1. Introduction
Did Paul permit Christians to eat food they knew had been sacrificed to idols in 1 Cor 8–10? The traditional answer has been "yes," eating such food was acceptable unless in so doing one encouraged a weaker believer to violate their conscience.[1] In 1987 Gordon Fee challenged this view by arguing that 1 Cor 8–10 deals with two separate but related issues: Paul allowed eating food sacrificed to idols so long as it did not offend a brother, but he absolutely forbade the eating of idol food in an idol temple.[2] During the late 1990s through the 2000s, this view gained steam. Others have reexamined the text and come to the conclusion that Paul prohibited eating any idol food if one were aware of its idolatrous origin.[3]
Scholarship on this text has slowed down,[4] though a consensus on this issue remains elusive. For those doing gospel work in contexts where idols and idol food are still a live issue, the necessity of a correct understanding of this issue is obvious. Yet even for those working in a modern or postmodern context, the interpretation one comes to will lead to very different applications and emphases of the text.
This article defends and applies the view that Paul understood eating any food one knew had been offered to an idol as sinful. After examining Paul's social and historical context, I will reconstruct the Corinthian view and lay out Paul's counterarguments. In essence, Paul did not, in fact, agree in theory with the Corinthians' view; he saw them as "ignorant" and "uninformed." After defending that thesis, I will present some possible applications of this text for those who face the problem of idol food in their ministries and finish with a few suggestions for those who do not.
2. Paul's Social and Historical Context
Paul did not write in a vacuum. Neither were the Corinthians acting in one. Understanding the context in which this interaction between Paul and the Corinthians took place will help shed light on the meaning of Paul's words.
2.1 The Social Context of Idol Food
Just as Paul states, the social situation of first century Corinth did indeed involve "many gods and many lords" (1 Cor 8:5).[5] Temples and adjacent dining facilities lined the city, and idolatry was an integral part of the rhythms of regular life.[6] The question of to what extent newly converted Gentiles were permitted to participate in secular occasions which were tinted by idolatry would have major implications for these young believers' social status.[7]
Christians would have faced several possible situations where they would be confronted with the reality of idols:
1. eating a meal in a temple in the worship of a pagan deity;
2. eating a meal in dining facilities adjacent to a temple for a social occasion;
3. buying food in the market that had previously been sacrificed to an idol;
4. eating in someone's home and being offered food that had been sacrificed to an idol.
Paul clearly made some distinctions. For example, he accepted eating idol food if one were unaware of its idolatrous origin, either bought in the market (situation 3) or served in someone's home (situation 4). Such idol food did not automatically pollute a person. But what about eating food that one knew had been offered to an idol?
Some argue that Paul permitted knowingly eating food that had been sacrificed to idols. They make a distinction between, on the one hand, eating idol food (εἰδωλόθυτα) and visiting idol temples (εἰδωλεῖον), and on the other hand outright idolatry (εἰδωλολατρία).[8] Such proponents view visiting the dining facilities connected to a temple and eating that food, which had been offered to an idol, as not an inherently idolatrous act (situation 2), whereas participating in an explicitly cultic celebration would be sinful (situation 1). The rationale behind this distinction is the apparent incongruity between 1 Cor 8:9–10, where Paul appears to grant that eating in an idol temple is "a right," and 1 Cor 10:1–22, where eating food sacrificed to idols is associated with demon worship.[9]
Social considerations are often brought in to support such a distinction. It is argued that some occasions in temples were secular and some eating of idol food would not have been viewed as a primarily cultic act. For example, Willis writes:
Since they probably did not see such meals as religiously significant, their enlightened Christian monotheism would have been sufficient to overcome any qualms about eating . . . It probably was not regarded as pagan worship to participate in the various "socials" held in temple precincts.[10]
In such a view, the prohibitions of 1 Cor 10:1–22 were limited to occasions where the explicit point of the temple visit and the eating was the worship of the idol, or at least where such worship was prominent. Social events, such as weddings, birthdays, or business meals in a temple would then not be viewed as idolatrous. The comparison is commonly made that temples were the restaurants of antiquity,[11] a view often agreed upon by all sides, including those who argue Paul would have disallowed ever visiting one.[12]
Yet idol temples were not quite restaurants. Some religious association always remained.[13] Literary data shows that secular and religious events often blended into one another: some social events were held at temples, some cultic events could be held at home.[14] The line between cult and secular life was not as firm as some anachronistic Western interpretations have assumed.[15]
2.2 The Historical Context of Idol Food
Paul grew up as a Pharisaic Jew who later became a major leader of the Christian movement. Understanding how those around Paul—his immediate predecessors and successors—thought about this issue should help us better locate Paul's thinking on the issue.
