All things to all people all at once: Paul's ambiguous rhetorical strategy in 1 Cor 8:1 - 11:1

Mark D. Given

Missouri State University

I begin with a two part thesis.  First, in 1 Cor 8:1 - 11:1, Paul is at all times aware that he is addressing at least two audiences—stronger and weaker believers—and is attempting to instruct them all at once.  Perhaps this sounds self-evidently reasonable and imminently sensible, but a survey of scholarship on these chapters reveals that most commentators usually operate not only as if Paul is only directly addressing the stronger believers, but as if he gave little if any consideration to how his remarks would be overheard by the weaker believers.[1]  But is it really likely that Paul spent all this time, in a letter to be read to the entire church, talking over the heads of the weaker believers with little effort at all to make his remarks of some benefit to them as well?  The second part of my thesis is that in order to address his diverse audience more effectively, Paul intentionally built a certain amount of ambiguity into his response to this issue, requiring both stronger and weaker believers to exercise some degree of responsible freedom in choosing how to "do everything for the glory of God" (10:31).  Most commentators explain the frequently noted ambiguity of these chapters by reference to the complex situation and subject matter, or some shortcomings in Paul's expression.[2]  These factors should be taken into account, but I suggest this ambiguity is also an intentional didactic and psychagogic strategy.[3]

Given the messy interpretive landscape of this passage, I feel constrained to spend most of my time establishing my presuppositions, especially since they do differ significantly from many scholars on some key points.  I contend, however, that if my presuppositions prove convincing, the soundness of part one of my thesis will be immediately apparent, and part two of my thesis will at least seem highly plausible.  I will also be spending most of my time on 8:1-13 since it appears to me that decisions made on the basis of this passage effectively determine how the rest of 8:1 - 11:1 will be understood.

First, here are some popular presuppositions with which I agree.  I accept the integrity and coherence of 1 Cor 8:1 - 11:1.  Paul's thesis throughout is that love and concern for the interests of others should take precedence over knowledge and concern for the unrestricted exercise of one's rights: "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (8:1b).  The argument in chapter nine—though it certainly could have been introduced with a better transition—illustrates Paul's thesis through personal example.  This conclusion about chapter 9 is now widely accepted.[4]  Also, in agreement with most recent commentary, I do not think that the division between strong and weak is an ethnic one.  The weak believers are certainly not Jewish.  Commentators usually support this conclusion by pointing out that they were once "accustomed to idols" (8:7b)—hardly a Jewish characteristic.  Furthermore, I agree that while some of the stronger members may constitute some sort of elitist clique among the Corinthians, so that we are probably justified in referring to the capital "S" Strong, there is no clear evidence that there is a party called the Weak constituted by positions they have taken on various controversial issues like the eating of idol meat.  While Schmitals was almost certainly wrong to consider the Strong capital "G" Gnostics, the position of second century Gnostics in proto-orthodox churches does seem rather analogous to that of the Strong in Corinth.  They consider themselves far wiser and more knowledgeable than the less advanced members of the congregation who, from their point of view, are all weaker believers for one reason or another.

Now I will critique three popular interpretive presuppositions for reading 8:1 - 11:1 with which I disagree.  I will then state my own presuppositions, ones that I believe allow for a more satisfactory reading of Paul's rhetorical goals and strategies in this situation.[5]   Many commentators presuppose 1) that the Strong are intending to educate weaker believers through their eating in pagan temples, thereby "building up" (oivkodome,w, 8:10) their weak consciences to do so as well; 2) the weak already think that eating idol food as sacred food, and thus participating in pagan worship, is wrong for a believer, so that, 3) the danger to a weak brother or sister is that after participating in such Strong behavior, his/her conscience may turn out not to be so strong after all, and this will somehow "defile" (molu,nw) and "wound" (tu,ptw) it, causing the weaker brother or sister to be "destroyed" (avpo,llumi).  What is wrong with these presuppositions?

