleship in the Lord" (9:2). Aseal was a legally validating attestation;

16

and the existence ofthe church in Corinth was visible, convincing proof of God'schoice and use of Paul as his apostle.

After establishing his apostleship, Paul began to discuss his renunciation ofpersonal rights in his practice of Christian liberty. Three more questions, whichcan be paralleled with the first three, make Paul's point clear. He not only hadthe right to eat and drink; he had the right to do it at the expense ofthe churcheshe served.

1The first question in the series, have we "no right to refrain from

working for a living?" (9:6), should have left his readers speechless; but suspecting that some of the Corinthians might even be moved to challenge the validityof the practice of the churches in maintaining ministers, Paul drove home hispoint with arguments from analogythe soldier, farmer, and shepherd (9:7)and from the Old Testament. Citing Deuteronomy25:4, which allowed the oxused in threshing to eat some of the grain, Paul held that this was written "forour sake" (9:10) and justified the rights of apostles to be supported by thechurches, even though "we have not made use of this right" (9:12).

Paul's clinching example is to remind his readers ofthe Jewish practice thatofficiating priests "get their food from the temple" (9:13). This persuasive

example is capped off by the authoritative statement that Jesus had commanded that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the

367


6/14

gospel" (9:14). Paul felt no need to write more; the words of Jesus settled theissue (see Mt. 10:8-14).17

Paul had the right to be supported, but he neither made use of this privilegenor intended to in the future (9:15a). As he wrote of the intensity of his intentionnot to reverse this decision (9:15b), Paul's language almost buckles under theemotional strain;18 but his meaning is clear. He could not boast or glory in thefact that he preached because he was under "necessity" (9:16) or inner compulsion to do it.19 He could, however, exult in his free choice to "make the gospel freeof charge" (9:18).*

Paul's Reasons for Renunciation(9:19-23)

As he discussed his renunciation of his rights, Paul hinted at the reasonwhen he stated that he would not seek support in order not to "put an obstaclein the way of the gospel of Christ" (9:12). Paul now reveals the purposes of hiscostly decision of renunciation. At the outset (9:19) he reaffirmed the freedom heclaimed in 9:1: "Am I not free?" He then moved swiftly to what he had done andwhy: "I have made myself a slave to all, that I may win the more" (9:19).

As Paul defined how he had in Christian freedom chosen the slavery ofaccomodation (w. 20-22), he used the Greek verb kerdainein (to win for thefaith) four times, and in relation to each group he targeted "Jews" (v. 20), "those

under the law" (v. 20), "those outside the law" (v. 21), and "the weak" (v. 22).Paul's conduct was uniformly determined by the goal of winning persons totrust in Christ.21

Paul's confession, "I have become all things to all men" (9:22), has beenmisunderstood to mean that Paul was like a chameleon and could adapt his lifestyle to his cultural context in order to manipulate others. Three things need tobe kept in focus to understand Paul. First, the purpose of his so-called accomodation was "that I might by all means save some" (9:22). Paul's willingness toadapt was in order to fulfill his mission for Christ, and his motive was to helpothers rather than to make it easier or more profitable for himself. Second, hisadaptation, though an expression of Christian freedom, was restrictive: "I havemade myself a slave" (9:19). Paul's choosing to live in accomodation to otherswas costly and painful; his renunciation of rights meant he had to work tosupport himself while other apostles were supported by churches. Third, Paul'saccomodation was always limited by his obligation to Christ.

Paul accomodated himself with personalpain to the expectations of variousgroups as far as possible in the context of his obligation to Christ in order toproclaim the good news successfully. Paul did not become a Jew; he was "as aJew" (9:20). To those under the law Paul lived "as if" (9:20) he were under it, buthe would not teach that it was the way of salvation. To the Gentiles, Paul couldlive "as one outside the law," but only as one who was "under the law of Christ"(9:21). He was a man in Christ passionately seeking to bring others to Christ.


