"DO N O T BE IDOLATERS" PAUL'S RHETORIC IN FIRST CORINTHIANS 10:1-22 by J. SMTT Utrecht Within Paul's extended discourse in 1 Cor.

8:1-11:1 "On the idol offerings" ( ) the passage 1 Cor. 10:1-22 is gener ally recognised as a separate section. Scholars unanimously agree that, in this passage, Paul condemns pagan sacrificial meals as idolatry and for that reason urges the believers in Corinth not to participate in such public meals (cf. 1 Cor. 10:7,14). On closer examination it proves to be a hard task to fathom the coherence of this passage. Scholars wrestle, in particular, with four problems. (1) The question as to which perspective Paul approaches his sub ject from gives rise to widely divergent answers. The choice is between the horizontal, social, ecclesiological perspective or the vertical, theo logical one. One author argues, that this is a strictly theological dis cussion on idolatry.1 The majority of commentators agrees, but regards verse 17 as an exception. In their opinion, in that verse Paul brings up for discussion the unity of the Christian community, a social fact strangely interrupting his otherwise theological argumentation.2 Some authors wholly disagree convinced as they are that, in this passage, Paul exhorts the divided Corinthians to^uphold their mutual unity and that his present argument is of an exclusively social nature.3

N. Walter, "Christusglaube und Heidnische Religiositt in Paulinischen Gemeinden," JV75 25 (1979), pp. 425-36. 2 J. Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief (MeyerK; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910), pp. 258-59; C. Wolff, Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korintker. Zweiter Teil Auslegung der Kapitel 8-16 (ThKNT, VII/2; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1982), pp. 51-54; H J . Klauck, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum erst Korintherbrief (NTA NF, 15; 2. Auflage; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1986), p. 264; G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 469; W. Schrge, Der erste Brief an die Korinther. ^weiter Teilband: 1 Kor. 6,12-11,16 (KEK VII/2; Solothurn und Dsseldorf: Benziger Verlag; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), pp. 431, 440-42. 3 W.L. Willis, Idol Meat in Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (SBLDS, EJ. Brill, Leiden, 1997 Novum Testamentum XXXDC, 1

RHETORIC IN I COR. I0:i-22

41

(2) As to the logic of Paul's argumentation there is no clarity either. On this point commentators turn a blind eye. Many of them notice that in 1 Cor. 10:14-22 Paul posits the Lord's Supper and pagan sacrificial meals antithetically over against each other, so that they are mutually exclusive.4 No one, however, closely examines the logical structure of his argument. Besides, nowhere is the question posed as to which reasoning Paul employs in 10:1-13, although in w . 1-4 and 6-10 he distinctly frames an antithesis similar to the one in 10:14-22. (3) The function of baptism and the Lord's Supper in this passage, is estimated variously. Many authors hold the view that in 1 Cor. 10:113 Paul disputes the quasi magical conviction of the Corinthians, to the effect that the sacraments work ex opere operato and make them invulnerable for the dangers participation in sacrificial meals brings.5 Only a few dissidents reject this interpretation because it is anachronistic and finds little support in the text.6 With regard to 1 Cor. 10:14-22 it is regularly noticed that participation in the Lord's Supper is not Paul's main subject matter, but that he puts this to use in rejecting participation in sacrificial meals as a form of idolatry.7 The obvious conclusion that this insight also holds for 1 Cor. 10:1-13, is hardly ever drawn.8 (4) The extent to which Paul in this passage is dependent on tradition, is a matter of dispute. All experts are convinced that in 1 Cor. 10:1-13 Paul uses a traditional, biblical pattern. Some go a step further and hold that he includes a pre-existing homily.9 The case of 1 Cor. 10:16 is somewhat similar. Everyone is convinced that here Paul uses

