Sin To Eat Meat Sacrificed to Idols?

[thistle93]

A few weeks ago at church we looked at Acts 15 and it seems that James in the Jerusalem Council took a hard line and absolutely forbids the eating of meat sacrificed to an idol. There are no ifs/ands or buts.
Yet Paul in 1 Corinthians and Romans seems to allow the eating of meat sacrificed to idols, except for in a case where it would bring offense to a brother/sister and cause them to stumble or if it goes against a persons conscience, they should abstain.

So should we interpret Acts 15 in light of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians and Romans or do you think there was difference of opinion among James and Paul? So that for James there was an absolute prohibition and the eating of the meat was a sin but for Paul there where circumstances that called for prohibition and the only sin was when done in a way that caused another to stumble or if against conscience.

So lets bring it to today. Does a Christian today sin if he/she eats food that has been dedicated or sacrificed to a false god? I believe this still happens in many parts of the world today.

For His Glory-
Matthew

 

[Contra_Mundum]

My thoughts are:
1) the texts should be harmonized; this is basic to biblical authority, it seems to me.
2) the texts should be examined chronologically; this is not hard--Act.15 is the first, followed by 1Cor. then Rom. Subsequent qualifying statements are as reasonable as various additional law produced in Moses.
3) it is erroneous to pit James against Paul; one may as well say that Holy Spirit contradicts himself.
4) that said, it is possible that the majority inclination among the Council was toward a blanket prohibition, which in fact takes the matter too far. The language of Act.15 can be read with or without nuance. The strong prohibition can be read in a way that is confined to "things that are clearly dedicated to support for idolatry."

5) one question that Paul addresses in 1Cor. is the matter of "what about things that may have been sacrificed to idols?" Are Christians supposed to trouble their consciences over where this meat may have been, before it was found in the meat-market? Paul says "no."

6) Paul does not endorse meals taken inside the idol temples. I have actually been inside ancient structures, which have antechambers designed for communal meals. The ancient world didn't do much in the way of restauranting. There were certainly highway houses. But "going out to eat" probably meant taking a meal in a temple. Since these were public halls, and since they had a surfeit of offerings, families might gather (some offerings were for/to ancestors; temples often were affiliated with crypts). Business or city-hall/govt. dinners might be held in such places. It may cost a Christian who decides he has to stay away from that place. It won't even look good if he goes for the get-together, but declines to participate in the substance of the gathering. And what happens to the weaker brother if he sees you eating there, or just assumes you ate (and he gets confused about what constitutes right-behavior)?

In 1Cor., Paul has to negotiate the issues of "strong vs. weak believers;" the teaching that idols are literally "nothing in the world," in conjunction with the need to shun idols; and the simple fact that idolatry was profoundly embedded in the whole culture. I'm convinced Paul taught the new church just as Act.15 said to, and that "idols are nothing in the world," and that "that which goes into a man does not defile him," as Jesus himself taught; and what we have in 1Cor are answers to an actual situation or two that arose out of some people overemphasizing one or another of those teachings (and not loving their brothers).

 

[MW]

The prohibitions in Acts 15 were constrained to where Moses was preached in the synagogues. That is, it was to avoid scandal before the Jews. It was not forbidden specifically because it was sinful in itself. Rather, it was forbidden because of other circumstances. In 1 Cor. 8-10, the apostle has shown an idol is nothing, and so eating food sacrificed to idols cannot be sinful in itself. He gives considerations why such meat should not be eaten in certain circumstances so as to avoid giving offence, 10:32. This is the same in substance with the decrees of the Council, only it is enlarged to take in the Gentiles and the church of God. The one thing explicitly forbidden as being sinful in itself is joining in communion at the altar of sacrifice.

 

[ZackF]

I think of inviting vegetarians over to a lamb roast with pork n beans on the side as the only things to eat....

In other words,, why give unnecessary offense?

 

[SRoper]

I [-]mostly[/-] agree with Rev. Buchanan. It is a mistake to say that Paul is easing the restriction--he is merely explaining how it should be carried out. Paul is making several points which includes:

1. Yes, idols are really nothing--you shouldn't fear them.
2. It is a sin to eat meat offered to idols.
3. You need not be so scrupulous as to avoid all meat because it might have been offered to idols. You don't even have to ask.
4. But if you are told of its origin, you should refrain.

[-]Where I would disagree is I see Paul forbidding eating at the temples. [/-]"You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

Revelation 2 comes after 1 Corinthians, so we shouldn't see prohibition of eating meat offered to idols being lessened with time.

A good paper on this is "The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols" by David Garland.

The thesis of this paper is that, contrary to a popular reading of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1, Paul forbade Christians from any association with any food overtly connected to idolatry. He understands the Christian confession of one God and one Lord to require exclusive loyalty so that even a token or make-believe show of fealty to an idol compromises the loyalty owed only to God and Christ. Some have regarded the chapters to be a patchwork of interpolations, while others misread Paul’s unequivocal rejection of anything explicitly connected to idols and assume that he made concessions and permitted supposedly innocuous, social dining in an idol’s shrine. Neither view is correct. Paul creatively adapts the foundational Jewish confession that God is one by adding “one Lord, Jesus Christ” (8:6). The upshot is that Christians may not consort with idols or even give the appearance that they do. Such restrictions were potentially onerous for converts since occasions for eating in connection with an idol or on the premises of an idol’s temple were numerous.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Where I would disagree is I see Paul forbidding eating at the temples. "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons."