7/14

Problems Arising from the Worship of Idols:1 Corinthians 8:1-11


Paul's purpose was to win others, but there was another dimension to it. Hiswork in winning others was also his appointed task and thus represented theway he shared in the blessings ofthe gospel. Paul believed that the blessings ofsalvation were only to be found in obedience, and for him this was the task ofpreaching Christ.22

The Demands ofChristian Liberty (9:24-10:13)The Corinthian Christians had written Paul about their right to eat things

offered to idols; and as Paul responded, it became increasingly clear that hisview ofChristian liberty was quite different from that ofsome Christians. Theysaw Christian liberty in terms of what it allowed them to do; Paul saw it in terms

of what it required ofhim in the light ofthe needs ofothers.Need for Self-Discipline (9:24-27)

The confidence that some of the Corinthian Christians felt caused them tothink ofthemselves as having "knowledge" and as free to eat a meal "in an idol-shrine" (1 Cor. 8:1). They evidently thought that their salvation was guaranteedby their having believed and having participated in the sacraments. Paul metthis assumption head on with his personal confession of the need for self-discipline. Paul sharply reminded his readers who were so proudoftheir knowledge (1 Cor. 8:1) that entry into a contest was no guarantee ofwinning: all therunners compete, "but one receives the prize" (9:24). Paul's analogy is compel

ling: you entered the Christian life and were baptized, but this does not automatically insure your salvationyou must run.

Broadening the metaphor drawn from the games which were so well knownto his Hellenistic readers, Paul pointed out that all the participants mustdiscipline themselves. The term Paul used, which is translated "exercise self-control," means to struggle for mastery.28 Paul's intention is to construct an a

fortiori argument: ifathletes subject themselves to rigorous training for theperishable crown ofpine given in the Isthmian games, how much more shouldChristians seek mastery over their lives to receive an "imperishable" (v. 25)crown.

Having made this telling exhortation, Paul stressed the need for purposefulaction. He did not "run aimlessly," nor did he box "as one beating the air" (9:26).The expression beating the air was used to refer to poorly directed punches thatglanced offone's adversary.24 Paul applied this illustration directlyto himself inhis Christian struggles, a contest in which one's adversary is one's self undersin. Paul does not mean that the body is evil in itself (see Rom. 7:7-25); his point

369


8/14

is that the Christian must fight to ensure that his or her energies serve the rightmaster (Rom. 6:13-19).

Paul did not feel that his future was guaranteed apart from his own personal struggle with sin and continuing commitment to Jesus Christ. He feltthat he must take stringent measures with himself"I pommel my body"or"be disqualified" (v. 27). The term disqualified (RSV) may also be rendered

castaway (KJV) and was used to refer to what was no longer of any use orvalue.26

Need to Resist Temptation (10:1-13)

Paul freely confessed his need for discipline, but some of the CorinthianChristians were so lax that they were flirting with idolatrous practices. Paulchallenged them with stern warnings drawn from the Old Ifestament. Theexperiences of Israel in the wilderness, presented in the exegetical style ofHellenistic Judaism,26 provided the parallels he needed to warn the Corinthians.Even though he was addressing Gentile Christians (as their participation in cultmeals demonstrates), Paul could speak of "our fathers" (v. 1) because he saw allChristians as the people of God who shared that heritage.

How Paul could speak of those set free from Egypt as being baptized "intoMoses in the cloud and in the sea" (v. 2) is only puzzling if one tries to establish astrict parallelism.The fact is that the Israelites went across the land rather thanbeing immersed in the sea, and the cloud was understood in Paul's day toovershadow or envelop the Israelites as well as to go before them.27 But Paul'spoint is that the cloud and the sea were experiences analogous to baptism asthey involved a visible commitment in the presence ofGod's power to his chosenleader.

In addition to baptism, there were also analogies to the Lord's Supper in thewilderness experiences. God had provided both manna and water, which Paulterms "supernatural food" and "supernatural drink" because to him they symbolized the Lord's Supper.28 That this is Paul's meaning is supported by hisidentifying the "Rock that followed them" as Christ. This identification reflectsthe Jewish tradition that the well, provided by the rock (see Num. 20:11 and21:16), miraculously went with the Israelites.29 Philo interpreted the rock as prexistent wisdom, but Paul saw in it the pre-existent Christ, "the Rock wasChrist" (v. 2).30