Presupposition one suggests that the Strong are trying to educate the weak.  But why should we think so?[6]  I find no compelling evidence in this passage, or throughout all of 1 Corinthians for that matter, that stronger believers at Corinth have any concern whatsoever for the welfare of weaker believers.  This notion can be read into 8:10 as many commentators do, but this reading is hardly required since it is not at all clear whether Paul conceives of the "building up" mentioned there as actual or potential, or if actual, whether intentional or accidental.  There might even be some evidence against the likelihood that the Strong were trying to "edify" the weaker believers.  With respect to evidence in this passage, Paul's thesis statement that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up," would seem to establish immediately a contrast between the Strong's glorification of self through knowledge and the edification of others through love.  Indeed, the Strong's slogan that "all of us possess knowledge" (8:1) might well intimate right from the beginning that the strong are only concerned about themselves since they are so unconcerned about others that they haven't even realized that their slogan is obviously false (cf. 10:23-24).  As Paul will soon point out in 8:7, not everyone does have the knowledge that "no idol in the world really exists," and that "there is no God but one" (8:4bc).  Perhaps the Strong's "all of us" only includes those who really count—themselves.  As for possible evidence outside this passage, if, as seems likely, stronger believers are to be found among the ranks of the other trouble makers at Corinth, there may be a pattern of unconcern to be observed.  In chapters 1-4, Paul observes that some arrogant Corinthians are destroying God's temple by their pretensions to wisdom and by choosing one leader over others (1:1 - 4:21), some are taking others to court (6:1-8), and some of the more socio-economically powerful members "show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing" at the Lord's supper (11:22b).  He must tell some of the more spiritually intoxicated that "Those who speak in a tongue build up themselves," not the whole church (14:4a).  This hardly seems like an environment where a mentoring movement for weaker members was likely to develop.

What about presupposition two, that the weaker believers already think that eating idol food is wrong?   Many commentators argue as if the weaker believers already know in principle that "an idol is nothing" and "there is no God but one," but they do not yet really know it.[7]  That is, they argue as if the weaker believers are acquainted with the concept that their allegiance to the one God and one Lord is an exclusive one, but it has not fully sunk in yet.  So the danger is that the weaker believers will be encouraged by the Strong's eating of idol meat to do likewise with a resulting conscience crisis.  Knowing intellectually that it is OK in principle, the weaker believers will eat, but then, being "so accustomed to idols until now" (8:7), they will be destroyed when their conscience starts bothering them.  Indeed, some commentators seem to assume that it is the conscience itself that will destroy them by inflicting them with painful guilt and anguish.[8]  As popular as it is, this is a presupposition that is at odds with the evidence.  The text tells us one certain thing about these weaker believers, namely what we read in 8:7, that they do not have "this knowledge."  What knowledge exactly?  The knowledge stated clearly in 8:4, that "'no idol in the world really exists' and that 'there is no God but one,'" a knowledge on which Paul elaborates in 8:5-6 in rather exclusive terms: "yet for us there is one God . . . and one Lord."[9]  As surprising as it may seem to us, what makes these weak believers weak believers is the plainly stated fact that they do not yet know that "there is no God but one," that God is not one God among many, and that Jesus Christ is not one Lord among many (cf. 8:5-6). [10]  These believers are in effect, as odd as it may sound, still pagan believers.[11]  They believe in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ along with a host of other gods and lords.[12]

