Eat whatever is sold - 1 Cor 10:25-30

In the last idol-meat thread, Kevin asked:

Kevin Miller wrote:
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?

1 Corinthians 10:25-30 ESV

25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26 For “the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.” 27 If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— 29 I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?

1648 reads
Dan Miller's picture

This is not as easy as it first looks.

As we dig into 1 Cor 10:25-30, we find that Paul gave a careful discussion with attention to layers of immorality. Note v. 29:

I do not mean your conscience, but his.

The eating described in v.28 would be wrong. BUT - Paul is careful to explain that it would not be wrong for YOUR conscience. So something can be OK for my conscience, but I still find it immoral to eat because of the conscience of those with me. So even when you know it's idol meat, it still wouldn't be wrong for YOU. 

Why, then is it wrong to eat in front of this unbelieving host who has just told you dinner is offered to Asclepius(eg)? Because he is honoring Asclepius by choosing and offering you this meat. And to join him once you know that is to honor Asclepius with him in his mind, and to reinforce his faith in Asclepius.

So back to Kevin's question:

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 say that to be very precise, the buying of this meat would be wrong. Like Paul says in v.29, not for your conscience, but the one who sold it. When the meat salesman say, "I have this meat, but this eat was offered to Asclepius," he is saying, "This one comes with a blessing of good health." So if you then buy that one, you're joining him in honoring Asclepius and reinforcing his faith in Asclepius. 

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Dan Miller wrote:

This is not as easy as it first looks.

[...]

I would say that to be very precise, the buying of this meat would be wrong. Like Paul says in v.29, not for your conscience, but the one who sold it. When the meat salesman say, "I have this meat, but this eat was offered to Asclepius," he is saying, "This one comes with a blessing of good health." So if you then buy that one, you're joining him in honoring Asclepius and reinforcing his faith in Asclepius. 

That makes sense to me, but to go a little further than what you are saying here, if the seller doesn't know the source of the meat (say it comes through a distributor of some sort), but the buyer knows where the distributor got it (from the temple of Asclepius), can he buy and eat it without sinning?

Dave Barnhart

Dan Miller's picture

Yes, then Paul is saying go ahead. Ask no questions. 

 

Kevin Miller's picture

Does Acts 15:28-29 play a role in this conversation? The Gentiles were told :

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

This passage isn't making a distinction between meat eaten in the marketplace or meat eaten in private at home. It seems to be saying that if you know it has been offered, you shouldn't eat it.

Don Johnson's picture

If you know for certain it is idol meat, it is not an option.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kevin Miller's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

If you know for certain it is idol meat, it is not an option.

I know you said you were "with Kevin on this one," but I'm not completely sure where I am on this one at the moment. Could it be that the instructions in Act 15 were referring just to Gentile believers? Does that list still apply to believers today? I know some people eat blood sausage - Is blood sausage off limits for believers?

RajeshG's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

 

Don Johnson wrote:

 

If you know for certain it is idol meat, it is not an option.

 

I know you said you were "with Kevin on this one," but I'm not completely sure where I am on this one at the moment. Could it be that the instructions in Act 15 were referring just to Gentile believers? Does that list still apply to believers today? I know some people eat blood sausage - Is blood sausage off limits for believers?

 

The prohibition against eating blood was not an Old Covenant or Mosaic prohibition. God gave that prohibition to all mankind, not just Israelites:

Genesis 9:3-4

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

That prohibition is a timeless prohibition that is still in force today. The NT does not anywhere say anything that changes that prohibition.

Dan Miller's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

If you know for certain it is idol meat, it is not an option.

Don't miss that Paul was careful with how he said that. See my above.

Don Johnson's picture

Dan, we've covered this over and over. I think you are too narrow in your interpretation. 