Placing Christ in the wilderness with Israel sharpened the parallel Paulsought t


9/14



all of these, but they were vulnerable to all of them and especially to idolatry astheir question about "eating food offered to idols" (8:1) demonstrated. TheCorinthians must hear the warning. The examples show that such participationin sin leads to vengeance from the "Destroyer" (v. 10) even though one hasreceived the sacraments. The term transi&tedDestroyer (RSV) does not occur ineither the New Testament or the Septuagint. Similar expressions in Jewishliterature make it likely that this term refers to the power to produce desolationgiven to God's chosen instrument of punishment, who or whatever it may be.31

%With his concluding statements, Paul drove his point home: "Let anyonewho thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall" (v. 12). Paul did not want his

readers to feel they had triumphed simply because they had not yet fallen. Hereminded them that they had not really faced fiery trials; all they had comethrough is "common to man" (v. 13). Yet even when worse comes to them, asPaul assumed, their hope is in God who will see to it that they "have a way ofescape" (v. 13) As C. K. Barrett aptly comments: "The Christian has no security,but he may be completely confident, not in his own resources but in God."82

Summary: Christian Liberty and Pagan Worship (10:14-11:1)The question the Corinthians raised with Paul regarding the eating of food

pffered to idols was not as simple as they had assumed. An affirmative response, that such activity was all right, would have transformed Christianliberty into a license to disregard the feelings and Christian growth of others.On the other hand, a negative response would have established a Christianlegalism. Paul thus took the approach of responding to some of the implicationstheir questions raised and pointed the Corinthian Christians to the need topractice freedom in love.

The Christian and Idolatry (10:14-22)

The examples from the history of Israel mandate and support Paul's conclusion: "Shun the worship of idols" (v. 14). Some of the Corinthian Christians had

justified their participation in meals in idol-temples on the basis of their knowledge that an idol was not a power they needed to fear (see 8:4), but Paul did not

accept their reasoning. He alluded to their pride in knowledge (see 1 Cor. 8:1),perhaps with a bit of sarcasm, in referring to them as "sensible men" (v. 15), ashe challenged them to respond to the crescendo of his argument which followsimmediately.

Paul agreed with the Corinthians that the power of the idols holds no threatfor the Christian, but affirmed that the Christian cannot participate in such cultmeals because such activity is partnership with demonic powers (w. 19-20).Paul, following the Hellenistic Jewish tradition basedon certain Old Testamentpassages,83 believed that the idols of the Gentiles did not represent what theythought but that such worship was a result of demonic deception: "they offer todemons, not to God" (v. 20).

Paul's reasoning may seem tortuous and even strained to modern readers,371


10/14

but he was struggling with a crucial issue for the Corinthians and utilizedconceptions that were persuasive to them. He chose to explain how eating in anidol-temple was participation in the cult by drawing on analogies from theLord's Supper and the sacrificial system of Israel.34

Referring to the cup first and then the bread, Paul stressed that both lead to"common participation" (koinonia) with the body and blood of Christ whichunites into "one body" (v. 17) or group all Christians who experience the blessings of Christ and pledge allegiance to him. Likewise, in the worship in theJewish Temple, the eating of things sacrificed created partnership with allothers participating (v. 18).

Participation in cult meals in pagan temples was thus impossible for Christians, not because the food itself was spiritually contaminating but because theeating of such food was an act of commitment to powers hostile to Christ.36

Paul's conclusion at this point does not relate to the larger issue of the eating offood offered to idols, only to the eating of that food in the cultic context of thetemple of the idol. With regard to this, the Christian's responsibility was clear:"You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons. You cannotpartake of the table of the Lord, and of the table of demons" (v. 21).

The Christian and Food Sacrificed to Idols (10:23-11:1)

At first glance, Paul's splitting the question of whether the Christianshould eat food offered to idols along the lines of where it was eatenthe templeof the idols, another person's home, or one's homeseems forced and is reminiscent of rabbinic casuistry. But Paul's purpose needs to be kept in mind. He wasnot trying to deal with the full range of possible contingencies as a legalist; hesought to speak to the issue in actual situations where persons could be hurt.

