Corpus-Paul

["Joe A. Friberg" <JoeFriberg AT email.msn.com>]

[Please note: I tried to send the following message to the list on 10/4/99,
but to my knowledge it has never gone through.  So, I will try to send it
once more.  My apologies, and I hope this is still of interest!  Joe F.]

----- Original Message -----
From: David C. Hindley <DHindley AT compuserve.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 1999 7:43 PM


> Nathan McGovern said:
> > I'm a bit confused as to what Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 10:14-32. Is he
> > saying, "Eat meat sacrificed to idols," or "Don't eat meat sacrificed to
> > idols"?
> >
> > Reading just up to verse 22, it seems clear that he is saying the
latter.

There is no contradiction in this section, given the proper context.  First,
the section on idolatry-related-meat in 1Cor begins at 8.1 and runs through
10.33 or (probably) 11.1.  There are two excurses within this section (ch9,
10.1-13).

The apparent contradiction dissolves when the two different social
situations are recognized:
1. ch8 and 10.14-22 both address the issue of eating *in* idol temples at
idol feasts: cf. 8.10, and the comparison with the Lord's Supper in 10.21.
2. 10.23-33 addresses meat sacrificed at the temple that is sold in the
market or consumed elsewhere: cf. 10.25; note also the distinction in terms
used for the sacrificed meat: hIEROQUTON (temple-sacrificed) in 10.28 vs.
EIDWLOQUTON (idol-sacrificed) in 8.1,4,7,10, 10.19.

Paul then gives a clear prohibition against partaking in the actual idol
feasts, and then addresses the side issue of 'what about that meat
sacrificed at the temple but sold at the market?'

> > But in verses 23-29a, he seems to reverse course and say, "You can eat
meat
> > sacrificed to idols, but if someone (presumably a Jewish Christian who
> > might complain to James) says something to you about it, don't eat it.
But
> > verse 29b doesn't make any sense at all: He seems to be saying, "Don't
eat
> > meat sacrificed to idols if someone says something to you about it, not
on
> > account of your own conscience but on account of the other person's,

correct

> > BECAUSE you shouldn't be ruled by another person's conscience,"

No.  The conjuction is GAR, so the connection is not that direct.  "For why
is [not subjunctive] my freedom judged [not 'ruled'] by another's
conscience."
See further comments below.**

> > which is
> > self-contradictory.  Maybe my translation is just confusing. In any
case,
> > Paul returns again in verse 32 to his policy of "When in Rome, do as the
> > Romans do," which again suggests that he is telling people to eat meat
> > sacrificed to idols if they can get away with it.

I rather think that this closing in v32-33 supports the caveat (v28) rather
than the perissive (v25-27).

> What you have is one of many examples within the Pauiline corpus where a
> contradictory passage exists within an argument or stream of thought. The
> RSV encloses verses 28-29a within brackets in order to soften the
> contradiction, I would think. Actually, vss 28-29a are not at variance
with
> vs 24 ("Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor"), but
> rather it is 29b-31 that goes against it.

**I must disagree that there is a contradiction here, either.  There is a
permissive (v25, 27, principle in v26), and there is a caveat (v28,
principle in v24).  Paul is dealing with two conflicting principles of
practice, and seeking to resolve them.

Paul is giving a logical foundation for v29a, which in turn is providing a
preemptive corrective to the expected rhetorical query some readers might
want to voice at the end of v28.  Namely:
    Paul asserts in v25-27 there is no *immediate* problem with eating the
meat.
    In v28 Paul gives a situation in which NOT to eat meat.
    Some would ask (or assert), is it then *wrong* for one's own conscience?
To which Paul replies it is not *immediately* wrong, but *mediately* wrong
(v29a).  Paul follows in v29b-30 that the *mediated* conclusion does not
*alter* the truth of the *immediate* permissive stated previously.

> The latter passage sounds like an angry outburst *critical* of the idea of
> not doing what you know is lawful for you if it will offend another
> person:
>
> "29b For why should my liberty be determined by another man's
> scruples?

but, as above, 'determined' should be 'judged'.

> 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced
> because of that for which I give thanks? 31 So, whether you eat or drink,
> or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."
>
> In other words, "it is their problem, not mine, I am doing what God has
> told me is right". I suppose he is referring to practicing Jews here.
>
> If 29b-31 were eliminated, vs 32 would pick up the theme left off at 28a.
>
> Why introduce a contradiction? Paul was a genius, of course! By means of a
> clever rhetorical device, he has sharpened the clarity of his theme by
> introducing a clause ment to provide contrast, and in the end has
> forcefully driven the point home (whatever the point was) even though you
> did not know it! Amazing.
>
> Either that or it is an interpolation. But, of course, that would be out
of
> the question ...

Ah, no need for interpolation, or contradiction either.

Paul is simply dealing with two principles, 'self-freedom' vs. 'good for the
other', that come into conflict when they are put into practice.  One, 'good
for the other',  ranks higher than the other principle and so wins out in
practice.  But this does not nullify the trueness of the lower ranking
principle of 'self-freedom'.

In presentation, Paul alternates between statements of 'freedom', which the
Corinthians apparently agreed with, and 'restraint', which Paul wanted them
to learn:
v23         freedom/restraint/freedom/restraint
v24         restraint
v25-27    freedom
v28        restraint
v29-31    freedom
v32-33    restraint

God Bless!

Joe A. Friberg
Arlington, Texas
JoeFriberg AT alumni.utexas.net
MA Linguistics
MA Theology candidate