68; Chico: Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 196-219; M.M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (HUT, 28; Tbingen: Mohr, 1991), pp. 138-42, 250-56. 4 Weiss, Kormtherbrief, p. 256; H.D. Wendland, Die Briefe an die Korinther (NTD, 7; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), p. 82; Fee, First Corinthians, p. 465; Schrge, 1. Korinther: 2. Teilband, pp. 429-31. 5 C K . Barrett, A Commentary on the first Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York, Harper & Row, 1968), pp. 220, 224; Wolff, 1. Korinther, p. 39; H.J. Klauck, 1. Kormtherbrief; 2. Kormtherbrief (Leipzig: St. Benno Verlag, 1986), pp. 73-74; Fee, First Corinthians, p. 443; Schrge, 1. Korinther: 2. Teilband, pp. 381, 385, 396. 6 Ch. Perrot, "Les exemples du dsert (1 Co. 10:6-11)," NTS 29 (1983), p. 445; Willis, Idol Meat, p. 141, but see also p. 160; Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, pp. 251-52. 7 Walter, "Christusglaube," pp. 431-32; Fee, First Corinthians, p. 465; Schrge, /. Korinther: 2. Teilband, p. 431. 8 Willis (Idol Meat, p. 141) is the exception. 9 W.A. Meeks, "'And rose up to play': Midrash and Paraenesis in 1 Corinthians 10:1-22," JSNT 16 (1982), pp. 64-78; G.D. Collier, "'That we might not crave evil': The structure and argument of 1 Corinthians 10:1-13," JSNT 55 (1994), pp. 55-75.

42

J. SMIT

the traditional terminology of the Lord's Supper. Some go a step further and hold that he quotes an established and accepted liturgical formula.10 The objective of this article is to prove that 1 Cor. 10:1-22 forms a distinct and coherent round of argument within Paul's exposition on idol offerings, which comprises 1 Cor. 8:1-11:1. In order to reach this goal I use the method of rhetorical analysis. In the presentation of my findings I shall follow the tasks which the rhetor has to fulfil in composing a persuasive speech.11 The most important of these officia orataris, as distinguished by the classical handbooks, are: analysing the different aspects of the question and determining the right approach (intellectio); collecting appropriate arguments (irwentio); arranging the material into a clear and persuasive discourse {dispostilo); chosing the proper tone and bringing into play effective figures of style (ebcutio). Following this pattern I shall show the manner in which Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-22 acquits himself of his duties as a rhetor.
I. Paul's Approach to the Problem

As I have shown in two previous articles,12 in 1 Cor. 8:1-10:22 Paul discusses the question as to whether believers in Corinth should continue their participation in pagan sacrificial meals which form an integral part of the social and political life of the city. For the sake of a lucid treatment of this question he distinguishes two aspects: the social aspect, i.e., the effect participation in such meals has on fellow believers, and the theological aspect, i.e., the effect it has on the relationship with God. In 8:1-3 and 8:7-9:27 Paul argues at the social level. The principle that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (8:1), implies that the Corinthians addressed should better renounce participation in sacrificial meals because of their "weak brethren." In 8:4-6 and 10:1-22 he argues at the theological level. The principle that "there certainly are many so-called gods and lords, but for us only one God and one Lord" (8:5-6), implies that the Corinthians should discontinue their participaWillis, Idol Meat, p. 196; H.J. Klauck, "Eucharistie und Kirchengemeinschaft bei Paulus," in Gemeinde, Amt, Sakrament: Neutestamentliche Perspektive (Wrzburg: Echter Verlag, 1989), p. 333. 11 Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 3.3; H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik: Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft (2nd ed.; 2 vols.; Mnchen: Hueber, 1973), par. 255. 12 J.F.M. Smit, "1 Corinthians 8:1-6: A Rhetorical Partitio: A Contribution to the Coherence of 1 Cor. 8,1-11,1," in R. Bieringer (ed.), The Corinthian Correspondence (BETL, 125; Leuven: Peeters-University Press, 1996), pp. 577-591; "The Rhetorical Disposition of First Corinthians 8:7-9:27," CBQ, forthcoming. In my opinion 1 Cor. 8:1-6 forms a partitio, in which Paul briefly sums up the division of his ensuing discourse.
10

