CAPíTULO II. FUNDAMENTOS TEÓRICOS O CONCEPTUALES
2.1 Fundamentos pedagógicos de la propuesta
2.1.9 Características de los adolescentes, desarrollo cognoscitivo y lenguaje
Paul’s treatment of divisions over eating meat brings to the fore the social status
dimensions of the Corinthian disputes.102
The more liberal group on this issue has a higher social status and the benefits that accrue to such. The conservative group is
socially inferior, with fewer prerogatives in life.103
Paul’s entire response here is predicated upon the unity of all members as a new, eschatological, covenant people in Christ. Paul presses ethnic reasoning in reiterating their new identity in order to urge proper behavior towards one another in the church. Moreover, twice in this section he anticipates the unity formula of 12:13, much as he did previously in 7:17-24, highlighting that his vision for corporate life in this section also reflects the social arrangements and mythic context that the formula epitomizes. The cross of Christ becomes here not only the source of their identity but also the pattern for their corporate ethos. They are to be the people of the cross both by definition and by comportment. Paul calls on those who have more rights and options to voluntarily abandon them for the sake of the weaker
102
I follow Theissen, Social Setting, 121-44; Meeks, First Urban, 69-70, 97-100; Martin,
Body, 70-76, and others who have built on their insights (e.g. Thiselton, First
Corinthians, 609, 644.) that the Corinthian disputes generally, and this one in particular, are not abstract theological controversies but corelate with status and cultural differences that have caused conflict in the mixed church community.
103 See Horrell, Social Ethos, 105-09, for a careful assessment of arguments for and
against this social characterization of the Corinthian perspectives in 1 Cor 8:1-11:1 and his cautious endorsement of this view.
members of the family. Paul cements this cruciform ethic as he concludes this section saying, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (11:1).
Paul presents the so-called strong group as justifying their position on the basis of
strident monotheism.104
At 8:4, he recites their slogans, “we know that ‘no idol in the world really exists,’ and that ‘there is no God but one.’” They appear to assert on the basis of this common, Christian knowledge (another Corinthian slogan in 8:1, “all of us possess knowledge”) that dedication of sacrificed meat to an idol is meaningless and powerless because the idol is likewise void of power and presence. Paul begins to alter their framing of the issue by asserting the primacy of love over knowledge (vv. 1-3) and by complicating their strict monotheism with Christology and with a reminder that they share with their weaker siblings one God as their father (v. 6). In that credal verse,
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist,
the second line parallels and modifies the first by placing Christ as the means by whom everything is from God, the Father. Thus, by correcting their slogan with a more
complete Christian confession, Paul brings communal identity into the picture—children
of God and common solidarity in Christ.105
In the argument that follows, he urges concern for the weaker siblings on just these terms. In 8:11-13 Paul focuses the appeal of 1 Cor 8 on family loyalty and deference, as I argued above in examining Paul’s ethnic terms in the epistle (p. 148-49, 160). In 1 Cor 10, Paul’s typological description of the church as Israel (10:1-22) reinforces the Corinthian Christians’ ethno-religious identity as reason for avoiding idolatry and
104
For support of characterizing the camps as “socially weak/strong” and for the view
that Paul differentially presses the “strong” to sacrifice see Theissen, Social Setting, 121-
43; Horrell, Social Ethos, 105-09, 142-50; Hays, First Corinthians, 156; Martin, Body,
75-76; Meeks, First Urban, 69.
105
Eriksson, Traditions, 156-57, offers this analysis of the function of v. 6 in the
preserving corporate solidarity.106
In 10:16-17, Paul further explicates corporate
participation in Christ in terms of the Lord’s Supper to conclude, “Because there is one
bread, we who are many are one body.”107
Their corporate identity, common cult and table fellowship all intersect in the Lord’s Supper. As I argued above (pp. 154-58), Paul here fuses the image of the corporate body of Christ with his ethnic identity construction. The presumption of common genealogy, throughout this section, corelates Paul’s call for
deference and unity with their ethnic identity. They are siblings (a0delfo/j in8:11, 12,
13; 9:5; 10:1; and a0delfh/ in 9:5) who have God as their father through their participation
in Christ (8:6) and who claim the exodus generation as their ancestors (10:1).
