Issues of Conscience
Image
The Bible describes with clarity many responsibilities of believers in the contexts of government and society. Still in some areas believers are not given specific instructions, and instead must rely on applying general biblical principles to contemporary challenges. For example, Paul mandates without compromise that the Roman believers should pay the taxes required of them (Rom. 13:7), but when it comes to eating meat sacrificed to idols, Paul gives the Corinthians options (1 Cor. 8-10).
Pagan temples in first-century Corinth often included animal sacrifice. Even beyond the temples themselves, the marketplace was well represented with meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Consequently, the issue of whether a believer should eat such meat became an iconic cultural problem for the Corinthian church. Each era and context presents its own unique challenges. Every culture encounters, From time to time, moral issues so complex as to defy simple solutions. Still, in each and every instance, despite any level of complexity, these challenges can be answered appropriately by biblical principles. But before one can correctly apply a general principle to a specific situation, the person must understand the principle. Paul’s instruction to the Corinthians is helpful, as he explains the principles and their grounding so that the believers at Corinth could apply them well, and in so doing could maintain clear consciences.
Paul recognizes that even though the meat issue was a cultural hot potato, essentially it really wasn’t a significant issue at all. Because there is no God but one (1 Cor. 8:4), and because through Christ all things have their existence (1 Cor. 8:6), Paul and the Corinthians could have certain knowledge that at its core, the sacrificed meat issue was no issue at all. Food would not commend them to God (1 Cor. 8:8). Nonetheless, Paul warns against pride, contrasting it with edification (1 Cor. 8:1). The moral issue in play was not about an essential wrongness of eating sacrificed meat. There simply was no essential wrongness. Rather, the issue to which the Corinthian believers needed to be attentive was that of edifying or building up brothers in Christ (1 Cor. 8:1, 9-13). Paul provides and illustrates in 1 Corinthians 10:23-32 several principles to that end.
First, “All things are lawful (or possible), but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 10:23). All things that are not restricted are permitted. Where there is no regulation given in Scripture, there is freedom for the believer. This is one reason Paul wants the Corinthians to “learn not to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). To place a heavier yoke on people than the Bible places on people results in pride—which is a tremendously destructive form of idolatry. Not only does pride tear down rather than build up, but ultimately, it is in conflict with God’s doxological purpose (His purpose of glorifying Himself—or expressing His own character).
Second, “All things are lawful (or possible), but not all things edify” (1 Cor. 10:23). The Greek term (sumphero) translated here as profitable means to bring together, and the term translated edify (oikodomeo) means to house-build, or build up. The second term explains the scope of the first. In other words, what is profitable or bringing together is that which house-builds or builds up. In this context, what is profitable for believers is that which builds up.
Third, “Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor” (1 Cor. 10:24). The word good is not in the Greek text, rather it has been added by the translators to help clarify the meaning of the passage. I think the passage is better translated without the word (“Let no one seek his own, but that of his neighbor”), because it causes the reader to ask, ‘Let no one seek his own what?’ Rather than assuming the good without realizing its specific definition in this context, the reader should be drawn to the word edify. This is not referencing general good, as in saying we may not pursue good for ourselves, rather it is referencing specific good in terms of building up. Paul speaks in universal terms of all believers (“Let no one…”), and mandates that we should seek the building up of our neighbor. As Paul references the concept of building up elsewhere (e.g., 2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10; Eph. 4:12, 16), it is evident he is speaking in terms of spiritual growth.
We should be attentive to the spiritual needs of others, basing our decisions, where we have freedom, not on our own growth but on the growth of others. Paul restates this in 1 Corinthains 10:33, noting that he seeks not his own profit (sumphoron), but the profit of many. There are obviously many specific biblical directions regarding how we are to attend to our own spiritual growth, so we are certainly not to ignore our own spiritual growth and building up. But in cases where we have options, we should look for the benefit of others.
Next, Paul illustrates in 1 Corinthians 10:25-30 the above three principles in action, applying them to the specific situation at hand. Eat and don’t ask questions—it doesn’t matter if the meat is sacrificed or not. The earth is the Lord’s and all it contains (10:26)—all things belong to Him, even if an item has been misappropriated by one to whom it had been given. Further, even when interacting with unbelievers, there is still no issue. Only when it is made an issue by someone perceiving that there is an issue (10:28), the believer should act in consideration of that person. In other words, the believer—seeking the good of the other, rather than the good of his own—should be sensitive and attentive to the (spiritual, in this context) needs of others.