2.2.1 Jewish Perspectives on Food Offered to Idols
Jewish opposition to eating food sacrificed to idols is well-attested.[16] Those who argue that Paul agreed Christians could eat idol food view such Jewish opposition as relating to laws concerning clean and unclean food rather than viewing the eating of idol food as an act of outright idolatry.[17] If eating idol food were simply a matter of kashrut for Torah-observant Jews, prohibitions against it need not apply to Gentiles; if eating idol food were a matter of idolatry, no follower of Israel's God, Gentile or otherwise, should participate. After summarizing a wide range of Jewish attitudes and writings, Alex Cheung summarizes: "In the minds of most Jews, idol food was so inextricably bound up with idolatry that they were instinctively repulsed by it. Idol food simply epitomized idol worship."[18]
This does not mean that Jews were not tempted by the allure of idolatry. Philo warns against the deadly attraction idols can pose (Philo Spec. Laws 1.5 §§ 28–29), and Josephus acknowledges there are some Jews who do not follow the traditional laws.[19] Even within Judaism there were some who theologically and practically debated the boundaries of idolatry, engaging in behaviors and beliefs which fellow Jews would have condemned.[20] Yet these tend to be exceptions which prove the norm. The rejection of idol food by Jews was widespread, dominant, and grounded in their rejection of idols. This raises the question of whether the Gentile Christian movement would allow the prohibition of idol food to go the way of circumcision, kashrut, and Sabbath, or whether it would remain a test of genuine faith in Jesus Christ.
2.2.2 New Testament Perspectives on Food Offered to Idols
Although often overlooked in this discussion, Acts and Revelation discuss food offered to idols. First, Acts twice addresses food offered to idols, both times in connection with the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:28–29; 21:25, cf. Acts 15:21). In Acts 15 Gentile Christians are told they need not follow the Mosaic law but should adhere to four "necessities":[21] no sexual immorality, no eating of blood, no eating of things strangled, and no eating of food sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:28–29). Later, James reminds Jewish Christians, zealous for the law, that these conditions were the only things required of Gentiles, and he does so in such a way that suggests Paul practiced this in his ministry (Acts 21:20–25).
These stipulations are often viewed as pragmatic, designed to encourage Jew/Gentile unity by keeping Gentile Christians from engaging in activities especially egregious to their Jewish brothers.[22] Such a view argues the prohibitions against eating blood and things strangled were not moral issues, and, due in part to the discussion in 1 Corinthians, does not see idol food itself is not inherently wrong. This interpretation struggles, however, with the prohibition of sexual immorality (πορνεία). A more likely understanding of these prohibitions is that the warnings against eating blood, things strangled, and idol food are all connected with idolatry.[23] Such clarifications would have been necessary for Gentile believers since immorality and idolatry were the twin vices praised by pagans but rightly rejected by Israel.[24]
Second, in Revelation Christ himself twice describes false teachers as those who encouraged his people to eat food sacrificed to idols (Rev 2:14, 20). As with James in Acts, this activity is associated with sexual immorality. It characterizes not a sub-group of legitimate believers, but a group of heretics referred to as "the Nicolaitans" as well as a false teacher called "Jezebel."