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kevin Miller's picture

RajeshG wrote:

The prohibition against eating blood was not an Old Covenant or Mosaic prohibition. God gave that prohibition to all mankind, not just Israelites:

Genesis 9:3-4

3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

That prohibition is a timeless prohibition that is still in force today. The NT does not anywhere say anything that changes that prohibition.

I don't want to take the thread completely off-track by talking about blood, but that is pretty much how I see it as well. I remember watching the Survivor TV show, and one of the challenges was that the contestants had to drink some blood from an ox. I would have refused to do so.

Jay's picture

Does Acts 15:28-29 play a role in this conversation? The Gentiles were told :

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

I have always read this as a restriction imposed on the Gentile converts so as to avoid needlessly inflaming Jewish sensibilities in the early church, not as a blanket prohibition on all Christians.  The same with Genesis 9.

For those that refuse to eat meat with blood in it - how are you certain that there is no blood remaining in steaks or burgers?  Are you vegetarians?  It seems to me that given your understanding of Genesis 9 that vegetarianism is not only desirable but is actually biblically mandatory.  I am not prepared to argue that position is Biblical.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Kevin Miller's picture

Jay wrote:

Does Acts 15:28-29 play a role in this conversation? The Gentiles were told :

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

I have always read this as a restriction imposed on the Gentile converts so as to avoid needlessly inflaming Jewish sensibilities in the early church, not as a blanket prohibition on all Christians.  The same with Genesis 9.

The same with Genesis 9? That instruction was given to Noah and his family, who were the only people alive on the earth at the time. There were no other people's sensibilities to worry about inflaming.

Quote:
For those that refuse to eat meat with blood in it - how are you certain that there is no blood remaining in steaks or burgers?  Are you vegetarians?  It seems to me that given your understanding of Genesis 9 that vegetarianism is not only desirable but is actually biblically mandatory.  I am not prepared to argue that position is Biblical.

But Genesis 9 doesn't require vegetarianism. God was telling Noah he could eat everything, not just plants. "Every living thing that moves shall be food for you."  From what I understand, Noah just had to make sure it was cooked through. "But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." Is it really that hard to cook meat so that blood isn't dripping out anymore?

Jay's picture

The same with Genesis 9? That instruction was given to Noah and his family, who were the only people alive on the earth at the time. There were no other people's sensibilities to worry about inflaming.

Yes, that is precisely my point.  The command given in Gen. 9 is limited to Noah and his family, as the passage in Acts is limited to new Gentile believers in the early church.  

As for the matter of eating blood, I was thinking of eating kosher meat.  I agree that it is disgusting to eat uncooked and bloody meat.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

The same with Genesis 9? That instruction was given to Noah and his family, who were the only people alive on the earth at the time. There were no other people's sensibilities to worry about inflaming.

Yes, that is precisely my point.  The command given in Gen. 9 is limited to Noah and his family, as the passage in Acts is limited to new Gentile believers in the early church.  

As for the matter of eating blood, I was thinking of eating kosher meat.  I agree that it is disgusting to eat uncooked and bloody meat.

No, the command was not just given to Noah and his family. If that command about not eating blood in Gen. 9:4 was given to just Noah and his family, then the giving of all animals for food in Gen. 9:3 also was only to Noah and his family. In that case, they were the only ones authorized by God to eat any meat and none of their descendants were. Everyone after them would then have had to have been vegetarians until God authorized other people later on to eat meat.

Dan Miller's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

Dan, we've covered this over and over. I think you are too narrow in your interpretation. 

Yeah - can't argue with you that we've certainly covered these passages, Don. I've been contemplating this post of yours since last week. And I've written and deleted a couple responses. I think you're kinda bowing out of this discussion...

Don, who has been a fellow " sharpening Iron" here with me for about 13 years, has been involved in MULTIPLE threads over these years. We've discussed Romans 14, 1 Cor 8-10, the conscience, and how we apply Scripture every which way.

The part that is NEW in my realization and in our discussions here is the logical connection of v.19 to ch.8 ("What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything?"). This, for me, was a new realization when studying Andy's paper. That's a pretty important realization because it absolutely refutes the multiple letters view.