Margaret Mitchell has noted the inclusio of pro/skomma in 8:9 and a0pro/skopoi in
10:32.108
Both are related to prosko/ptw, which refers literally to striking against or
stumbling and figuratively to giving or taking offense.109
To make the motif apparent in English Mitchell renders it by “offense” in 8:9 and “inoffensive” in 10:32. The motif is
further developed in 8:13 by the verb skandali/zw and in 9:12 with e0gkoph/.110
This is consistent with Paul’s previous strong prohibition on eating meat. In 8:13 Paul concluded that section of the argument saying, “Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.” This argument is built on the weaker brother’s understanding of the meat eating. Paul characterizes the weaker brother, “Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food
106
As noted above (pp. 145), I concur with Hays, Echoes, 91-102, that the typological
midrash continues from 10:1 through 10:22. Cf. Meeks, First Urban, 99, supporting the
view that the exodus midrash continues through v. 22 and provides the context for interpreting the Lord’s Supper of vv. 16-17 in light of the Passover.
107
This verse anticipates Paul’s development of the one body with many members in 1 Cor 12, esp. vv. 12, 14, 20, 27.
108
Mitchell, Reconciliation, 128-30.
109 BDAG, s.v. prosko/ptw 3a, b; a0pro/skopoj.
110
Dale B. Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity
they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled” (8:7).111
Three times he specifies the person with the “weak conscience” as a brother (vv. 7, 10, 12). Two times he refers to the person as “weak” (vv. 9, 11). Thus, even though there may be some who are able to dissociate the meat from the idol, there will always be others who cannot. Since these others are family, loyalty towards whom trumps individual freedom, Paul concludes that it is best never to eat meat. The basis for his conclusion is his presumption of the kinship of believers and the cultural kinship norms, as well as his bias that the strong, especially, ought to accommodate the weak.
Not only does Paul appeal to their common, ethnic identity as reason for unity, but also he demonstrates how they are to maintain that unity in the face of divisions along the
lines of worldly social status and identity.112
Their calling into participation in Christ Jesus (1:9) includes participation in his manner of life and death, which entails voluntary sacrifice of privilege in order to enhance unity in the church and the advance of the gospel among groups different than oneself. His own example in 1 Cor 9 emphasizes
such an ethos.113
They are to maintain their new familial unity through deference towards
111
For an overview of the complex, intercultural challenges to translating sunei/dhsij,
see Malina and Neyrey, Portraits, 94; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 640-44; Martin, Body, 179-82.
112
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 607; Furnish, First Corinthians, 70-75; Mitchell,
Reconciliation, 248-49.
113
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 707-08; Martin, Slavery, 132, 135; Hays, First
Corinthians, 154-55, on the christomorphic cruciformity implicit in 1 Cor 9:19-23. As to whether Paul’s accommodation is for the sake of church unity or for missional aims
Hays, First Corinthians, 155, aptly notes, “We should remember that in 1:18 Paul
referred to himself and other members of the believing community as those “who are
being saved.” For Paul, conversion is a process of having one’s life reshaped in the likeness of Christ, and salvation is the eschatological end for which we hope” (italics original). Thus, Paul’s concern to live so as to “save” (9:22d; 10:33) or “gain” (9:20-22b) as many as possible applies both to believers and unbelievers. This coincidence of
preserving corporate unity and of winning new converts appears again in the other echo
of the baptism formula in 10:31-33. If we note with Thiselton, First Corinthians, 793-94,
that do/ca (“glory”) entails a public dimension of reputation or status that Paul now
measures against the message of the cross as the proper Christian standard of honor and glory (e.g. 1 Cor 1:18-31; 2:7, 8), then doing all things for God’s glory (v. 31) is
their weaker siblings. Throughout his engagement with this issue of idol meat, Paul promotes this ethos of self-sacrificial love for the sake of unity. The exemplary excursus
in 1 Cor 9 shows that cruciform love is Paul’s primary answer to the dispute over meat.114
He carefully develops and defends his right to material support from the Corinthians through various proofs (vv. 1-14), only to disclaim that right for the sake of the gospel (vv. 15-18). Paul describes in varied but parallel terms the primary identity he maintains while molding himself so as not to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (9:12e). His self-descriptions are “a slave to all” (v. 19), “under Christ’s law” (v. 21), “weak” (v. 22, cf. 4:10). Then, in vv. 19-23, he generalizes the principle beyond the issue of receiving material support from the churches to a broader principle of self-sacrifice for
the sake of the gospel’s progress among all kinds of people, concluding in v. 23, pa/nta
de\ poiw~ dia\ to\ eu0agge/lion, i3na sugkoinwno\j au0tou= ge/nwmai.115
These self-
characterizations find their coherence as imitation of the cross of Christ, which seems to be Paul’s vision of what ought to characterize this new people called into joint
participation in God’s son, the Lord Jesus Christ (1:9). This participation in the gospel anticipates Paul’s call in 11:1 to imitate him as he imitates Christ in that his life has become a model of the gospel of the cross.