Often such data is overlooked.[25] Some scholars simply accept a discrepancy between the passages.[26] Fisk answers this challenge by making a distinction between meaning and referent.[27] Fisk argues that εἰδωλόθυτα can refer to food eaten in a temple, but that it need not do so. For Fisk, the context of Revelation suggests that in this occasion, the eating of idol food was in a temple and idolatrous, given the harsh condemnation for those eating it. But limiting the referent of εἰδωλόθυτα in Revelation to only a certain, bad kind of idol food strikes me as special pleading. This is especially the case given that the next extant example of εἰδωλόθυτα is from the Didache, which Fisk acknowledges explicitly prohibits eating idol food in any condition.[28]
2.2.3 Early Christian Perspectives on Food Offered to Idols
Although not every Christian authority addressed the question of idol food, numerous writers did. Whenever the issue of idol food arose, such writers routinely and unqualifiedly condemned eating food one knew had been offered to an idol. The Didache, likely the earliest non-canonical Christian text, explicitly and without exception forbids the eating of idol food (Did. 6.3). Eating idol food is likewise condemned by Justin Martyr (Dial. 34.8, 35), Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 1.6.3), Tertullian (De spec. 13), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 4:15), and Origen (Contra Celsum 8:24, 30). Beyond these Christian writers, Cheung shows that secular sources discussing Christian attitudes toward food offered to idols understood the earliest Christian posture as complete abstinence, not only in cultic settings but in secular occasions and even the market.[29] Indeed, part of the hostility to the early Christian community was the fact that, although idolatry permeated nearly every facet of life, Christians refused to participate in even seemingly innocuous forms of the worship of idols.[30] Such behavior led to Christians being viewed as unsociable at best and perhaps even dangerous.[31]
In light of evidence from James (in Acts), Jesus (in Revelation), and early post-NT Christian witnesses, Tomson seems justified in saying that if Paul condoned eating idol food, "he would not just have been the first, but in effect the only early Christian authority to defend this position."[32] The question remains, though: did Paul condone knowingly eating idol food?
3. Paul's Argument
The traditional view argues that the Corinthians justified their right to eat idol food because they did not see such activity as idolatrous. Such a perspective further argues that although Paul agreed in principle, he disagreed with the selfish way this right had been used. It is the contention of this article, however, that Paul did not agree with the Corinthians—at all. Paul viewed their position as ignorant and uninformed.
3.1 Paul and the Church at Corinth
Paul spent a year and a half ministering in Corinth.[33] The ubiquity of idols makes it virtually impossible that the topic of idolatry and its food would not have come up. It is more likely that in his letter Paul is responding to arguments from Corinthian believers arguing for their right to eat something he has already addressed (and forbidden) than that Paul is arbitrating a new internal disagreement[34]—the latter being the more popular assumption.[35]
It is likely that later, upon learning that some members were violating this instruction, Paul offered a swift, simple rebuke in his initial letter (mentioned in 1 Cor 5:9), to which the Corinthians responded in their letter with theological arguments and an insistence on their "rights" and "freedom,"[36] which Paul then addressed in 1 Corinthians.
The response from Paul in 1 Cor 8–10 is the pastoral response one would expect. Paul lays out a detailed, nuanced, and yet impassioned argument seeking to respond to the theological argument of the Corinthians, yet it also addresses their careless and selfish behavior. Paul did not mention the Jerusalem council because it is highly likely he had already done so during his stay, and perhaps also in his first letter. Rather than attempting again to appeal to authority, Paul sought to clarify their inaccuracies and correct their attitude before ultimately showing them their grave theological error.
3.2 Paul's Presentation
of the Corinthian Argument
Paul opens this section by stating his main concern with the Corinthians: they had "knowledge" (γνῶσις), but uncoupled from love this knowledge was resulting in behavior detrimental to the church (8:1). The exact content of this "knowledge" has been variously understood:[37] a background in the high education available to the social elite, an early form of Gnosticism, Hellenistic Jewish philosophy, and Jewish monotheism.[38]
The statement that "no God exists but one" (οὐδεὶς θεὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς) and the creed of 1 Cor 8:6 certainly both echo the Shema of Deut 6:4, the central confession of the Jewish people.[39] This key OT teaching was no doubt taught by Paul himself, but this knowledge—in tandem with other pieces of knowledge perhaps—was now being used by Gentile Corinthians in ways unexpected by Paul. Ciampa and Rosner describe the Corinthian position well:
The knowledge involved is not that the social situation is innocent of idolatrous associations, but that since there is only one true God, what others think of as idol food is merely food (cf. vv. 1, 4, 7); the idolatrous associations made by others are considered meaningless and insignificant by the one who has this special knowledge.[40]
Gentiles had been converted to a worldview closely aligned with that of Judaism, but they brought with them unique perspectives and processed things in fresh ways. It is as if newly converted Gentiles were arguing from Jewish monotheism that idols are therefore nothing, and then from the nothingness of idols to the notion that idolatry was therefore not a spiritually hazardous behavior. This may seem logical. Yet such a move misses several key components of the biblical narrative. Paul responds to this deficient understanding by instructing his audience on OT teaching concerning idols they were either unaware of or had not taken seriously.
