"What do I imply then?" - connecting 1 Cor 8 and 10

Dan: This first point I’m making is that in 8:9-10 Paul wrote about a knowledge-based “right” to eat in the temple.

Don: the point I am making is that in 8:9-10, Paul writes about a knowledge-based “right” to eat idol meat in (pretty much) any context

I think in the end, we would probably draw similar applications from these passages.

I also should note that I have previously argued for Dan’s point, but I am tentatively disagreeing here, as I look closely at the text.

the Didache citations show that the early church got this much of the message: don’t eat idol meat at all (I think that was Paul’s position).

However, I wonder if they were able to go beyond applying this merely to idol meat? It would be fascinating to sift through the fathers and see if they apply 1Cor 8-10 to other topics besides idol meat. I don’t really have time to do that right now, but maybe worth pursuing in the future. (Tyler??)

For my part, I think there are actions/objects that are relatively neutral in themselves, but through connection with evil/worldly objects or practices, are really out of bounds for Christians.

Maybe others would miss it though. Fun with numbers!

[Dan Miller]

I know this question is still out there:

Don Johnson wrote:

…

Otherwise, to get back to your question, what is the concession actually about? Is it eating meat in the idol’s temple or is it eating idol-meat itself? Is he contradicting himself in v[ch?] . 10?

But first, what are we disagreeing about? Let me step through ch.8 (tell me where you disagree):

Vv 1-7 describe an argument for the right to eat idol-meat, but do not specify location being argued for.

Correct

[Dan Miller] The argument (especially the premise that an idol is nothing) is referred to as “knowledge.”

Correct

[Dan Miller]

v. 9 refers to “this right,” which refers to the right to eat idol-meat in an as yet unspecified location.

Correct - mostly. It is the right to eat idol meat without respect to location. Meat is just meat.

[Dan Miller]

v. 9 teaches that the exercise of “this right” is a danger to brothers.

Not quite. It can be a danger to brothers.

[Dan Miller]

v. 10 provides an example of the aforementioned dangerous eating.

No. Verse 10 provides a reason (“For”) why eating idol meat can be a danger to brothers. It’s not the only way it can be dangerous to others, see chapter 10. But it is offered as a reason to prove a danger exists. I am not convinced they were actually doing this. It is offered as an extreme example to show that associations do matter even though meat is just meat. It is offered, perhaps, because it is a reason the strong would agree with. They would agree, no, we can’t eat it in the idol temple. That would be wrong. Paul explains why it would be wrong.

From there Paul goes to declaring that he would give up ALL meat entirely if he knew that the eating of it was dangerous to others.

So the point is that eating idol meat is in principle fine, but because of the danger to brothers, it is better to give it up. In Chapter 10, he goes further. He makes some final concessions in chapter 10 about situations where the source of the meat is known. If the source is known, don’t do it. If it isn’t known, don’t ask.

[Dan Miller]

I agree that the church (leaders) have found it easier to ban categories rather than parse the various permutations within them. And the church has also found it tough to allow individuals to think for themselves, train their own consciences and follow them.

But I don’t agree that Paul is taking that easiest route here.

I agree. I don’t think that Paul is taking this route. I think he’s still banning by circumstance rather than in general, but he does want the strong to really be careful of the weak, and use their consciences rightly, which would mean the strong would be willing to give up buying and eating idol meat (and even where it’s eaten) when they know it will affect a weak person’s conscience, and that it may be more often than the strong would think. However, the complexities of this issue (and I agree with Jay that this has been a profitable discussion between you and Don) are such that most organizations are not interested in trying to work through all of this (or at least believe that there are way more important things needing attention that will take the available time), and thus a blanket ban becomes the easiest option for them.

I much prefer taking time to try to understand these things fully. But perhaps that works better for individuals than trying to do this with a large organization.

The strong could be thinking, I have a right to eat meat because an idol is nothing, and I don’t have to worry about where I eat or who sees me eat. Paul says, that’s not true, and then picks out the most egregious example to hopefully get agreement with the strong that their right to eat meat is not all encompassing.