Finally, Paul announces the highest order principle: “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). His words here accomplish two important purposes. First, by adding the phrase “or whatever you do,” he shows that the principles he is discussing are relevant for every area of life and not just for the occasion at hand. Believers are not at liberty to compartmentalize areas of our lives—employing one set of principles for our spiritual endeavors and a whole different set for our societal and political ones. Paul shows us here that all of our actions are to be governed by the same principles. Secondly—and most importantly—he reminds the reader of the ultimate purpose for every action in the believer’s life: God’s glory. The glory of God is God’s purpose, and it is to be ours as well. If our thoughts, words and deeds do not pass the doxological test, then they need to be changed.
We should seek not what is permissible, but what is profitable. What is profitable is that which builds up. That which builds up others rather than ourselves, on issues of conscience, is the focus of these principles. These principles are applicable not just to what we eat, but to every area of life. In every area of life our divinely mandated goal is to glorify God.
Where the Bible offers no specific direction, it still answers every situation we can possibly encounter, bidding us to apply these principles comprehensively and faithfully. If we are diligent to that end, we will not lack for confidence or be burdened with uncertainty in discerning whether or not our actions are appropriate for the occasion.
Christopher Cone Bio
Christopher Cone (ThD, PhD) is the President of Tyndale Theological Seminary and Biblical Institute, pastor of Tyndale Bible Church and author and editor of several books.
- 44 views
How about some honesty in the discussion:
- The total abstinence position is US-centric and recent
- Many people drink … many don’t do it to “get buzzed”. It’s a preference.
- The majority Christian position is not “total abstinence”
- A drink with a meal or drinking in moderation really is not toxic and really doesn’t “alter the brain” (as Brumbulow continues to insist)
- The majority fundy position is really about enforcing one’s values upon others.
- Total absintence is not clearly presented at all in either testament. That’s why it is still a debatable issue
- Total abstintence is not core doctrine - not even close
- For any mature Christian who “stumbles” at another drinking - you probably are not as mature as you think. The consitent position if that offends you is to completely eschew any restaurant or establishment that sells or serves alcholic beverages - including most non-fast food restaurants and most grocery stores
- I personally know Christians who drink in moderation and are very careful to not serve wine at table or provide beer at any hospitality event in their home where they perceive anyone would be offended (eg my sister in law who has a sister who is a recovering alcoholic)
Jim,
I am sure you remember the CT article posted a few days ago where the author who works for a Christian magazine essentially argued that is why she and nearly all of her colleagues drank alcohol. Non-alcoholic wines and beers exist today, but they are not that popular. Alcohol itself does not taste very good, though I am sure people can develop a taste for it much like they develop a taste for cigarettes. Since I was practically raised in bars as a kid and went to hundreds of drinking events growing up, I have seen enough to convince me that the predominant motivation for drinkers is the varied inebriating effects that alcohol brings. I do not drink on account of a personal conviction that I formed as a young man. I personally saw alcohol destroy hundreds of people, their lives and careers, their homes, marriages, reputations, as well as people in my own immediate and extended family while growing up. Can one develop a taste for alcohol? Yes, perhaps so, but it is a taste that ususally has to be developed by repeated use. I personally spoke to an alcoholic teenager a week ago who has had six car accidents, two DUI’s, and a ruined life. She grew up in a Christain home, graduated from a Christian school, and then started drinking when she was 18 and quickly became an alcoholic. She told me she loved the taste of alcohol, so I guess it is possible to have mixed motives on the matter.
Pastor Mike Harding
Who said: “ I personally saw alcohol destroy hundreds of people, their lives and careers, their homes, marriages, reputations, as well as people in my own immediate and extended family while growing up.”
Response:
- I’m not sure if I’ve seen hundreds … but I’ve seen people who have destroyed their lives with drink … so we are on the same page there.
- About anecdotes .. “the young Christian woman who took the first drink .. et cetera” - Ted Williams … (well then you have Micky Mantel and “the Babe” who were well-known drunks and managed to do Ok ..