3.3 Paul's Response
to the Corinthian Argument
The OT contains two streams of polemic against idols: one which argues idols are nothing and one which argues idols are dangerous.[41] Statements about the worthlessness of idols are represented by declarations of Yahweh's incomparability (e.g., Deut 4:35, 39; 32:39) and the bitingly satirical idol-critique of Isaiah (Isa 44:6–20). The other line of attack warned that worshipping idols brought one into contact with malevolent spiritual forces and was thus spiritually dangerous (e.g., Deut 32:17). While critical scholarship has often played these views off each other as divergent OT traditions later awkwardly fused through sloppy redactional activity, there is no reason why a reasonable person would not be able to hold both.[42] When considered in light of Yahweh, idols are nothing. When considered in light of God's people, idols can lead to great harm. Deuteronomy 32 captures this dynamic well by stating both that there is none like God (32:39) but also that Israel had acted foolishly and invited God's wrath by participating in sacrifices to other gods (32:15–21), to "demons" in the Septuagint (δαιμονίοις; 32:17; cf. Ps 106:37/LXX 105:37).
Given Paul's restatement of the Corinthian position as examined above, it would seem the Corinthians understood only half of this equation. A certain group of Corinthians argued that idols were nothing because there is only one God, and on this basis concluded that participation in idolatry would pose no spiritual threat. Paul's response to this thinking is twofold:
1. he demonstrates that even if they were right about the idols, the selfish and destructive usage of these so-called rights violated the law of love (1 Cor 8–9);[43]
2. he then explains to them the other half of the biblical teaching on idols by warning them to run far away from idolatry of any kind (ch. 10), for it really is participating with demons (δαιμονίοις; 10:20).
Looking in a bit more detail, Paul first states and nuances the Corinthian's position, all the while subtly challenging it (1 Cor 8:1–6).[44] He demonstrates how selfish their behavior has been and emphasizes the impact it could have on others (8:1; 8:7–9:23). Then he transitions from a concern over the corporate impact the Corinthians' choices have to the personal impact of their choices (9:24–27). Paul's punch is that Christians should willingly surrender even genuine rights for the sake of the gospel. In ch. 10, he argues that knowingly eating idol food is not a legitimate right.
To the Corinthians, so proud of their "knowledge," Paul begins this transition with the biting question "do you not know" (οὐκ οἴδατε) (9:24). He informs the Corinthians that he does not want them to be ignorant (ἀγνοεῖν), specifically concerning Israel's history (10:1). Paul's true assessment is that they are ignorant.[45] They knew something factually correct: "no one is God except one" and "idols are worthless," (8:4) but their knowledge was incomplete. Specifically, the Corinthians were ignorant concerning the real spiritual danger posed by idols.
In the beginning of his discussion on idolatry, Paul had sought to demonstrate to the Corinthians that knowledge was not an inherent good. Knowledge apart from love results in pride and the destruction of others. Now he further humbles them by showing these arrogant intellectuals that they did not even know as much as they thought they knew. So, Paul proceeds to educate the Corinthians on Israel's wilderness experience, a history which included several instances of idolatry and idol sacrifices which led to disastrous results (10:1–10).
Paul warns the Corinthians to beware lest they too fall, and he charges them to flee idolatry (10:11–14). Paul suddenly appeals to the analogy of the Lord's supper and the peace offerings of the OT to argue that ritual food of this kind puts one in fellowship with the one honored at the feast, whether that be Christ, God, or demons (10:15–22).
Paul rounds out his discussion by explaining that food of an unknown origin (from the marketplace or in another home) could be eaten with a clear conscience, for all food really does belong to God (10:25–27, quoting Ps 24:1)—unless one comes to learn of an idolatrous origin (10:23–30). Finally, Paul puts the entire issue in its proper perspective by reminding the Corinthians of the centrality of God's glory and of his personal example in following Christ by seeking others' benefit over his own (10:31–11:1).[46]
4. Practical Theology:
Loyalty to the One God in Modern Contexts
If the interpretation of 1 Cor 8–10 presented above is accurate, this raises the question of how the text should be applied in modern contexts where idolatry and idol food is a live issue. I will mention two practical considerations.
