1 cor 10.1-22 - do not be idolaters

7/28/2019 1 Cor 10.1-22 - Do Not Be Idolaters

1/15

"DO NOT 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 bringsup 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

1

N. Walter, "Christusglaube und Heidnische Religiositt in Paulinischen Gemeinden,"

JV75 25 (1979) 425 36


2/15

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 noticethat 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 struc

ture 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. 10:1-

13 Paul disputes the quasi magical conviction of the Corinthians, to

the effect that the sacraments work ex opere operato and make them invul

nerable 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 partici

pation in sacrificial meals as a form of idolatry.7

The obvious conclu

sion 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 tradi

tion, 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 andthe Rhetoric of

Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation ofthe Language andComposition of1 Corinthians

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 CK. 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


3/15

42 J. SMIT

the traditional terminology ofthe 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 com

posing a persuasive speech.11

The most important of these officia ora-

taris, 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 mate

rial 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 withGod. In 8:1-3 and 8:7-9:27 Paul argues at the social level. The princi

ple that "knowledge puffs up, but love builds up" (8:1), implies that the

Corinthians addressed should better renounce participation in sacrifi

cial 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 participa-


4/15

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 considered 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


5/15

44 J. SMIT

Vv. 6-10

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 relation

ship 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 forefa

thers, 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 warningstill 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 Walter, "Christusglaube," p. 431.

16 W. Bauer, Griechisch-deutsches Wrterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments unfrhchristlichen Literatur (6th ed.; ed. Aland and B. Aland; Berlin-NewYork: de Gruyter,

1988) l 1389 M th k h i h P l f h l


6/15

RHETORIC IN I COR. IO.I-22 4 5

unspoken, but unmistakable reverse of this encouragement is a last

warning to the Corinthians not to become, for their part, unfaithful toGod by participating in sacrificial meals. In that case, as did their fore

fathers, they will not have the strength to bear the trials and will com

pletely 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 otherso-called "lords".

For, verse 17 is not, as is generally accepted, a brief social excur

sus, but a theological statement. The threefold "one" does not regard

the mutual unity of the believers, but, brought about by their partak

ing 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


7/15

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 8:7-

9:27 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 andbody of the Christ, a communion which, at that, is exclusive.


8/15

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

meals.21

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


9/15

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, namelyw. 1-13 and 14-22. The reasoning arranges

each part into a similar, tripartite structure.

10:1-5 The theological significance of participation 10:14-17

in baptism and/or the Lord's Supper

10:6-10 The theological gnificance of participation 10:18-20

in pagan sacrificial meals

10:11-13 Participation in baptism and/or the 10:21-22

Lord's Supper excludes participation in

sacrificial meals. Believers lack the power

to combine the two.

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 inter

ested in the theology of the Lord's Supper for its own sake. He intro

duces baptism and the Lord's Supper in his exposition as a means to

exclude participation in sacrificial meals for believers


10/15

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: ) Thispart 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 sevenrhetorical 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 mentioned. Often one goes a step further and fully adapts the example to


11/15

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 deter

rent 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 com

mon, theological level thus obtained, he then creates the required antithe

sis 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 antith

esis 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 con

ferred upon all members of his people (w. 1-4). Then, without previ

ous 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 rhtoriq

(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,


12/15

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 mettheir horrid end because they broke faith with God by taking part in

pagan sacrificial meals.33

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 commu-

nicatio (v. 15), by which he submits his assertions to the judgment of

his public. T o 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 similar, but opposite realities. In view of this he first mentions the cup,


13/15

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 themantithetically over against each other as "the table o f the Lord" and

"the table of demons."36

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 ofIsrael, which

has taken part in pagan sacrificial meals (cf. 10:6-10). This time, bymeans 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

3 6

This analogy is noticed in particular by Klauck, Herrenmahl, p. 262; 1. Korintherbrief

pp. 75-76.


14/15

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 markthe 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 10:14-

22 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.


15/15

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically 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 specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or coveredby your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding thecopyright 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 previouslypublished religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAScollection 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

1 cor 10.1-22 - do not be idolaters

Documents