- Everyone gets anecdotes … they are moralistic stories that serve as warnings. And they are valuable.
- I’m not arguing “drink!” - I am argueing that the tee-total position is not historic … it is not globally universal among believers … and it is not even settled doctrine among Christians (I mean Christians who really hold the Bible up as authoritative). (Mike … would you at least iteract with this bullet point)
- How is it that the tee-total positon has become so centric to fundamentlist thought?! There’s a lot of bad things in the world (among even those who call themselves fundamentalists): Eg obesity … driving fast (how many stories have I heard about young adultts driving at 80 mph to get home for the holidays from Bible college!) … how is it that that we allowed the prohibiiton movedment to meld with the gospel?! Or the Republican party for that matter? Or anti-union sentiment
By the way … I really hope that when you preach against drinking that you maximize the exegesis and minimize the anecdotes.
I just don’t see prohibition taught clearly at all. While the tee-totaller positon is noble I don’t see it as Biblically taught
For Mike (not denying your story!)
For the Peet (father’s side) - Hayward (mother’s side) … virtually all adults in my family line drank (many are deceased) or drink. At family reunions beer was readily present. Ditto weddings and other events. I can’t say I ever saw anyone drunk and there are no alcholiics in my family. Religion: Methodists, Presbyterians, & some (limited) Baptists
My in-laws: my wife’s siblings (all drink … most Catholics … no drunkenness or alcholism). My sister and her family - Lutherans & Methodists: All drink: wine, mixed drinks, beer … no alcoholics or issues with drunkeness.
Summary: My extended family views drunkenness as shameful, does not abuse alcohol, and drinks in moderation. There are some Christians in there too.
–— Update - just remembered this ––-
One of the grandsons of a cousin had an issue (as a teen) with sniffing gas(oline). No one in our family advocated giving up gas powered vehicles!
[Don Johnson]…I think Don is right on this, though perhaps Dr. Cone just didn’t choose to emphasize the other points. The points he does bring out are certainly there in the Text.I think the original article largely misses the point of 1 Cor 8-10, but I don’t have time to really deal with it. Briefly, Paul is prohibiting what he describes in 1 Cor 8, eating meat in the idol’s temple. He does this for three reasons: the weakness of the brother (ch 8), the worth of the gospel (ch 9), and the wickedness of the heart (ch 10). When you get to the conclusion of the argument, he absolutely prohibits the activity: 1 Cor 10.14-22. He wants them to flee from idolatry.
…
Interestingly, even though I think Don is right, he and I won’t agree on what that means for the overall discussion.
Paul starts talking about convictions of conscience back in ch 6. He uses lots of examples to explain how we should think about convictions. Chapters 8 and 10, the subject of this article, deal with the example of eating idol-meat.
Jim gave us four view of alcohol. In the way, Paul gave us some views of idol-meat: Idol-Meat-Total-Abstainer, Idol-Meat-Total-Partaker.
We meet the Partaker in ch. 8. Note that he is really a total partaker. He even sits in the idol temple itselft and eats what is offered (1Co8:9-10). We also get to see his reasoning: The prohibition is against involvement or worship of “false gods.” But ~nobody thinks of these idols as real - they are not really false gods and we are not worshipping them. Therefore, the “No False Gods” law doesn’t apply. Finally, we should note the words that Paul uses for the Partaker: “with knowledge” - this knowledge that the partaker has is the reasoning I just gave for why the “No False Gods” law doesn’t apply (vv. 4-6). The partaker is also ‘strong’ - or at least his counterpart is “weak” in conscience (v. 7).
We also meet the Abstainer in ch. 8. He does not have the same knowledge as the Partaker. Instead, he is convicted that idol-meat, eaten in the temple of the idol, amounts to exactly the type of thing that “No False Gods” prohibits. And come on, we have to admit that the Abstainer has a pretty good argument here. I mean, if the “No False Gods” This calls into question what it means that the Partaker has “knowledge.” This is often interpreted that the Partaker is smarter, or more knowledgable about how to follow God in the New Covenant. But look at ch. 10:1. As Don pointed out, in 1Co10:1-21 Paul is going to give us the full reasoning of the Abstainer. Note how Paul begins this section: “Οὐ θέλω δὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν ἀδελφοί” (“Not-I want you to be without knowledge, brothers”). The table is now turned and it is the Partaker who needs knowledge - knowledge that the Abstainer is going to give him. And note how this section ends: “οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων” (“Not-strong you are to drink Lord’s cup and to drink demon’s cup”). Now the Partaker has to see that maybe he isn’t as ‘strong’ as he thought he was.
