1 Corinthians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) by Garland David E

Author:Garland, David E. [Garland, David E.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: REL006000, REL006070, REL006100
ISBN: 9781585583225
Publisher: Baker Publishing Group
Published: 2003-11-01T00:00:00+00:00

Paul expresses concern about the Christian’s witness to the unbeliever. The announcement presents an opportunity to expound one’s faith in the one God and one Lord (see Godet 1887: 97).

[10:29b–30] Paul’s sketchy description of the case makes it difficult to decide what the two rhetorical questions that follow in 10:29b–30 mean in the context. D. Watson (1989: 308) calls them “the major stumbling block to determining the flow of the argument in this section.” Several explanations have been proposed. Some can be quickly dismissed.

The claim that these questions are a marginal gloss added by an interpolator who wondered why the scruples of others should be allowed to restrict one’s freedom and may have thought that Paul had gone too far (Weiss 1910: 265–66; Zuntz 1953: 17) is pure conjecture, without any supporting evidence. The confluence of vocabulary from chapters 8–10 in these verses argues strongly against this view.[14]

Some take these questions to reflect Paul’s self-defense of his own past actions, perhaps in Corinth, and claim that he anticipates some Corinthians challenging his own inconsistency in condemning them for eating idol food in temples while he ate the same idol food sold in the meat market. Fee (1987: 486) stresses the language “my freedom,” “being judged,” and “being denounced,” and thinks that it recalls Paul’s defensive posture in 9:19–23. It is his “final word of defense” for eating idol foods on occasion (cf. Oropeza 1998: 57): “He is as a Gentile to Gentiles, and as a Jew to Jews. He can either eat or not eat. But if he eats, he does so in light of the benediction of v. 26, and he is not to be condemned by anyone” (Fee 1987: 487). If chapter 9 is not a defense, as I contend, then this argument is weakened. I am convinced that Paul never ate idol food that was known to be idol food and so would have no need to defend himself. Paul may have used the “I” “for the sake of vividness when a more universal application is in view” (Wallace 1996: 391; cf. BDF §28), thus presenting himself as a paradigmatic example for his readers (B. Dodd 1999: 111; cf. 8:13).

Some assume that Paul addresses the so-called weak Christians to urge them not to abuse the forbearance of the so-called strong to judge them (Grosheide 1953: 244; Héring 1962: 99; Murphy-O’Connor 1978b: 555–56, 570–71; P. Richardson 1979: 129). This view presupposes a situation in which the strong and weak are squabbling, which I already have rejected, and there is no indication in the text that Paul changes tack to address a specific and narrower audience.

A more reasonable alternative assumes that Paul suddenly adopts a diatribe style by anticipating objections raised by the Corinthians. He imagines their rejection of such a restriction to their freedom (Lietzmann 1949: 52; Pierce 1955: 78; P. D. Gooch 1993: 92; Oster 1995: 250; Witherington 1995: 228; Soards 1999: 217): “Why must the wings of our freedom be clipped by another’s conscience? Cannot our thankful attitude (cf.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.