Where is our disagreement?

6) Paul does not endorse meals taken inside the idol temples.

The point I made about the social-situation is exactly that the Christian is "cut out" of standard practice, which could result in loss of status or other trials--a cross that must be borne for the sake of Christ and witness.

 

[SRoper]

Rev. Buchanan, I apologize. I had initially read your point six as making a distinction between eating at an idolotrous feast at a pagan temple and eating an innocuous feast in the temple's dining hall. I see now that you merely explained why eating at a pagan temple was even an issue. The mistake is all mine.

 

[MW]

2. It is a sin to eat meat offered to idols.
3. You need not be so scrupulous as to avoid all meat because it might have been offered to idols. You don't even have to ask.

The word "sin" must mean something different in this context than its usual meaning. If something is a sin it is the individual's responsibility to condemn it as such and abstain from it. This makes it is his duty to ask.

 

[SRoper]

I understand that ignorance that something is a sin is not an excuse, but that's not what we are talking about. It appears that there are three components that are required for this particular form of idolatry. The meat must have been offered to an idol. The person must eat the meat. The person must have knowledge of the origin of the meat. If any of these conditions are not met, Paul does not condemn them of idolatry. If they are all met it is dining with demons, which, I think you agree, is sin.

 

[MW]

I understand that ignorance that something is a sin is not an excuse, but that's not what we are talking about. It appears that there are three components that are required for this particular form of idolatry. The meat must have been offered to an idol. The person must eat the meat. The person must have knowledge of the origin of the meat. If any of these conditions are not met, Paul does not condemn them of idolatry. If they are all met it is dining with demons, which, I think you agree, is sin.

If it is a sin in and of itself it remains sinful whether there is a lack of knowledge or not. I think your view borrows from the interpretation which states that the action is not sinful in itself, but only becomes sinful because of the special circumstances attending it. It is only on the basis of this interpretation that lack of knowledge could affect the quality of the action. If a person is unaware of the circumstances attending the action there is no sin because it is the circumstances which decide the issue.

 

[SRoper]

We may just be talking semantics. I am saying that the circumstances matter because eating meat is not sinful in itself. The churches mentioned in Revelation are rebuked for eating that which is offered to idols. I don't believe it is improper to say that this activity is sin. Paul fleshes out the contours of the prohibition.

It doesn't seem to me to be different than receiving stolen property. We can rightly say that receiving stolen property is a sin. We can then qualify that and say that you aren't culpable if you are ignorant of the provenance of what you buy. Nor is the implication that you must get a detailed history of whatever you buy or you shouldn't buy anything out of fear that it might be stolen. But certainly if you are aware that it is indeed stolen you should refrain from buying it.

 

[MW]

Eating meat sacrificed to idols is either a sin in itself or it becomes sin by means of special circumstances, e.g., offending conscience, stumbling a brother, causing scandal, etc. If it is the former, then one's lack of knowledge cannot make it less sinful or non sinful. It would be one's duty to inquire whether or not the meat was sacrificed to idols, especially when there was a distinct possibility that it could have been sacrificed to idols at Corinth at that time. Just as one has a responsibility to ensure the goods are not stolen before possessing them if there is a suspicion that they might have been stolen. It is only on the assumption that the sin is circumstantial that one is free to act without asking questions.

 

[MichaelNZ]

How would this apply to halal meat? The Muslim Allah is not the same as the Holy Trinity, so is eating halal meat forbidden?

Also, if the concept applies to any kind of food, then restaurants run by Hare Krishnas would be one of the main place where the general public in the West would come into contact with food offered to idols. The HKs cook their food entirely for the pleasure of their false god Krishna, then a small amount of each food item is placed before an altar and mantras are recited. According to their beliefs, the entire food becomes holy. Believers may therefore want to stay away from Hare Krishna run restaurants (often named 'Higher Taste', 'Govinda's' or 'Gopala's').

 

[whirlingmerc]

Living by faith includes living by faith regarding what you do in good conscience.
Rm 14:23 "But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."

in context

Rm 14 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. 4 Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master[a] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himsel

 

[earl40]

The prohibitions in Acts 15 were constrained to where Moses was preached in the synagogues. That is, it was to avoid scandal before the Jews. It was not forbidden specifically because it was sinful in itself. Rather, it was forbidden because of other circumstances. In 1 Cor. 8-10, the apostle has shown an idol is nothing, and so eating food sacrificed to idols cannot be sinful in itself. He gives considerations why such meat should not be eaten in certain circumstances so as to avoid giving offence, 10:32. This is the same in substance with the decrees of the Council, only it is enlarged to take in the Gentiles and the church of God. The one thing explicitly forbidden as being sinful in itself is joining in communion at the altar of sacrifice.

Would it be a sin if a Christian in Acts 15 to eat food sacrificed in the temple? I wonder because was not some meat sacrificed in the temple eaten after the sacrifice, and if so would it be not part of the OT commands? In other words, is the the prohibition of eating
food sacrificed to idols including food sacrificed in the synagogue as well as the pagan temples?

I ask because you wrote "the alter of sacrifice" and not "an alter of sacrifice". I understand the word "the" can be taken either way.