This is the point where Don Johnson and I differ: I still see the partaker as “strong” in the sense that if he still feels “able” to eat in good conscience without feeling that he is honoring a false God, then Paul says he may still go into the temple and eat. (He still must take care not to encourage his “weak” brother to eat and fall into sin.) Don sees this as a series of arguments that all contribute to Paul’s final verdict on idol-meat-in-temples: It’s sin. The problem I have with Don’s view is that in chapter 8 and similarly in Romans 14, the “strong” brother is the Partaker. For me, the “strong” is nothing more or less then the one with the conscience that is “able” to do something. The Greek word for strength and ability is the same. It may be the abilty to marry, drink wine, eat idol-meat, eat-street-bought-idol-meat, treat days alike, accept money for spritual work, or anything. And in both 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 (15:1), Paul at least rhetorically associates himself with the “strong.”
So, in summary, my comment on Dr. Cone’s paper is that he does a wonderful job of highlighting the importance of guarding the “weak” brother by not encouraging him to do what his conscience is unable to do. And he brings up a great point when he says that 1Co10:31 widens the scope of these issues to anything and everthing that we do. Even though we feel free to do something, we should always be willing to re-examine and ask if our conscience is really clear and we should continue to do it.
There is a very significant concept that Dr. Cone doesn’t mention: Paul’s encouragement in this passage for the development of convicitons. Sure, the weak can’t eat and the strong can. But Paul makes a very forceful argument in 1Cor10:1-21 that the reader should take the conviction of the “weak” and avoid idol-meat in the temple. That idea (encouraging convicitons, even though it’s “weakness”) is also in Romans 14-15 and it doesn’t get enough emphasis.
[Dan Miller]This is the point where Don Johnson and I differ: I still see the partaker as “strong” in the sense that if he still feels “able” to eat in good conscience without feeling that he is honoring a false God, then Paul says he may still go into the temple and eat. (He still must take care not to encourage his “weak” brother to eat and fall into sin.) Don sees this as a series of arguments that all contribute to Paul’s final verdict on idol-meat-in-temples: It’s sin. The problem I have with Don’s view is that in chapter 8 and similarly in Romans 14, the “strong” brother is the Partaker. For me, the “strong” is nothing more or less then the one with the conscience that is “able” to do something. The Greek word for strength and ability is the same. It may be the abilty to marry, drink wine, eat idol-meat, eat-street-bought-idol-meat, treat days alike, accept money for spritual work, or anything. And in both 1 Cor 8 and Romans 14 (15:1), Paul at least rhetorically associates himself with the “strong.”
Dan, you are right, I see this as a unified argument, not two (or three) separate arguments. I see Paul as building his case towards his conclusion. I also see chapter 9 as part of the argument. The three chapters offer three reasons for coming to the final conclusion, don’t eat the idol meat in the idol temple. Notice the concluding statements in each subsection: 1 Cor 8.13, 1 Cor 9.23, 1 Cor 9.26-27, and then finally the concluding section of 1 Cor 10 as mentioned above.
The issue is not simply eating the meat, per se, as Paul offers the two concessions at the end of ch. 10 showing how either strong or weak believers may be permitted to consume it. But when it is clearly identifiable as idol meat, especially by actually sitting down in the idol’s temple to eat it, then the prohibition is absolute. Every chapter. He says, “don’t eat it” each time.
I also don’t see 1 Cor 8 as being parallel at all with Romans 14. The issue in 1 Cor 8 is very specific, Rm 14 is talking about being a vegetarian vs. a carnivore (I vote carnivore!!!), and the keeping of days (possibly the Lord’s day) in one way or another. The idolatry connection is not in view in Rm 14. The only similarity is the terms, strong and weak, but I think the meaning of the terms is quite different in each passage.