The Corinthian slogan, "all things are lawful" (v. 23), was true in theabstract but was inadequate as a principle for Christian life. Paul pinpointed theinadequacy of the slogan by placing the responsibilities of the Christian forothers over against it. All things are lawful, but not "helpful" and healthy for

the Christian community (v. 23). AU things are lawful, but the Christian is calledto seek the good of others and not just his or her own fulfillment (v. 24).

Having made the point that Christian freedom exists in the context ofchoosing what is good for one's fellow Christians, Paul took a daring step whichwas in full contradiction to Jewish law and which demonstrates without question how free he really was in Christ. Christians should eat whatever was sold inthe meat market and not inquire as to the origin. Much, but not necessarily all,of the food in question had reached the market out of sacrifices related to idols;36

and Paul's counsel was a challenge to the weak (1 Cor. 8:9) and to JewishChristians. For the latter group, Jewish law required that the purchasers care

fully inquire as to the origin and preparation procedure of the food to ensure itscleanliness.37 Paul supported himself, somewhat surprisingly apart from Mark7:7, with a quote from Psalm 24:1.


11/14



Paul then moved from food purchased for one's personal use to one's con

duct as a guest in the home of non-Christians. Breaking again from Jewish lawand in conformity with the example of Jesus, Paul states that the Christian,either weak or Jewish, is free to eat of "whatever is set before you" (v. 27)without asking questions. The food itself was not the issue with Paul as it was inJewish tradition. But if another guest pointed out that the food was sacrificed,an entirely different situation was created; what had been simple table fellowship was transformed into a cult meal.38 If this occurred, Paul advised theChristian not to eat because of the danger posed for the consciences of theothers present (see 1 Cor. 7:10-12). Paul's point is that in such an instanceChristian freedom should result in one's choosing not to eat in order to ensure

that another person's faith not be destroyed or damaged. Paul further explainedhis position in what Barrett terms a "notoriously difficult"89 sentence. The bestinterpretation is that Paul is saying he exercises freedom in choosing not to eatand that he does this out of respect for the conscience of the other person. Hisconscience is not under the rule of another's weakness, but another's weaknessinspires him to exercise freedom in love. This same general idea continues inverse 30 as Paul stressed the need to choose not to eat to avoid strife in thecommunity, even though he was free to be thankful and eat as far as his ownconscience was concerned.

In the final four verses of the section (10:31-11:1) Paul summarized the

perspective from which he had consistently addressed the deceptively simplequestion of whether the Christian should eat food offered to idols. Three basicprinciples govern his perspective. First, Christians should focus on glorifyingGod, which is to live so that others are made aware of God's presence andredemptive love (v.31). Second, Christians should seek to live in relationship toall personsJews, Greeks, and other Christiansso as to make it easier and notharder for them to become Christians or to grow as Christians (v. 32). Finally,Christians should seek to please other persons that God's purposes not bethwarted and that others experience God's salvation (w. 31-32). Paul's exampleillustrated the principle: he had given things up for others as he sought to followthe Christ who had given all for him. Thus he could exhort his readers to work

this principle out in their lives and "be imitators of me as I am ofChrist" (11:1).

1The literary unity of this passage has been challenged by Johannes Weiss and Walter Schmi-

thals; but Hans Conzelmann, though noting this, feels that the apparent breaks are capable ofexplanation from the circumstances of composition and challenges only the thematic unity of thepassage (1 Corinthians, trans. James W. Leiten and ed. George W. MacRae, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975], pp. 3-4). C. K. Barrett, however, feels that the passage has both literaryand thematic unity, and this is the position taken in this article. See C. K. Barrett, "Things Sacrificedto Idols," New Testament Studies, 11 (January, 1965), 150; andA Commentary on the First Epistle

to the Corinthians, Harper's New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), pp.12-17.

2 For the pervasiveness of sacrifice in non-Jewish religion in the first century, see Barrett,

373


12/14

"Things Sacrificed to Idols," pp. 144-47; R. M. Ogilvie, The Romans and Their Gods in the Age ofAugustus, Ancient Culture and Society (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1969), pp. 41-52; H. H.