RHETORIC IN I COR. 1-22

43

don in temple meeds of other so-called gods and lords because of their exclusive allegiance to the one God and the one Lord. It is my con sidered opinion that in 1 Cor. 10:1-22 Paul exclusively deals with the theological side of the case. In order to confirm this unusual view the following survey shows that, in this passage, Paul does not pay atten tion to the mutual relationship between the believers, but wholly focusses on their relationship with God. Vv. 1-5 "I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers" is a standard formula, which Paul normally uses to emphasise what follows or to begin a new section.13 In this case this formula, in my view, marks the point where he shifts the discussion from the social to the theological level. After dealing in the preceding part with the effect participation in sacrificial meals has on fellow believers, he now directs his attention to the effect it has on the relationship with God. The ensuing presentation of Israel's past mirrors the present of the Corinthian believers. In the events of the Exodus Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper can clearly be recognised. Paul's sketch of this dual reality exhibits some striking features. The puzzling but emphatic statement that "all were under the cloud," contains a reference to God, who takes the baptised under his wing.14 The threefold repetition of the adjective "spiritual" and the identification of the rock as "the Christ" also demand an explanation. The series: "spiritual food," "spiritual drink," "spiritual rock," and "the Christ" indicates that the Spirit unites all participants in the Lord's Supper with the Christ. Actually Paul has the believers' theological position in mind. Through their baptism and participation in the Lord's Supper they are united with God, the Spirit, and the Christ. The emphatic mention that all were baptised and that all enjoyed the same food and drink, should not be taken in a social, but in a the ological sense. All believers, without exception, are united with the Father, the Spirit, and the Christ. This prepares for the dramatic change in verse 5, to the effect that God, for all that, was not pleased with most of them.
Cf. Rom. 1:13; 11:25; 1 Cor. 12:1; 2 Cor. 1:8; 1 Thess. 4:13. See Schrge, 7 Korinther: 2. Teilband, p. 387, nn. 26, 27. 14 Cf. Num. 14:14; Ps. 105:39; Neh. 9:12. In this sense also T. Baarda, "1 Corinthe 10,1-13: een schets," GTT 76 (1967), pp. 5-6. For the many opinions on this point see Fee, First Corinthians, pp. 445-46.
13

44 Vv. 6-10

J. SMIT

As a warning for the present, in these verses Paul describes how the forefathers broke their relationship with God by lusting evil things, i.e., by taking part in pagan sacrificial meals. Four times does he make note of this selfsame breach.15 By carefully varying his negative evaluation he places this passage antithetically over against the preceding one. First of all, Paul stamps participation in sacrificial meals as idolatry, a violation of the relationship with the one God. Next, he calls it "harlotry," since the prophet Hosea a standard metaphor for idolatry.16 As can be seen from 1 Cor. 6:16-17, for Paul this denomination has a specific connotation. It implies a violation of the Spirit, which unites believers with the Christ. The following "testing the Christ" means, that participation in sacrificial meals violates the relationship with Christ. The concluding "grumbling" is directed against the leader, appointed by God,Moses (v. 2), Paul, who protests against participation in sacrificial meals.17 In this manner, by means of the disastrous example of the forefathers, Paul warns the believers in Corinth not to partake in sacrificial meals. For thereby they, to their detriment, break the relationship with God, the Spirit, and the Christ, which forms the essence of their life as Christians. Vv. 11-13 To conclude this part of his argument, Paul intensifies the warning still more by confronting the Corinthians with the dangerous situation in which they ire. The end of the ages has come, full of risks and superhuman trials. Central position is given to an encouraging reminder of God's faithfulness: He will help them to bear the hard trials. The
15 16

Walter, "Christusglaube," p. 431. W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen Literatur (6th ed.; ed. Aland and B. Aland; Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 1988), col. 1389, s.v. . Most authors take the view that Paul refers here to real sexual debaucheries. Just a few hold that, in this case, Paul uses "harlotry" in a metaphor ical sense and actually repeats his appeal not to commit idolatry; so for instance F. Hahn, "Teilhabe am Heil und Gefahr des Abfalls: Eine Auslegung von 1 Ko. 10,1 22," in L. de Lorenzi (ed.), Freedom and Ztfi>; The Guide for Christian Life (1 Co. 8-10; Rm. 14-15) (Monografie Series of "Benedictina," Biblical-Ecumenical Section 6; Rome: Abtei von St. Paul vor den Mauern, 1981), p. 161; Klauck, Herrenmahl, 256; Walter, "Christusglaube," p. 431, n. 44. 17 This interpretation is often found. See Fee, First Corinthians, p. 458; Schrge, / . Korinther: 2. Teilband, p. 402.