~~~
To touch on the alcohol point, I think the phrase “drinking for the buzz” probably confuses the issue somewhat. Some people mean being “slightly drunk” by the term “buzz” while others probably mean this: a feeling that comes from alcohol consumption. Most people I have talked to about this issue say that they drink because alcohol makes them feel relaxed. They are drinking for the effect. They may not be drunk (though the definition of drunkenness is fairly elastic, depends on who is talking), but they are drinking for the feeling they get. I can’t think of one person I have discussed this with where this isn’t so.
I’m not really trying to debate the issue (it does get old after a while), but I think the discussion here is going along typical lines and this is one point where opposing sides seem to be talking past one another.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Don,
First, I uncharactaristically sincerely appreciate your last comment and find it very helpful.
Can you go into detail about why you think Romans 14 doesn’t have idolatry in view even in inference and cultural context, and why you think it’s merely about vegitariansim, since its also about observence of Sabbaths and feast days.
Shayne
[Don Johnson]…
The issue is not simply eating the meat, per se, as Paul offers the two concessions at the end of ch. 10 showing how either strong or weak believers may be permitted to consume it. But when it is clearly identifiable as idol meat, especially by actually sitting down in the idol’s temple to eat it, then the prohibition is absolute. Every chapter. He says, “don’t eat it” each time.
I also don’t see 1 Cor 8 as being parallel at all with Romans 14. …
Excellent assessment. One of the great disservices we do to the passages of I Cor. 8-10 in referencing the meat issue is ignoring its initial presentation as an absolute prohibition given by the elders at the Jerusalem council as they were specifically led by the Holy Spirit in the prohibition—“…For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that ye abstain from meats offered to idols…(Acts 15:28-29)”—a prohibition re-affirmed upon Paul’s return to Jerusalem in Acts 21:25 some 2 years after his letter to Corinth. Furthermore, Jesus Christ Himself upheld the prohibition in His scathing reprimand of the churches of Pergamos and Thyatira in Rev. 2:14 & 20.
It is absolutely inconceivable that Paul, present at the conference and chosen messenger (letter carrier) of the original prohibition, would countermand himself in any way (and under inspiration) with the Corinthians only to re-join the rest of the elders in their assessment upon his return to Jerusalem.
Lee
[Shaynus]Don,
First, I uncharactaristically sincerely appreciate your last comment and find it very helpful.
Can you go into detail about why you think Romans 14 doesn’t have idolatry in view even in inference and cultural context, and why you think it’s merely about vegitariansim, since its also about observence of Sabbaths and feast days.
Shayne
If you don’t mind I’m gonna jump in here, not speaking for Don, of course.
There are 2 meat issues presented in Acts—chap 10 (the change concerning clean and unclean meats); chap 15 ( meat offered to idols). There is no record of communication of the “new” truth of Acts 10 beyond Jerusalem in any organized manner to ensure that all churches were on the same page. That mistake was not repeated with the prohibitions of Acts 15 as immediate steps to communicate the prohibitions thoroughly and efficiently were undertaken by the council.
I Cor. 6-10 is the clarification and application of Acts 15. Aptly, it was given to Corinth, a city where the idolatry of Aphrodite had permeated every aspect of society so much that basic commerce (“…sold in the shambles…”) and customs (“…bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go…”) were tainted by its practice.
Rom. 14 is the clarification and application of Acts 10. There is every indication that the church of Rome, though considered a Gentile church, had a very strong Jewish influence. The constant influx of Gentile believers from across the Roman empire into the church of Rome practicing the perceived liberty of eating all meats (clean or unclean) and not observing the holy days according to Jewish law/custom would provide the perfect backdrop for clarifying the truth that would afford unity to the church of Jesus Christ regardless of cultural influence.
Lee
[Shaynus] Can you go into detail about why you think Romans 14 doesn’t have idolatry in view even in inference and cultural context, and why you think it’s merely about vegitariansim, since its also about observence of Sabbaths and feast days.
NAU Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him.
I have to say I like Lee’s answer, but a few more details…
The issue here is whether or not to eat meat at all. In 1 Cor 10, it was whether to eat meat offered to idols. Two different questions entirely.
NAU Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.
It is possible that the issue is feast days, but not necessarily so. It could be simply the idea of a “Christian Sabbath,” i.e. Sunday observances. The language of the chapter doesn’t seem to me to demand that the issue be Jewish feast days. I realize that I am probably in the minority in that opinion, but I am trying to not say more than the text says.