4.1 Loving God Demands Supreme Loyalty to Him
In Idol Food in Corinth, Alex Cheung explains his interest in the topic:
I grew up in a home that worshiped idols . . . The problem of idol food forced itself on me almost immediately after I had become a Christian. Over the years of grappling with Paul's teaching on this subject in 1 Corinthians 8–10, I came to the conclusion that Paul regarded the eating of idol food, with the awareness of their idolatrous origins, as a sinful act rather than a matter indifferent.[47]
Cheung began to question this view when his research showed that no modern interpreter at the time shared this understanding. He was later relieved to discover it was the unanimous position of ancient Christians (as argued above).[48] Far from discounting the spiritual dangers involved in idolatry (as some of the Corinthians were doing and as many modern Westerners do),[49] Paul's understanding of God's oneness meant both (1) the recognition that idols are nothing and (2) a commitment to avoid participation with real, malevolent demonic forces behind such displays. God demands loving loyalty, and that loyalty must be absolute.
Believers should take care when they are tempted to participate in what might appear to be benign occurrences of pagan spirituality by remembering the chilling words of the apostle Paul: "I do not want you to be participants [κοινωνοὺς] with demons" (1 Cor 10:20). In general, international Christians have had much greater sensitivity to spiritual darkness in popular culture than modern American Christians. Given the understanding of Paul above, many Westerners likely have much to learn from believers actively engaged in more overt spiritual warfare. Some things we often assume to be "neutral" based on our "sophisticated" theological knowledge may actually be participating with the enemy and ought to be avoided.
As an example of this spiritual naivete, a missionary friend of the author asked a Christian school Bible class, "How many of you think I would help the owner of a Chinese restaurant put a banana up as a sacrifice to his Buddha idol because he was too short to reach?" All the hands went up. The missionary was stunned and asked the class slowly and emphatically, "How many of you think I would help this man worship his false god?" The students realized they had given the wrong answer but were confused. "Wouldn't it be rude to say no?" they asked. While the missionary may not have considered well enough the depth of rudeness, shame, or humiliation in the students' culture, the students may not have considered well enough the connection between that act and idolatry and how loyalty to God will sometimes involve rudeness, humiliation, or even shame.
4.2 Discipleship Will Involve
Great Personal Cost
For the Corinthians, being surrounded by a culture in which the worship of idols was the very air one breathed made the high call of discipleship to "flee idolatry" quite costly. Newly converted Gentiles, especially those with a high status,[50] would have encountered much difficulty in attempting to extricate themselves entirely from idolatry. It is true that Jews would have had similar struggles maintaining holiness in a world whose social life was permeated by idols, but for them at least their "atheism" was expected by society. Gentile believers would have had the difficult task of explaining to family members and business associates why they, as non-Jews, were adopting such "bizarre" Jewish practices. There would be strong pressure to find a rationale for holding their newfound faith in Jesus the Messiah while continuing to participate at various levels in events tainted by idolatry.
Such challenges are still faced by many Christians around the world. "Spirit worship is practiced today" in such countries as India, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Sri Lanka, China, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Nepal, Bhutan, Tibet, and Vietnam; and "animistic tribal religions throughout the world are still thriving."[51] In the secularized West, believers are not as likely to lose social capital on account of idolatry, but the call to loyally follow God remains costly. Whether it be a commitment to hold biblical positions on unpopular cultural issues such as gender, marriage, and sexuality, or whether it be proclaiming the offensive message of God's wrath and righteous judgment against sin, Paul's ability to navigate the complexities of living out the faith in a hostile culture remains a model for believers today.
