---

The interpretation of 1 Cor 8-10 as a coherent argument is complicated by several factors, most significantly the apparent contradictions in the text (primarily an issue within chapter 8) and the remarkable changes in Paul´s tone (primarily an issue with how 10:1-22 relates to 8:1-13 and 10:23-11:1). Trent A. Rogers argues that Paul consistently prohibits believers from eating y appealing first to their obligation to love other believers and then to their obligation of exclusive faithfulness to Christ. The approach of his analysis is to examine how the representation of God functions in Paul´s argument, especially in comparison to other Hellenistic Jewish polemics against idolatry. While this is an argument made about particular practices, it is an argument made on theological grounds, and these theological underpinnings have been largely unexplored until now.

---