RHETORIC IN I COR. IO.I-22

45

unspoken, but unmistakable reverse of this encouragement is a last warning to the Corinthians not to become, for their part, unfaithful to God by participating in sacrificial meals. In that case, as did their forefathers, they will not have the strength to bear the trials and will completely succumb to them.18 Vv. 14-17 With "therefore" (cf. 8:13) and the new address "my beloved," Paul begins the second part of his argument. The exhortation: "Flee from idolatry" indicates that also this part has a theological character. In verse 16 Paul states that believers who take part in the Lord's Supper are in communion with the blood and body of the Christ. So they enter into a very close relationship with their Lord. To this in verse 17 is added that this relationship is exclusive. All participants in the Lord's Supper, without exception, enter into an alliance with the one Lord and may not enter into additional relationships with other so-called "lords". For, verse 17 is not, as is generally accepted, a brief social excursus, but a theological statement. The threefold "one" does not regard the mutual unity of the believers, but, brought about by their partaking in the one loaf, their exclusive relationship with the one Lord Jesus Christ, who shares in the unicity of God. Four indications corroborate this interpretation, (a) Given the mention of "idolatry" in verse 14, this meaning is the more obvious of the two. (b) In 8:4-6, where Paul states the principle he elaborates on in 10:1-22, he defines "one" in this sense. Over against the many so-called gods and lords, for us, the believers, there is only one God, the Father and one Lord, Jesus Christ, (c) Only this meaning of "one" is in accordance with verse 16. (d) The assertion, that the relationship of the believers with their Lord has an exclusive

18 The explanation commentators give of these rambling verses, is most laborious and overloaded with theological issues, such as eschatology, typology, sacramentalism and theodicy. See Weiss, Kormtherbrief, pp. 254-56; Fee, First Corinthians, pp. 458-62; Schrge, Korinther: 2. Teilband, pp. 403-12. The double focus of this encouragement, which at the same time is a threatening warning, is rarely noticed. Willis (Idol Meat, p. 159) regards these as alternatives and remarks: "As to the question whether this is a com fort or continued warning no certain answer can be given." I. Broer ("'Darum. Wer da meint zu stehen, der sehe zu, dass er nicht falle': 1 Kor. 10,12f. im Kontext von 1 Kor. 10,1-13," in H. Merklein [ed.], Neues Testament und Ethik [Festschrift R. Schnacken burg; Freiburg im Breisgau, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1989], p. 325) seems to combine both meanings.

46

J. SMIT

character, forms, as we shall see, a necessary link in the logic Paul develops here.19 Vv. 18-20 In this unit Paul argues that participation in sacrificial meals brings about communion with demons. Vv. 21-22 By way of conclusion Paul asserts that participation in the Lord's Supper rules out participation in the cup and table of demons, i.e., in public sacrificial meals. This survey legitimates the conclusion that in 1 Cor. 10:1-22 Paul deals with the question of which effect participation in pagan sacrificial meals has on the believers' relationship with the one God and the one Lord. He does not argue here at the social level, as he does in 8:79:27 but this time he sets up a strictly theological discussion.20
. Argumentation and Deposition

In 1 Cor. 10:1-22 Paul intends to prove that, for believers, partici pation in pagan sacrificial meals is excluded on theological grounds. O n behalf of his argumentation he introduces two data, presenting them in accordance with this objective. From the still recent, Christian tradition Paul adduces the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper. His presentation exposes the theolog ical implications of these rites. In 10:1-4 he shows, by means of the example of "our forefathers," that by their baptism and their partici pation in the Lord's Supper the believers are united with God, the Spirit, and the Christ. In 10:16-17 he demonstrates, that by taking part in the Lord's Supper they enter into communion with the blood and body of the Christ, a communion which, at that, is exclusive.
All authors interpret verse 17 in a social, ecclesiological sense; see notes 2 and 3 of this article. To my knowledge, the only exception is Walter, "Christusglaube," pp. 432-33. 20 This interpretation is diametrically opposed to that of M M . Mitchell (Paul and the Rhetoric of Recondliation, pp. 138-142 and 251-56). In her view, in 1 Cor. 10:1-22, as in the entire letter, Paul focusses on "the unity of the church." "Factionalism" and "social unity" form the real issue of Paul's discussion on the idol offerings. In my view, it is she who introduces this issue into this passage by means of quotations from Josephus, Philo, and Dio Chrysostom.
19