5. Conclusion
Theology must guide behavior, and never the other way around. Humans have an uncanny ability to develop seemingly convincing theological justifications for questionable practices. If the reconstruction of 1 Corinthians presented above is correct, the Corinthians were justifying their sinful behavior with theology. The implications they drew from Jewish monotheism cut in the opposite direction of Judaism and of the OT itself, but they nevertheless were quite proud of this "knowledge." As has been noted, it is likely that the real impetus behind the Corinthians' behavior was not theological but social. Their desire to participate in activities that Paul had warned against led them to develop arguments based on a mixture of Jewish and Gentile reasonings. Such theology appears to have been a façade for the real reason they insisted on eating idol food. Modern Christians are likewise susceptible to develop theological rationalizations for unholy behaviors to avoid personal sacrifice. When the result of our theology is that taking up one's cross moves closer and closer to doing what the natural man desires, it is likely that something has gone wrong.
[1] See, e.g., Wendell Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1985); Bruce Fisk, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols: Corinthian Behavior and Pauline Response in 1 Corinthians 8–10 (A Response to Gordon Fee)," Trinity Journal 10.1 (1989): 49–70; Coye Still III, "Paul's Aims Regarding ΕΙΔΩΛΟΘΥΤΑ: A New Proposal for Interpreting 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1," Novum Testamentum 44.4 (2002): 333–43; Andrew Naselli, "Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol Temple? (1 Cor 8–10)," Southeastern Theological Review 9.1 (2018): 23–45.
[2] Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987; cf. his 2014 ed.). Cf. Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) and "Not so Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton," Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993): 237–54; Richard Phua, Idolatry and Authority: A Study of 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1 in the Light of the Jewish Diaspora (New York: T&T Clark International, 2005). John Fotopoulos sees "idol food" as referring to any sacrificial food offered to an idol, but sees food offered in temple precincts as the primary focus of Paul in "The Rhetorical Situation, Arrangement, and Argumentation of 1 Corinthians 8:1–13: Insights into Paul's Instructions on Idol-Food in Greco-Roman Context," Greek Orthodox Theological Review 47 (2002): 165–98 and "Arguments Concerning Food Offered to Idols: Corinthian Quotations and Pauline Refutations in a Rhetorical Partitio (1 Corinthians 8:1–9)" CBQ 67.4 (2005): 611–31.
[3] Alex Cheung focuses primarily on the historical context, especially early Christian views in Idol Food in Corinth: Jewish Background and Pauline Legacy, JSNTSup 176 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999). Paul D. Gooch details the social context for idolatry, examining both archeological and literary data in Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8–10 in Its Context, Studies in Christianity and Judaism 5 (Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1993). Peter Tomson focuses on the Jewish background for Paul's argumentation in these chapters by comparing him to rabbinic legal reasoning in Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990). While Tomson's work is broader than the issue of 1 Cor 8–10, he selects this text as his primary example of Paul's Jewish halakha. See also David Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 347ff and "The Dispute over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1–11:1)," Perspectives in Religious Studies 30.2 (2003): 179–97.
[4] The topic of meat offered to idols was a focus of the late 90s through mid-2000s but has since fallen off. Recent works include Naselli, "Always Idolatrous?"; Robert E. Moses, "Love Overflowing in Complete Knowledge at Corinth: Paul's Message Concerning Idol Food," Interpretation 72.1 (2018): 17–28; H.H. Drake Williams III, "Recalibrating Christian Ethics at Corinth: Paul's Use of Jesus the Prototype and Collective Remembrance to Provide Spiritual Guidance on Weaker Brothers and Food Offered to Idols," Religions 15.3 (2024): 316.
[5] Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 12–19; John Fotopoulos, Food Offered to Idols in Roman Corinth: A Social-Rhetorical Reconsideration of 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 49–206.
[6] John Stambaugh and David Balch, The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 127–37; David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 105–6.
[7] Garland, "Dispute over Food Sacrificed to Idols," 184–86.
[8] Fee made a distinction between idol food (εἰδωλόθυτα) as something not inherently idolatrous versus visiting idol temples (εἰδωλεῖον) as idolatrous activity.
[9] John Brunt, "Rejected, Ignored, or Misunderstood? The Fate of Paul's Approach to the Problem of Food Offered to Idols in Early Christianity" NTS 31.1 (1985): 113–2.
[10] Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth, 63.
[11] Naselli, "Always Idolatrous?" 29–37 collects references from a wide variety of scholars that concur on this point, from all sides in the debate.
[12] Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 397. See also Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 188.