            This brings us to presupposition three, the notion that the danger to the weak believers is that they will be tempted to mimic the Strong, eat meat in a temple, and then have an anxiety attack when their weak conscience convicts them that they actually have participated in pagan idolatry, something they already know at least in principle, to be a sin.  If my critique of presupposition two is sound, then  presupposition three is automatically called into question, because what makes the conscience of the weaker believers weak is not superstition or over scrupulosity, but lack of knowledge about the one God.  A weak conscience in this context is one that lacks the essential knowledge that "'no idol in the world really exists,' and that 'there is no God but one"' (8:4bc). A lot of ink has been spilled over "conscience" in this passage, some of it needlessly I think. As always, the first clues to determining the meaning of a word should be searched for in the specific context of its use. In this case, the context is a discussion about knowledge or the lack thereof.  We will hardly be committing the etymological fallacy to note immediately that knowledge is, lexically speaking, intimately related to conscience (sunei,dhsij).  The most basic definition of the word is "to know together with" others or oneself. Indeed, the importance of knowledge for conscience is a constant feature of the word's use throughout its history.  In his article entitled "Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9," Abraham Malherbe makes a very strong case that in 1 Cor 8, Paul is using "weak" in more of a cognitive sense typical of popular philosophers than in a social sense, though the latter is not to be ruled out.[13]  Combining this understanding of weak with the most basic definition of sunei,dhsij allows for a rather straightforward and unproblematic understanding of the situation.[14]  A weak conscience in this context is one that is lacking knowledge essential to its proper function, that function being, as Paul says elsewhere, either "to accuse" or "excuse" (Rom 2: 15). A weak conscience is a poorly educated conscience. It is weak not because of superstitious or overly scrupulous customs, but weak because of lack of basic knowledge about God. How then can it become "defiled"? By drawing an incorrect conclusion about the Strong's actions on the basis of this incomplete knowledge. First, the weaker believer sees the stronger believer eating in the temple of an idol (8:10).[15]  And then, since his/her conscience, through lack of knowledge, is too weak to tell him/her that there is no god but one, the example of the stronger believer leads him/her to conclude that active participation in a temple ritual and eating idol meat truly as meat sacrificed to an idol is permissible. Such a conscience has been thoroughly corrupted. It has been "built up" (8:10), i.e., formed and educated, in such a way that it can no longer accurately "accuse" or "excuse."

            I have attempted to demonstrate that three popular presuppositions for reading these chapters are either unnecessary or unwarranted. So now, building on my critique, I propose different presuppositions that can better account for several aspects of Paul's overall argument. I suggest 1 ) that the Strong have no interest whatsoever in educating the weak about their "gnōsis," and that this unloving failure to explain their actions is precisely what puts the weak at risk; 2) that the weak do not already know that eating idol food as sacred food, and thus participating in pagan worship, is wrong for a believer, so that, 3) the danger to a weak brother or sister is that without having the Strong's knowledge that "an idol has no real existence," and "there is no God but one," they will interpret the Strong behavior to mean that it is permissible to eat both at the table of the Lord Jesus and the table of other lords.  A conscience "built up" in this way would indeed be one that is "defiled" and seriously "wounded" since it would not be capable of convicting the weak one that such idolatrous behavior is wrong at all.  Consequently, it would be quite appropriate to say that this brother or sister is being "destroyed."  And here we should note that in the understanding of the situation based on the popular presuppositions outlined earlier, "destroyed" seems far too strong a description for someone whose conscience is still capable of accusing or excusing them, a conscience that would, by its reproach, lead to repentance and keep one from being destroyed.

            How does my reading of 8:1-13 relate to part one of my thesis, that Paul is addressing both stronger and weaker believers and attempting to instruct them all at once? Paul is directly addressing the Strong. He upbraids them for thinking only of themselves and their radical freedom (evxousi,a) while giving no thought to how that freedom will be interpreted by the weaker, less knowledgeable members. But, at the same time, he is indirectly educating the weaker believers about the exclusive nature of the faith they have chosen, letting them know that participation in idolatry is indeed ruled out. He is doing the psychagogic task the selfish Strong have failed to perform.[16]

This understanding of 8:1-13 lessens the supposed tensions with 10:1-22. The latter passage is often read as if it is mainly addressed to the Strong in an effort to prohibit them from entering temples and participating in idolatry.[17] But this would be rather odd considering that Paul knows that the Strong have no real desire to participate in idolatry.  For them it's all a big sham (8:4-6). To be sure, Paul is probably warning the Strong here that they might not be as strong as they think (10:12), and that while eating in a temple they may be drawn back into idolatry in spite of their gnōsis. But in keeping with the construal of the situation set forth above, I argue that 10:1-22 is intended just as much, if not more, for the weak who are in danger of drawing wrong conclusions from Strong behavior. What could happen to an uninformed weak believer who eats?  He or she would risk suffering the same fate as the Israelite believers who though they—allegorically speaking—participated in Christ (10:1-5), also indulged in idolatry. The weak are the ones most in danger of being "destroyed" by their "defiled" and "wounded" consciences since their malformed consciences are incapable of convicting them that participation in idolatry is not permitted. It is thus no exaggeration to say they are at risk of being "destroyed by the Destroyer" (10:10; cf. v. 9).