RHETORIC IN I GOR. ICKI-22

47

From the Jewish, biblical tradition Paul adduces the example of Israel's passage through the sea and its wanderings through the desert, as written in the Torah. For this occasion he selects from this story particularly the incidents in which Israel took part in pagan sacrificial 21 meals. Also his presentation of these incidents is restricted to their theological implications. In 10:6-10 he gives first place to Israel's par ticipation in pagan sacrificial meals as told in Exod. 32 and Num. 25. This participation he succeedingly condemns as idolatry, "harlotry", testing Christ, and grumbling. In 10:18-20 he appeals to the same facts. "Israel according to the flesh" refers to the people, previously men tioned in w . 6-10, who took part in pagan sacrificial meals.22 Mention ing of the altar (v. 18) reminds one of the exemplary incident of Exod. 32:5-6, which Paul has already quoted in v. 7.23 In accordance with the principle stated in 1 Cor. 8:4-6, he precisely discerns in this case the theological purport of such participation.24 It should not be con sidered as idolatry in the strictest sense (v. 19), but it does imply com munion with demons (v. 20).25 By means of these well-defined, theological data Paul frames a rea soning which has the form of a disjunctive syllogism, as can be seen from the following logical scheme. To prove: not Believers cannot participate in pagan sacrificial meals.
21 Meeks ("'And rose up to play,'" pp. 68-69) regards the quotation from Exod. 32:6 in verse 7 as the centre of the text. His view is preferable to that of Collier ("'That we might not crave evil,'" pp. 63-64) who regards the allusion to Num. 11:4,34 in verse 6 as the main point of this passage. 22 I adopt this interpretation from Schrge, / . Korinther: 2. Teilband, pp. 442-43. 23 Exod. 32:5-6 LXX reads: "When Aaron saw this he built an altar in front of it, and Aaron proclaimed: Tomorrow a feast to the Lord. And early the next day he offered holocausts and brought a salvation offering and the people sat down to eat and drink and got up to play." 24 The verses 18-20 exhibit a clear logic in' three steps. (1) Participants in sacrificial meals enter into communion with the sacrificial altar. Paul reaches this conclusion from Exod. 32:5-6. The correspondence between and corroborates the legitimacy of this proposition. In this case "altar" is a metonymia for the deity involved. By means of a distinctio Paul elucidates the theological purport of this relatively neutral proposition. (2) This does not imply that participants in sacrificial meals eat idol offerings and thereby enter into communion with idols. For, as stated previously in 8:4-5, idols in the proper sense of the word do not exist. (3) This does imply, however, that par ticipants in sacrificial meals eat demon offerings and thereby enter into communion with demons. The many so-called gods and lords of 8:5 are here identified as demons. 25 Verse 20a contains an almost literal quotation from Deut 32:17 LXX: "They sacrificed to demons and not to God." Presumably this is an allusion to the sacrifices to the golden bull in Exod. 32. In several places in the Septuagint pagan gods are called demons: Ps. 95:5; 105:37; Isa. 65:3,11; Bar. 4:7.

48

j . SMrr

Prease: A or Participation in baptism and the Lord's Supper, which unites the participants with the one God and the one Lord (4) is antithetically opposed to participation in pagan sacrificial meals, which unites the participants with idols, i.e., demons. (B) Premise: A Believers do participate in baptism and the Lord's Supper. Conclusion: not So believers cannot participate in pagan sacrificial meals. From this argumentation results a clear disposition. Paul twice elabo rates his reasoning in 1 Cor. 10:1-22. The repetition divides this pas sage into two parts, namely w. 1-13 and 14-22. The reasoning arranges each part into a similar, tripartite structure. 10:1-5 10:6-10 10:11-13 The theological significance of participation in baptism and/or the Lord's Supper The theological gnificance of participation in pagan sacrificial meals Participation in baptism and/or the Lord's Supper excludes participation in sacrificial meals. Believers lack the power to combine the two. 10:14-17 10:18-20 10:21-22