[Dan Miller] But Andy, I think you’re agreeing with me. When you say, “The strong … thinking, I have a right to eat … and I don’t have to worry about where…,” you are making the position of the strong to be temple-eating is ok. That’s what I am saying.

Maybe we should just stop here if we both agree. :)

Yeah, Paul is obviously correcting the view point of the strong. What about what Paul believes is their right? Does Paul think it is OK or their right, in chapter 8, for them to eat meat in the temple because an idol is nothing, whether or not the weak sees them or not? I would say no. I think he is working to correct a sloppy expression of the strong’s ability to eat meat (their right) without consideration for others or where they are eating it. There are several considerations at play:

1. How does it impact others?

2. How might it impact you?

3. The reality of the demonic influence behind the temple sacrifices, even if an idol is just a block of wood

1. It has a high probability of derailing the discussion
2. For many abstainers it is NEVER considered neutral, as idol meat obviously is in some contexts according to this passage

i think you are misinterpreting Andy just as you are Paul, but I’ll let Andy speak for himself.

I don’t think the strong were struggling at all. They had no problem eating idol meat. The weak, however, did. They had scruples and were scandalized by the strong. Paul says this isn’t just hurt feelings, it is a violation of their conscience, and for them to eat of it would be tantamount to falling back into idolatry.

so v. 10 is offered as a hypothetical, an example of something the strong can agree would surely violate the conscience of the weak, as well as something they wouldn’t do themselves. He uses the example to show how the strong, acting on their knowledge, could lead the weak astray.

Those who claimed that idols were really nothing, and that food offered to idols was no different from ordinary food, might easily persuade themselves that they could eat at an occasion when the meal had been dedicated to the idol. This might be a civic or political occasion that would be inconvenient to avoid; see the introduction to this chapter, above. (Not that Paul actually approves this extreme; but he will save his main objection until later, in 10:21–23.)
In such a case, a weak brother (that is, the one with the weak conscience, v. 7) may see him and conclude that if that is acceptable Christian practice then the (more ordinary) eating of food sacrificed to idols must surely be permitted to a Christian. Thus he is “emboldened” (Greek oikodomeo, same word as usually translated edify) to eat the food

this is from the Randall House commentary on 1 Cor, I don’t have the author handy… Working from my iPad.

i don’t think you can assert conclusively that the strong were actually eating at the idol temple. V. 10 is a conditional statement.

[Dan Miller] My position is that while Paul did acknowledge their “right” to eat in the temple (again, I like “somewhat concessive”), Paul does NOT think that is OK.

I have a hard time with the idea that Paul would acknowledge a “right” to eat meat in the temple in chapter 8 and then deny the “right” in chapter 10.

I think it is easier and doesn’t introduce a contradiction in Paul, if the “right” is restricted to eating meat, not expanded to eating meat in the temple.

[Dan Miller] Yeah, ok. But I do have an explanation for the apparent contradiction. Paul isn’t contradicting himself.

I don’t think you have posted your solution, yet, have you?

[Dan Miller]

To explain why I’m objecting:

If I say, “Don, you’ve made a lot of claims and I get why you’re making them. But you need to be careful with these things you are claiming. For if other pastors read you claiming that you are the greatest pastor in North America, they will be jealous.”

—> You’re going to say, “I never claimed that!”

Nah, I’d say they would be wrong! (heh heh)

[Dan Miller] And still you haven’t addressed:

2) Clearly 1Cor 10:1-22 is a long argument that culminates in a prohibition of eating and drinking in the temple. Why would Paul think that such an argument is necessary if he believed no one was eating there?

No, Paul is prohibiting eating idol meat in any circumstance where it is publicly known to be idol meat. That’s why the clarifications in vv. 23-33 are given.

I’ve been following the thread, even though I’m not completely sure any more who has what position. :)

The question I want to ask is this: If a person buys meat that they know for certain has been offered to an idol, but they go home and eat it in private with the knowledge that an idol is nothing, have they sinned by eating meat that they know has been offered?

[Kevin Miller]

I’ve been following the thread, even though I’m not completely sure any more who has what position.