[13] This point is acknowledged by Wendell Willis, "1 Corinthians 8–10: A Retrospective," Restoration Quarterly 49.2 (2007): 109: "I seem to have left the impression that I did not think these meals were 'religious' but 'merely' social. I could not at all support such a view; clearly the meals were 'religious.' There is strong evidence that these cults (and their worshippers) would not have accepted—even understood—a contrast between 'religious' and 'social.'"
[14] In a study of twenty-five letters of invitation from Greek Egyptian papyri, Chan-Hie Kim categorized and examined twelve invitations to weddings, nine to cultic feasts, two to an epicrisis (an Egyptian coming of age ceremony for boys), one to a birthday, one to a social party, and one to an unspecified occasion. Most of these secular activities occurred in homes, but at least one birthday party (POxy 2791) and one wedding feast (POxy 2678) were held in temples. Of the meals Kim labels as cultic, one was for a coming-of-age party held "at the table of the lord Sarapis for coming of age of the [brothers?] at the temple of Thoeris" (POxy 1484). Of the remaining eight invitations to cultic feasts, four of them were for occasions held in homes. "The Papyrus Invitations," Journal of Biblical Literature 94.3 (1975): 391–402.
[15] Naselli attempts to help his readers imagine modern parallels for situations where believers might legitimately come to differing understandings on whether a particular behavior is acceptable in "Always Idolatrous?" 35–37. Such examples are helpful if the assumption on which they rest—that Paul is inherently neutral on the topic of food sacrificed to idols—is an accurate representation of Paul. While Rom 14–15 does address situations where believers can legitimately come to differing conclusions, the current article argues this is not the case in 1 Cor 8–10.
[16] Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, see especially chapter 2 "The Background to Paul's Attitude to Idol Food in Early Judaism." Cf also TDNT s.v. εἰδωλόθυτον, which sees the term as colored by the Jewish hatred of idols: "The strict prohibition reflects the resolute resistance of Judaism to any kind of religious syncretism. Its basis, namely, that the flesh is offered to the dead or to unreal entities, shows that it is primarily religious. It rests on a strict application of the first commandment and not on superstition, fear of spirits etc."
[17] Brunt, "Rejected, Ignored, or Misunderstood?" 117.
[18]Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 77.
[19] Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 67.
[20] Phua, Idolatry and Authority, 91–125. Phua argues some Jews engaged in behavior others would have considered idolatrous behaviors based on (1) literary sources that speak in a syncretistic manner about the gods of the nations (e.g. The Letter of Aristeas, Artapanus); (2) polemics by Philo and Josephus against idolatrous practices, suggesting that some Jews must have been participating in them; and (3) inscriptional evidence of such participation.
[21] The Greek here is ἐπάναγκες, a hapax legomena which BDAG defines as "pert. to being essential in connection w. someth., of a necessary nature." Earlier James states he will lay on no greater "burden" (βάρος) than these four stipulations, acknowledging that what he required would be a burden but later calling it a necessity.
[22] David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 432–36; C.K. Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2004), 733–35; Luke Timothy Johnson, Sacra Pagina: The Acts of the Apostles (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2023), 273.
[23] Although Witherington's view that εἰδωλόθυτα refers only to meat eaten in temples seems to overstate the data, his proposal that the prohibitions against the eating of blood and of things strangled are concerned with pagan idolatry rather than Kosher laws is compelling, "Not so Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton," Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993), 248–50.
[24] Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, "The Structure and Argument of 1 Corinthians: A Biblical/Jewish Approach," New Testament Studies 52 (2006), 207.
[25] For example, Willis's only reference to Revelation 2 comes in the introduction where he states the passage will not be investigated, Idol Meat in Corinth, 4.
[26] Joseph Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, Volume 32: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 335.
[27] Fisk, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols," 56–58.
[28] Fisk, "Eating Meat Offered to Idols," 58.
[29] Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 220–36. Cheung examines the writings of Pliny, Lucian, Celsus, Porphyry, as well as imperial edicts before arriving at this conclusion.
[30] Stambaugh and Balch, Social Environment, 127–37; deSilva, Introduction to the New Testament, 105–6.
[31] DeSilva writes, "Since avoiding all participation in idolatry meant the withdrawal from many domestic, private and public activities, Christians also inherited the charge of 'misanthropy' of despising their fellow-citizens and their former friends and associates" (Introduction to the New Testament, 106).
[32] Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law, 185.