It is apparent from Paul's argumentation that his discussion of baptism and the Lord's Supper is not an end in itself, but plays a supportive role. H e does not dispute a quasi magical view of the sacraments, which the addressees in Corinth are supposed to foster, neither is he interested in the theology of the Lord's Supper for its own sake. He introduces baptism and the Lord's Supper in his exposition as a means to exclude participation in sacrificial meals for believers. Moreover, the mention of the unicity of God in verse 17 apparently forms a necessary part of the logic. Within Hellenistic religion people freely participate in sacrificial meals of several deities. An exclusive relationship with one of them is unknown. Alternation is the general and undisputed practice.26 With regard to the believers in Corinth, who are

Walter, "Christusglaube," pp. 429-430.

RHETORIC IN I GOR. 0-22

49

used to this practice, Paul has to state explicitly that participation in the Lord's Supper, bringing one into communion with the one God and the one Lord, is per se exclusive. . The Ehcution The elocution of the two parts of 1 Cor. 10:1-22 exhibits some strik ing differences. In 10:1-13 the example of "our fathers" plays an impor tant role (w. 1,6,11). Two extended synthetical parallelisms are conspicuous: w . 1-4 (anaphora: ) and 7-11 (anaphora: ) This part is explicitly qualified as a warning (v. 11). In 10:14-22, the sec ond part, Paul discusses two meals: the Lord's Supper and pagan sacrificial meals. He particularly highlights the food and drink, fre quently referring to them by way of metonimia: cup, table. He adopts the tone of sensible consultation (v. 15) and gives this part the form of a communication a figure of style to the effect that the speaker asks the audience for its opinion.27 In this context he poses no less than seven rhetorical questions. I shall now elaborate on these observations in a more specific treatment.

1. Example Paul joins an established tradition in employing, as a warning exam ple, Israel's adventures during the passage through the sea and the desert. So much is apparent from texts such as Ps. 78; Ps. 106; Deut. 32:1-43; Neh. 9:9-20. As we shall see, his presentation of this story is completely adapted to the actual rhetorical situation. For that reason, in my opinion, it is out of the question that he should have used a pre-existing homily.28 An exemplum usually consists of an event from the past. According to rhetorical theory of this past event, those features in particular which correspond with the question envisaged in the present, should be men tioned. Often one goes a step further and fully adapts the example to present reality. The result, then, is a dual form, which unites past and present in one.29 Here, with Paul, this is obviously the case. He selects, rearranges, and actualises the biblical events in such a manner that the
27 H.F. Plett, Einfuhrung in die rhetorische Textanalyse (4. Auflage; Hamburg: H. Buske Verlag, 1979), p. 64; Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, par. 779. 28 Contra Meeks, "'And rose up to play,'" p. 65; Collier, "'That we might not crave evil/" pp. 73-74. 29 Quintilian, Institutio Oratorio, 5.11.6; Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, parr.

50

J. SMIT

adventures of the forefathers exactly coincide with the actual situation of the believers in Corinth.30 The Israelites are "our fathers." They represent believers who through baptism and the Lord's Supper are united with God, the Spirit, and the Christ (w. 1-4). They also form a deterrent for those believers who desire to participate in pagan sacrificial meals, for that is idolatry, "harlotry," testing Christ, and grumbling against the leaders, which will be severely punished (w. 6-10).31 The presentation of this example is also thoroughly adapted to the disjunctive syllogism Paul develops here. In order to make comparison possible, he reduces all events to their theological meaning. At the common, theological level thus obtained, he then creates the required antithesis by mentioning only the positive side of the events in w . 1-4 and solely the negative of those in w . 6-10.32 With regard to this antithesis the synthetical parallelism has a clear function. This form binds together first the positive events of w . 1-4 and then, in their turn, the negative ones of w . 6-10. In this manner this figure of style arranges the many events into one, single contrast. 2. The pragmatics of 1 Cor. 10:1-13 Paul explicitly states that this part of his discourse is intended to warn the addressees (v. 11). For that purpose he follows the strategy of determent. First of all Paul amply elaborates on the many benefits God has conferred upon all members of his people (w. 1-4). Then, without previous notice nor stating the cause, he suddenly surprises his public by the alarming announcement that "God was not pleased with most of