The question I want to ask is this: If a person buys meat that they know for certain has been offered to an idol, but they go home and eat it in private with the knowledge that an idol is nothing, have they sinned by eating meat that they know has been offered?

I think yes, when you consider what Paul says in 1 Cor 10, “I will not have you in fellowship with devils” (paraphrasing)

the concession he makes is buying meat in the shambles (marketplace) that may be idol meat (or may likely be idol meat) and no one publicizes the idol connection, then there is no problem in eating the meat

The question I want to ask is this: If a person buys meat that they know for certain has been offered to an idol, but they go home and eat it in private with the knowledge that an idol is nothing, have they sinned by eating meat that they know has been offered?

I would argue that it is not a sin for a believer to purchase idol meat and consume it privately on the basis of ch. 8:1-6. We should also note that Paul changes his argument in 8:7 and specifically talks about protecting the “weaker brother”, who may never be able to move beyond the fact that the meat was offered to an idol, and then about the rights that he voluntarily set aside so that he does not offend someone unnecessarily.

Speaking for myself, this evening I plan to consume meat from a burger place and I couldn’t care less who it was offered to …

[Dan Miller]

Don, I think you’re avoidng the Text for some reason.

Don Johnson wrote:

Dan Miller wrote:

To explain why I’m objecting:

If I say, “Don, you’ve made a lot of claims and I get why you’re making them. But you need to be careful with these things you are claiming. For if other pastors read you claiming that you are the greatest pastor in North America, they will be jealous.”

—> You’re going to say, “I never claimed that!”

Nah, I’d say they would be wrong! (heh heh)

I’m trying to make an explanation for why it makes the most sense for Paul to be giving an example to explain the danger that is in the category of the warning in v.9. You seem to side step it.

Don Johnson wrote:

Dan Miller wrote:
And still you haven’t addressed:

2) Clearly 1Cor 10:1-22 is a long argument that culminates in a prohibition of eating and drinking in the temple. Why would Paul think that such an argument is necessary if he believed no one was eating there?

No, Paul is prohibiting eating idol meat in any circumstance where it is publicly known to be idol meat. That’s why the clarifications in vv. 23-33 are given.

But at the very least, sitting at the table is the most prominent part of Paul’s conclusions to his 1Cor 10:1-22 polemic. So my point still stands that in Paul’s mind, eating in the temple was something he had to argue against.

Dan, you’re just trying to keep this going!

in 1 Cor 10.25, he is talking about eating the meat outside the idol’s temple (it is sold in the market) - he says just don’t ask questions as to source.

in 1 Cor 10.27-28, he is talking about eating meat in a private home - if it was eating it in the temple, it would obviously be idol meat.

Paul’s ultimate point is that if it is known to be idol meat, then refrain.

His concession in chapter 8 is that the problem isn’t with the meat. The meat itself is fine. The problem is when it is known to be idol meat.

Idol meat: Think very carefully before settling in a course of action.

Idle meat: Eat it. Now.

Questions:

• If this fake meat were offered to idols, could a believer safely eat it?
• If the pagan THOUGHT he was offering real meat to false gods, but it was actually fake meat, is it a dead issue … ?
• Or, is the fake meat such an abomination that it’s inherently unclean already?
• If that be the case, how does Acts 10 apply to the fake meat? Or, does it?
• If my conscience won’t let me eat Burger King because it was cooked on grills manufactured by pagans motivated by the idol of capitalism, is this binding on Christians who like Burger King?
• Are they obligated to accommodate to me, the weaker brother?
• If meat offered to idols sits idle, is it still tainted by the idol if it’s been idle?
• If I don’t know the idol meat was tainted by an idol, but simply ate it because it was idle, does the idol still apply?

[Craig Toliver]

I can’t really argue with you. It has most certainly been offered to the idol of political correctness. Not to mention, markets that make a point of selling that are certainly temples of that same religion…

Or, is the fake meat such an abomination that it’s inherently unclean already?

As someone with several food allergies, let me assure you that it IS such an abomination that it is inherently unclean. Fortunately the allergy to meat is not one of allergies I need to contend with.