Also I would note that the interpretation of weakness and conscience I have set forth adds weight to the argument that the informer in 10:28 is a pagan host and potential convert.  A pagan's conscience is epistemologically the weakest of all where knowledge of the one God and one Lord are concerned.  When this host makes a point of characterizing the meat served as sacrificed to a god, the believer has an obligation to abstain and so make a good witness to the host.  This reading is even more convincing if the reason the pagan host informed the believer was out of consideration for the believer's beliefs. If the believer, after being informed that the pagan host considers the meat sacred, would then partake anyway, the believer would be "building up" the pagan's conscience in the wrong way.  I.e., even if the pagan host has heard that believers are similar to Jews in their exclusive theology, s/he may conclude that that was a misunderstanding upon witnessing a strong believer eating even after being so informed. Thus the relationship between the believer and the pagan in this situation is not entirely dissimilar to the relationship between the Strong and the weak in chapter 8.  In both situations, the responsibility to promote the welfare of others through correct knowledge about God is the issue.  So the part of Paul's lesson aimed mainly at the Strong in chapter 8, now becomes a lesson and example for all believers in chapter 10.

The second part of my thesis was that in order to address his diverse audience more effectively, Paul intentionally built a certain amount of ambiguity into his response to this issue. The overall ambiguity of the passage is dramatically demonstrated by the fact that reputable interpreters continue to defend totally opposite opinions on so central an issue as whether Paul intends to prohibit the Corinthians from eating at pagan shrines or permit it. No amount of argument has yet proven either that Paul's injunction in 10:14 to "flee from the worship of idols" rules out eating in the dining halls of a temple, or that the unbeliever's dinner invitation in 10:27 that Paul says may be accepted is not an invitation to eat at just such a dining hall. Nor do I think any argument ever will resolve this matter one way or the other. The prohibitive argument is problematized by the fact that, as Peder Borgen has shown so well, opinions concerning what constituted participating in idolatry varied widely even among Jews.[18] The permissive argument is problematized by the fact that we can never be entirely certain whether or not Paul is only speaking of an invitation to an unbeliever's home. But what if Paul intended to leave the matter open to individual discretion? Would not this very ambiguity serve his purpose. Looked at in this way, Paul's words in 10:13, so often considered an awkward interruption in his argument, actually fit right in.  In 10:13 he says, "No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone.  God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it."  Coming between the warning in 10:12 to "watch out that you do not fall," and the injunction in 10:14 to "flee from idolatry," many interpreters are sure that Paul cannot be talking about temptation to idolatry here.[19]   But in light of the interpretation of 8:1 - 11:1 presented here, 10:13 takes us to the heart of what Paul is trying to teach all the Corinthians.  There are indeed differing levels of "strength" among the Corinthians.  There are stronger and weaker believers.  The stronger believers must not ignore the weaker believers.  Instead they must care for them by sharing their theological knowledge with them, just as Paul himself is doing in these chapters with regard to both stronger and weaker believers.  But then, each individual must decide for him or herself, on the basis of an informed conscience, what level of participation constitutes idolatry.[20]  As Paul says in Rom 14:14: "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean."  And so I conclude with some food for thought from D's version of Luke 6:4b: "The same day, when he saw someone working on the Sabbath, he said to him, 'Friend, if indeed you know what you are doing, you are blessed; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law.'"


[1] E.g., Willis states that "The weak are simply not directly addressed in these chapters" (Idol Meat in Corinth. The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 [SBLDS 68; Chico: Scholars, 1985] 232).

[2] A great strength Derek Newton's approach to this passage is his sensitivity to the complexity and ambiguity of this issue (Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth (JSNTSS 169; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). I cannot agree, however, with his perspective that "throughout 1 Corinthians 8-10, Paul comes across as being consistently opposed to Christians who attend, eat food at, and get involved in the sacrificial offerings of, temple festivals" (23). To be sure, he opposes involvement in sacrificial offerings, but short of that, the problem becomes not just one of an ambiguous situation and issue, but of an ambiguous Paul.

[3] For an extended discussion of the use of ambiguity in Pauline discourse, see my forthcoming Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Deception in Greece and Rome (Emory Studies in Early Christianity 7; Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001).