410-26; Ch. Perelman, L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, Trait de l'argumentation: la nouvelle rhtorique (Bruxelles: Editions de l'Universit de Bruxelles, 1988), pp. 508-12. 30 This is clearly noticed by Schrge (/. Korinther: 2. Teilband, p. 383) in respect of w . 1-4 and by Fee (First Corinthians, pp. 451, 453) with regard to w . 7-10. 31 An enumeration of the most important stories from the Torah which Paul adduces, clearly shows the high degree to which he selects and transposes this material: Exod. 13:21 (the cloud); Exod. 14:22,29 (the passage through the sea); Exod. 16:4,35 (bread from heaven); Exod. 17:6, cf. Num. 20:8,11 (water from the rock); Exod. 32:6 (sacrificial meal for the golden bull); Num. 25:1-5,9 ("harlotry" with Baal-Peor); Num. 21:4-6 (protest punished with deadly snakes); Num. 16:41,49, cf. Wisdom 18:25 (grumbling punished with a plague). 32 Illustrative for the first series is the presentation of the revolt at Massa and Meriba (Exod. 17:1-7; Num. 20:2-13) in verse 4. In Paul's text nothing reminds one of the fact that on this occasion the people grumble against God and put Him to the test. Illustrative for the second series is the presentation of the incident with the poisonous snakes (Num. 21:4-9) in verse 9. In Paul's account the saving bronze snake is simply not mentioned.

RHETORIC IN I COR. .* 1-22

51

them, for they were laid low in the desert" (v. 5). Subsequently, he amplifies this disaster by distinguishing four groups of people who met their horrid end because they broke faith with God by taking part in 33 pagan sacrificial meals. He takes each of these groups separately, impressing them upon his public as a deterrent: "Do not be idolaters, as some of them were"; "Let us not commit fornication, as some of them did"; "Let us not test Christ, as some of them did"; "Do not grumble, as some of them did" (w. 6-10). Finally, Paul strengthens this warning even more by reminding his public, that the end of the ages has come, a time in which they are in imminent danger of falling, for superhuman trials will assail them (w. 11-13a). The promise that God is faithful at the same time implicidy warns the addressees not, on their part, to be unfaithful to God, because without his help they will cer tainly not be strong enough to bear the imminent trials (v. 13b). 3. The Lord's Supper Comparison with 1 Cor. 11:23-27 clearly shows that in 10:16-17,21 Paul discusses the Lord's Supper in traditional terms. However, his presentation of this meal apparendy is also to a large extent adapted to the actual rhetorical situation. For that reason it is most improb able that here Paul should quote, almost to the letter, an independent eucharistie tradition.34 Paul does not explicidy announce that he brings the Lord's Supper up for discussion (cf. 1 Cor. 11:20). In order to make this known to the addressees he gives first place to the specific ritual acts by which this meal can be recognised: the cup that we bless; the bread that we break; the one loaf (w. 16-17).35 He sets this passage up as a communicatio (v. 15), by which he submits his assertions to the judgment of his public. To that end he formulates verse 16,as a question. The disjunctive syllogism which Paul develops in this passage requires that he presents the Lord's Supper and pagan sacrificial meals as sim ilar, but opposite realities. In view of this he first mentions the cup, which is communion with the blood of Christ, suggesting thereby that the Lord's Supper is similar to a sacrificial meal (w. 16,21). For the
33 The amplifying figure of style Paul applies here, is called distributio. See Plett, Einfhrung, pp. 44-45. 34 Contra Klauck, "Eucharistie," pp. 332-33. 35 In my view, as Klauck ("Eucharistie," pp. 334-35) suggests, verse 17 indeed supposes that during the Lord's Supper in Corinth one single loaf was divided among the participants. Wolff (I. Korinther, p. 54) considers this unlikely.