NAU Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
This is another difference between Rm 14 and 1Cor 8-10 … In Rm 14, the issue is “regarding your brother with contempt.” In 1 Cor 8-10, the issue is “eating meat offered to idols”. Two different issues, two different solutions.
I hope that helps some.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Don Johnson]…Right - Don has sent me his notes on 1 Cor 8-10 in the past. Don’s view is interesting to me in that he honors the argument against temple-idol-meat that runs through this passage.Dan, you are right, I see this as a unified argument, not two (or three) separate arguments. I see Paul as building his case towards his conclusion.
…
But when it is clearly identifiable as idol meat, especially by actually sitting down in the idol’s temple to eat it, then the prohibition is absolute. Every chapter. He says, “don’t eat it” each time.
My quesiton for Don is: What about the fact that the one with “knowledge” is the temple-idol-meat partaker and the one with a “weak” conscience is the temple-idol-meat abstainer? Is knowledge not a good thing? Why would Paul call the guy he thinks is right “weak”?
[Don Johnson]…I also don’t see 1 Cor 8 as being parallel at all with Romans 14…later…
Is there a limit to what we can substitute for “meat”? Music? Movies? White flour and sugar? Beards? Clothing styles? I’ve heard them all.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean]Is there a limit to what we can substitute for “meat”? Music? Movies? White flour and sugar? Beards? Clothing styles? I’ve heard them all.
The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.
[Dan Miller]Right - Don has sent me his notes on 1 Cor 8-10 in the past. Don’s view is interesting to me in that he honors the argument against temple-idol-meat that runs through this passage.
Wow, my memory fades. Memory loss is a sign of something, but I forget what. I should say that my view of the passage is bolstered by Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible and by Gordon Fee’s commentary on 1 Corinthians. (Constable relies on Fee a good deal also.)
[Dan Miller] My quesiton for Don is: What about the fact that the one with “knowledge” is the temple-idol-meat partaker and the one with a “weak” conscience is the temple-idol-meat abstainer? Is knowledge not a good thing? Why would Paul call the guy he thinks is right “weak”?
I believe that part of the problem in understanding the passage is the connotations in English of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’. We think of strong as noble, high, informed, courageous, and weak as doubtful, wavering, unflattering, unattractive. But that is not how the words are used by Paul in 1 Corinthians, or, indeed, in Romans. They refer to the conscience of the believer. The strong-conscience believer is not troubled by any scruples about the item in question, the weak-conscience believer is sensitive to the matter and is stricken by pangs of conscience when put in a situation where he might likely violate it.
Neither strong nor weak = more or less spiritual. In fact, I think the weak in 1 Cor are more spiritual and the strong in Romans are more spiritual, because of the differing issues in question.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Ron Bean]Is there a limit to what we can substitute for “meat”? Music? Movies? White flour and sugar? Beards? Clothing styles? I’ve heard them all.
Maybe not a limit but definite parameters.
In I Cor. the meat is associated with idolatry that is identifiable and which defines/permeates a culture at every level. In Corinth it was the worship of Aphrodite; Ephesus worshipped Diana; etc. The meat issue was two-fold involving objects (meat/temple) and actions (sit at meat). Regarding this idolatry even at the very fringe practice of meat offered the conclusion was clear—“Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils (I Cor. 10:21).”
Every culture and society is different and their idolatries are different. Therefore, the periphery of that idolatry that has permeated the identity and practice of that culture/society even to the level of basic commerce and custom will be different. Identify the idolatry/idols and you can determine the meat issues. Observation: in scripture public nakedness/lewdness is almost always indicative of idolatry, first pictured in Ex. 32.
Rom. 14, on the other hand, is not referencing idolatry at all. The issue there is limited to nouns—meat, days, etc.—and not actions. It is referencing items of which there has been a definitive change of status. The weak are those that are struggling with believing that this status has actually changed. “Him that is weak in [belief] receive…For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.” It is not a spiritual weakness presented here but an application weakness. It is exactly the reaction that Peter had when the initial change of status was given him in Acts 10. And it is completely understandable—2000 years of inspired Scripture stating that certain meats were forbidden and certain days were holy. This is the parameter for “meat” in Rom. 14.
Lee
Discussion