Scullard, Festivals and Ceremonies of the Roman Republic, Aspects ofGreek and Roman Life (New

York: Cornell University Press, 1981), p. 23 et passim; and Paul Stengel, Die Griechischen Kultu-

saltertiimer, Handbuch der Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft (Munich: Oskar Beck, 1922), pp. 95-

155.3

See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 176.4

For a good discussion of the problem of identifying the "weak" and "strong" factions in

Corinth, see Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, ed. and trans. John H. Schtz

(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), pp. 121-43. Also helpful is Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "Free

dom or the Ghetto (1 Cor. VII I, 1-13; X, 23-XI, 1)," Revue Biblique, 85 (1978), 543-74.6 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 197. For the view that the strong are to be

identified with Gnostics, see Walter Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth, trans. John E. Steely (New

York: Abingdon Press, 1971), pp. 225-37. See also R. A. Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom

Among the Corinthians: I Corinthians 8-10," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 40 (1978), 574-89.Friedrich Buchsel, "Eidolon," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard

Kittel and trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), II, 378.7

Jean Hering, The First Epistle ofSaint Paul to the Corinthians, trans. A. W. Heathcote and P.

J. Allcock(London: Epworth Press, 1962). p. 68.8

See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp. 142-43.9

See the intriguing discussion byWilliam Baird, The Corinthian ChurchA Biblical Approach

to Urban Culture (NewYork: Abingdon Press, 1964), pp. 94-95.10

See Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 192-93.11

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 145.12

Ibid., p. 148.

13 Ibid.. pp. 151-53. Conzelmann feels that there is considerable disjunction between chapters 8and 9 and affirms that chapter 9 deals with Paul's apostleship in a personal way and that this relates

to attacks on Paul's legitimacyas an apostle. But the theme ofchapter 9 is precisely the same as that

ofchapter 8Christian freedom exercised in self-denial. See Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthi

ans, pp. 199-200.14

See Hering, Corinthians, pp. 76-77.15

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 152, n. 11.16

In Paul's discussion, an interesting sidelight is thrown on early Christian missionary activ ity.

Only here is it revealed that the brothers of Jesus with their Christian wives engaged in missionary

work.17

Hering, Corinthians, p. 80.18

Cf. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, pp. 208-09.19

Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 157.20

ClearlyPaul conceives of this exercise of his freedom as an offering to God and, as such, a path

to reward. He does not, of course, mean salvation, but he refers to a reward within the context of the

gift of salvation. See Hering, Corinthians, pp. 80-81.21

The term translated "win" was a rabbinic missionary term. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp.

159-60, n. 7.22

Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 216. See also P. Richardson and P. W. Gooch,

"Accomodation Ethics," Tyndale Bulletin, 29 (1978), 89-142.23Cf. Walter Grundmann, "Egkrateia," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.

Gerhard Kitteland trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), II, 340-42; and

Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 217.24

Cf. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 163.28

See Walter Grundmann, "Dokimos," Theological Dictionary of the New Testatment, ed.

Gerhard Kittel and trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1964), II. 255-60.26

Conzelman, 1 Corinthians, pp. 164-65, n. 10; and Hering, Corinthians, pp. 84-87.


13/14



27

Wisdom 10:17 and 19:7.33 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 229. Paul's term for the food and drink of thewilderness (Ex. 17:6; Num. 20:7-11) is pneumatikos, which can also be translated "spiritual" (KJV),but "supernatural" seems more appropriate because of its use with the termRock and its identification as Christ, cntr. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 16C.

" Barrett, First Epistle to Corinthians, pp. 222-23.30 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 107.31 Cf. Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 226; and Johannes Schneider, "Olothreufs,"

Theological Dictionary oftheNew Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and trans. G. W. Bromiley (GrandRapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1967), V, 169-70.

33 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 229.33 See Deut. 32:7; and Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, p. 173.34

Hering, Corinthians, pp. 96-97.33 See Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp. 173-74.33 The term translated "meat market" (makellon) is a transliteration of the Latin macellum,

which designates primarily a market for meat and fish. Food sold in the macellum would frequentlycome from cult offerings, and some Corinthian macella have been identified through archaeologicalresearch. See Barrett, "Things Sacrificed to Idols," pp. 144-45.

37 See above at n. 3.33 Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, pp. 177-78.33 Barrett, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 242.


14/14

^ 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 permissionfrom 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 specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

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

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

1 Cor 8.1-11.1 - Worship of Idols