[4] E.g., Malherbe clearly demonstrates the thematic ties between 8:9-13 and chapter 9 ("Determinism and Free Will in Paul: The Argument of 1 Corinthians 8 and 9," Paul in his Hellenistic Context [ed. Troels Engberg-Pedersen; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995] 238-239).

[5] See Gregory W. Dawes, "The Danger of Idolatry: First Corinthians 8:7-13," CBQ 58 (1996) 82-98, for a similar re-reading with some overlapping arguments, though I add some of my own.  Dawes's approach is less rhetorical-critical, and he does not suggest that Paul's ambiguity is intentional.  I see our efforts as complementary. 

[6] E.g., Willis says, "In summary, the Corinthians probably argued in their letter that, on the basis of Christian gnw/sij, they were seeking to encourage the reticent Christian, whose conscience was 'weak,' to join in pagan cult meals. They may have termed the imitation by the weak 'oivkodome,w"' (Idol Meat in Corinth, 78).

[7] "Even though 'all have knowledge,' not all believers share that 'knowledge' in an experiential way" (Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987] 378).

[8] Fee speaks of "the deep anguish involved for these people, who are 'destroyed' by such actions" (First Corinthians, 381). But where in the text do we find this "deep anguish" mentioned?

[9] Cf. Newton, Deity and Diet, 290.

[10] Willis concludes that "Those who were 'weak' in sunei,dhsij were simply those who were 'not knowing' (8:7) the truth about idols and idol meat" (Idol Meat, 92). By this is not quite the same as saying they did not know the truth about the one God and the one Lord, and the essential difference leads him astray.

[11] "The problem of idol food arose in the pluralistic context of a very young church, and mission studies show that those entering Christianity from a so-called 'pagan' religion do not generally enter with a clean break from the old religion" (Newton, Deity and Diet, 36).

[12] Cf. Newton, Deity and Diet, 289: "We also have to allow the possibility, however, that to some Corinthian minds, v. 6 might have allowed henotheism, that is, belief in a single god without asserting that he or she is the only God. Some Greeks at least, for example, believed that Sarapis and Asclepius were universal gods and to some, therefore, the man-god, Christ, may have been just one more manifestation of the universal God. Judging from 8.4 and 8.6, both Paul and the Corinthians seem to have been claiming monotheism, but it may not have been the same monotheism."

[13] Malherbe, "Determinism and Free Will in Paul," 233-235.

[14] See additional bibliography for recent revisions of the range of meanings for sunei,dhsij in Greco-Roman literature and Paul in Dawes, "Danger," 95-97.

[15] Contra Fee, First Corinthians, 386, this is hardly a problematic scenario. The dining halls of pagan temples were often outside the main precincts in large peristyle courts (see Borgen, "'Yes,' 'No,' 'How Far?"' The Participation of Jews and Christians in Pagan Cults," Paul in His Hellenistic Context, 30-59, 58-59). It is also likely that sometimes eating took place in the open air or under tents near temples (see Newton, Deity and Diet, 298-300).

[16] One of the outcomes of this reading is a challenge to Dale Martin's recent contention that Paul, unlike the Strong, does not think the weak can attain to gnōsis—never had it, never will, as he puts it (The Corinthian Body [New Have/London: Yale University Press, 1995] 179-189). On the contrary, certain aspects of Paul's argument with the stronger believers not only indirectly protects but also begins to perfect the weak by providing them with accurate knowledge about the jealous God they are worshipping.

[17] "The Corinthians' point will be that since there is no reality to an idol because there is no God but one, how can we be faulted for eating meals at the temples, since the gods represented by these idols do not in fact exist?" (Fee, First Corinthians, 371).

[18] See above, n. 15.

[19] E.g., Fee, First Corinthians, 460-462; Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (IBC; Louisville: John Knox, 1997) 166. Hays says, "God provides a 'way out' for those who are 'overtaken' by the trials that all flesh is heir to. But those who put themselves in jeopardy by participating in idolatry are in a very different position and should not presume to have any guarantees of safety or salvation" (166).

[20] Contra Newton, who insists that Paul's strategy in these chapters is to rank community values above those of the individual. So once again, Paul's ambiguous rhetoric has produced diametrically opposed interpretations of his intentions, leaving us wondering what the "real" Paul really means.  See "Reel Paul," the concluding chapter of Paul's True Rhetoric.

 

Hit Counter