Paul appears to press the ethical implications of the cross especially upon those in
Corinth with higher status and greater social capital.116
Scholars have observed that in equivalent to the following statements in vv. 32-33 to cause no offense and to seek the salvation of all.
114
Here I follow Mitchell, Reconciliation, 56, 130-38, 243-50; Martin, Body, 52; Martin,
Slavery, 68-80; Hays, First Corinthians, 146-49; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 607-12,
661-63, 698-99; Eriksson, Traditions, 146-47, 152, 157, in viewing 1 Cor 9 as a
rhetorically integrated example supporting the argument of 1 Cor 8-10.
115
The NRSV’s “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings” obscures that the sharing is a joint participation in the gospel, or perhaps even in Christ. In either case, it is an echo of 1 Cor 1:9, where Paul has so characterized the goal of their
calling into Christ; cf. pp. 155-56, above; Thiselton, First Corinthians, 707.
116
Paul spends 1 Cor 8 citing and correcting the position of the “strong.” His exemplum
8:1-11:1 Paul primarily engages the position of the strong.117
It is they who are called to modify their social and eating habits, not the weak. It is for the sake of the socially weak that the socially strong are to limit themselves. The social costs of this self-limitation may have been significant. Social historians concur that society in Roman Corinth was built
on a hierarchical network of patron-client relationships and groupings.118
This social
matrix was maintained in part by meals, celebrations, and reciprocal hospitality.119
Curbing one’s license for meat consumption was a public statement of loyalty to and solidarity with one’s brothers and sisters in Christ over one’s civic social network. And such a commitment to the church may have entailed substantial social and financial costs.120
Here we see Paul expecting the believers to prioritize the unity and well being of the church over other important social networks. In this, they are to demonstrate
commitment to their fellow believers in ways reserved solely for ancient family
members.121
9:19-23, he pairs freedom with enslavement (v. 19), Jews and those under the law with those without the law (vv. 20-21), and then concludes asserting that he becomes weak (v. 22) but does not pair it with becoming strong. This intimates that his main point is to call the strong to become weak for the sake of the weak. This view is supported by Hays,
First Corinthians, 154, who, along with Theissen, Social Setting, 125, notes that Paul did
not merely become “as the weak” (the w9j that is applied to the other labels is missing in
v. 22 regarding the “weak”) but he became weak (cf. 1 Cor 4:10). Cf. Martin, Slavery,
118-24. The restrictions and warnings of 1 Cor 10 apply primarily to the strong who had more social obligations involving meals with meat.
117
Theissen, Social Setting, 137-38; Horrell, Social Ethos, 142-50; Martin, Slavery, 121-
24, 144; Meeks, First Urban, 98-99. Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 107-113,
attempts in vain to dismiss Theissen’s analysis of the Corinthian dispute according to status differential within the church. Meggitt is forced to discount the connection between “the weak” in 8:7, 11, 12 and Paul’s thematization of “the weak” in 9:22, where he is clearly evoking social status. Cf. Theissen, “Social Conflicts,” 381-89, for his rebuttal to Meggitt’s dismissal of economic factors in 1 Cor 8-10.
118
MacMullen, Roman Social Relations; Chow, Patronage; Winter, After Paul, 184-94.
119
Theissen, Social Setting, 129-30.
120 Meeks, First Urban, 69; Horrell, Social Ethos, 105, 108-09; Theissen, Social Setting,
129-32.
121
Twice in this section, Paul anticipates the baptismal formula of 12:13 showing that this ethos of familial unity, deference and self-sacrificial love is the social praxis that the formula supports. The reintroduction of ethnic and slave/free status in 9:19-20 to parallel the topic at hand, namely the weak (v. 22), recalls 7:17-24 where Paul used the same
examples to support his case regarding marriage.122
In both places the example
demonstrates that the perspective Paul is arguing applies equally well to other sources of social division.123
Then in 10:32-33 Paul reprises 9:19-23 in brief, mentioning only the ethnic categories to summarize his case for loving service in the cause of concord and the
advance of the gospel.124
These echoes of the baptismal formula cited in 12:13 fill out for us Paul’s vision of what the formula implied. Here in 1 Cor 9:19-23 and 10:32-33 the
ethnic example of Jew/Gentile (a1nomoj in 9:21; 73Ellhn in 10:32) buttresses Paul’s call
to maintain unity in diversity through forsaking one’s rights.125
In short, Paul presumes social diversity in the church, be it ethnic, cultural, or class (9:19-23) and he insists that the gospel requires unity maintained by the sacrificial love of those with greater social privilege. According to Paul, the cross brings them all together and the cross will keep them together.