[33] Acts records Paul's ministry in Corinth as lasting a year and a half (Acts 18:11). Other than his three-year stay in Ephesus (Acts 20:31), this is the longest stretch of time that Paul stayed with a church as recorded in the NT. For a detailed exegesis of Pauline chronology, see Rainer Reisner, Paul's Early Period: Chronology, Mission Strategy, Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
[34] John Hurd has done much to point to the background between the Corinthians and Paul as important for understanding Paul's teaching on food offered to idols. The Origins of 1 Corinthian (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983), 115–48. Unfortunately, his views begin with a rejection of the historicity of Acts and a belief that Paul's interaction with Corinth is inconsistent. For these reasons, his perspective is a helpful starting point but must be heavily modified.
[35] C.K. Barrett, "Things Sacrificed to Idols," New Testament Studies 11.2 (1965): 138–53; Naselli, "Always Idolatrous?"; Brunt, "Rejected, Ignored, or Misunderstood?"; R.A. Horsley, "Consciousness and Freedom among the Corinthians," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978): 574–89; Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 607–12; Jonathan Worthington, "In the Beginning, Paul: How the Apostle Applies Genesis 1–2," Desiring God, 19 March 2024, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/in-the-beginning-paul; "Gendered Exegesis of Creation in Philo (De opficio mundi) and Paul (1 Corinthians)," in Paul and the Greco-Roman Philosophical Tradition, ed. Joseph Dodson and Andrew Pitts, LNTS Monograph Series (London: T&T Clark, 2017), 199–219.
[36] For a similar reconstruction, see Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove: IVP, 2020), 368.
[37] For a survey of different views on the passage as a whole, including the debate over "knowledge," see Phua, Idolatry and Authority, 6–26.
[38] The legitimacy of the label "monotheism" has been much discussed, and this paper will seek to avoid such debates by defining Jewish monotheism as the belief that Yahweh is unparalleled in power and authority as he alone is the uncreated Creator. For discussions of monotheism in Jewish and Christian thought, see Richard Bauckham, "Biblical Theology and the Problems of Monotheism," in Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 187–232. See especially the section on 1 Cor 8:1–6 (220–26).
[39] For an exposition of the Christological importance of this likely early Christian creed, see N.T. Wright, "Monotheism, Christology, and Ethics: 1 Corinthians 8" in The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology (London: T&T Clark, 1991), 120–36. For the centrality of the Shema for the first century and beyond, see Dean McBride, "The Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5," Interpretation 27, no. 3 (1973): 273–306.
[40] Ciampa and Rosner, First Letter to the Corinthians, 392.
[41] These streams are continued through the writings of the second temple period. Hellenistic Jewish authors such as Wisdom of Solomon and Philo represent the critique that idols are nothing, whereas the apocalyptic stream represented by Enoch and Jubilees emphasized the demonic dimension of idolatry. For a comparison of these views and the sources behind them, see Richard Horsley, "Gnosis in Corinth: 1 Corinthians 8:1–6," New Testament Studies 27 (1973): 32–51.
[42]Michael Heiser, "The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature" (PhD diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004).
[43] Moses, "Love Overflowing in Complete Knowledge at Corinth."
[44] For a breakdown of how Paul intersperses the Corinthian position with his own corrections see Fotopoulos, "The Rhetorical Situation."
[45] Although this phrase is used elsewhere in the NT as a discourse marker (cf Rom 1:13; 6:3; 7:1; 11:25; 1 Cor 12:1; 2 Cor 1:8; 1 Thess 4:13), this does not empty the phrase of its semantic content, content which would be especially insulting to a group which had been arrogantly boasting about their spiritual knowledge.
[46] Williams III, "Recalibrating Christian Ethics at Corinth."
[47] Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 7.
[48] Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 7.
[49] Cheung, Idol Food in Corinth, 37.
[50] Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 69–70. Meeks positively presents the case made by Thiessen that the "strong" were likely to have a high status but modifies his approach to recognize that many Christians were status inconsistent and that such members would have been high status in some areas and low status in others.
[51] Forrest McPhail, "Food Offered to Idols: A Contemporary Issue," GFA Missions, 28 July 2022, gfamission.org/food-offered-to-idols-part-1/. Accessed 30 April 2024.