52

J. SMIT

same reason he leaves aside, in verse 21, the fact that both meals offer different food, viz., the one bread and the other meat, and places them antithetically over against each other as "the table of the Lord" and 36 "the table of demons." However, Paul's most important move in this respect is that he reduces to the same denominator the contrary rela tionships brought about by the two meals: participation in the Lord's Supper as communion () with the blood and body of Christ is diametrically opposed to participation in sacrificial meals as commu nion () with demons (w. 16-17,18-20). 4. The pragmatics of 1 Cor. 10:14-22 With the address "My beloved"37 Paul renews and confirms the good understanding between himself and the Corinthian believers. The remark: "I speak to you as sensible people. Judge for yourselves what I say"38 announces that he is going to engage in sensible consultation with them and will submit his arguments to their judgment (w. 14-15). In the first place Paul then appeals to the experience of the Lord's Supper, which he and his public have in common. By means of the interrogative form he elicits their approval for the opinion that partic ipation in this meal brings with it communion with the blood and body of the Christ, a communion which, at that, is exclusive (w. 16-17). Next, he once more confronts them with the example of Israel, which has taken part in pagan sacrificial meals (cf. 10:6-10). This time, by means of a distinctb, he explains exactly that demons are involved in those sacrifices. His prohibition of participation in such meals is also clothed in the best intentions by saying: "I do not want you to enter into communion with demons" (w. LS-20). Finally, Paul appeals to the social intelligence of the addressees. Terms as "be able" (), "strong" () (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26-30), and
This analogy is noticed in particular by Klauck, Herrenmahl, p. 262; 1. Korintherbrief pp. 75-76. 37 Paul sparingly uses the address "beloved": Rom. 12:19; 1 Cor. 10:14; 15:58; 2 Cor. 7:1; 12:19; Phil. 2:12; 4:1. 38 introduces the quality of the adresses which is relevant in the present context. See Bauer, Wrterbuch, s.v. HI. Given Paul's ironic use of in Rom. 11:25; 12:16; 1 Cor. 4:10; 2 Cor. 11:19 it is a matter of dispute whether also in this case he uses the term in an ironical manner. Schrge (1. Korinther: 2. Teilband, p. 435, n. 314) gives a survey of the opinions and concludes that a critical undertone cannot be ruled out. Fee (First Corinthians, pp. 464-65) thinks this to be less likely. In addition he very pointedly observes that Paul does not allow the Corinthians full freedom to judge: "They are to judge for themselves that Paul is right." In my view, the pragmatics of w . 1422 wholly rule out irony.
36

RHETORIC IN I GOR. I0:i-22

53

"Lord" () have social connotations. Meals entail obligations. Within the patronage-system lower class clients cannot take the liberty to accept, besides the invitation of their Lord, also the invitation of his opponents of lower rank.39 The last two questions: "Or are we to provoke the Lord? Are we stronger than he is?" expect the answer "Of course not" and mark the end. It goes without saying that Paul and the Corinthians, with whom he consults, as sensible people know their place and stick to the rules of the prevailing social system (w. 21-22).
Conclusion

Herewith the goal of this article has been attained. I hope to have demonstrated that 1 Cor. 10:1-22 forms a distinct and coherent round of argument within Paul's discussion of the idol offerings. More in par ticular, my research results in the following, four conclusions, (a) In 1 Cor. 10:1-22 Paul consequently approaches the question of partici pation in pagan sacrificial meals from a strictly theological perspective. (b) Paul's argumentation consists of a disjunctive syllogism, which he twice elaborates in a similar manner. This repetition arranges this pas sage into a clear bipartite structure, (c) In 10:1-13 as well as in 10:1422 Paul adduces baptism and/or the Lord's Supper in order to exclude participation in pagan sacrificial meals, (d) Paul does determine the lit erary design of this passage. The manner in which he presents the example of Israel and the Lord's Supper, is completely adapted to his argumentative and rhetorical strategy. The final conclusion is that in this passage Paul expertly performs his duties as a rhetor.

39 For an analysis of meals in this sense, see J.H. Neyrey, "Ceremonies in Luke-Acts: The case of meals and table fellowship," in J.H. Neyrey (ed.), The Social World of LukeActs: ModeL for Interpretation (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), pp. 361-87.

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.