Whatever it is that Paul acknowledges in ch.8 is the right of the strong, that same thing he is adamantly against in 10:1-22. This is Paul modeling something I've been arguing for years on the basis of Romans 14.

I still owe Andy E a reply...

Jay's picture

No, the command was not just given to Noah and his family. If that command about not eating blood in Gen. 9:4 was given to just Noah and his family, then the giving of all animals for food in Gen. 9:3 also was only to Noah and his family. In that case, they were the only ones authorized by God to eat any meat and none of their descendants were. Everyone after them would then have had to have been vegetarians until God authorized other people later on to eat meat.

If you are right and this is a blanket statement, then why would God assign dietary laws to the Jews later on in the Old Testament?  Were they not descendants of Noah?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Don Johnson's picture

Dan Miller wrote:

Whatever it is that Paul acknowledges in ch.8 is the right of the strong, that same thing he is adamantly against in 10:1-22. This is Paul modeling something I've been arguing for years on the basis of Romans 14.

well, I just don't agree at all. But as I said, we've been over it and over it. It is unlikely we will persuade each other.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Don Johnson wrote:

 

Dan Miller wrote:

 

Whatever it is that Paul acknowledges in ch.8 is the right of the strong, that same thing he is adamantly against in 10:1-22. This is Paul modeling something I've been arguing for years on the basis of Romans 14.

 

 

well, I just don't agree at all. But as I said, we've been over it and over it. It is unlikely we will persuade each other.

So, can one of you sum up for the rest of us?  I think there's a little too much "shorthand" going on here.

Is the core of your disagreement that one of you thinks Paul is recognizing a "right to eat in the temple," but is later saying "never exercise that right," and the other is saying there is no such right?  If that's the case, is there a practical difference even if there is a theoretical one?  If it results in never eating idol meat in the temple, then what does it actually matter if there is such a right that can never be used or there is no such right?

I already realize that there are differences of opinion on whether "known idol meat" can ever be righteously eaten outside the temple.

Dave Barnhart

Dan Miller's picture

You know, Dave, I thought I knew what Don thought. But now I'm not so sure. I'll try:

1 Cor 8:1-6

Don: Some (we'll call them "strong") have knowledge that an idol is nothing. On the basis of that knowledge, they conclude that to eat idol-meat (no comment as yet on where) is to eat meat offered to nothing. They go ahead and eat.

Dan: Agree.

1 Cor 8:7 However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.

Don: I think he'll agree, but I'll let him say.

Dan: Others ("weak") don't have "this knowledge." They agree that we should "have no other gods." But they don't agree that the way to obey that is to proclaim "that's not god; there are no other gods!" to every idol. Instead, they believe that the meat is "really offered to an idol" and so to eat that meat is to honor the idol (SIN).

1 Cor 8:9-10 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?

Here is where we start disagreeing.

Don: I don't think Don finds it plausible that Christians would eat in the temple. No way a Christian would do that. I believe that Don would say "this right of yours" is sarcastic (not sure though).

Dan: I believe v9&10 show that Paul believed that some believers in Corinth were, on the basis of knowledge, claiming "this right" to eat in the idol's temple. Paul was in some way "concessive" that they had that right. 

1 Cor 10:1-22 14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: [10] are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Don: This still can't be about eating in the temple.

Dan: Paul's long powerful argument is against eating in the temple. As Paul reaches this conclusion, he sees an objection in the mind of the strong, which he expresses in v.19. And he concludes by saying, "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." Paul is clearly arguing against eating in the temple. 

1 Cor 10:25-30 

Don: This whole passage (vv1-30) is about this: known idol-meat shouldn't be eaten anywhere. If you don't know, don't ask. But if you know it's idol-meat, then don't eat it.

Dan: Paul now is turning from discussing idol-meat in the temple to idol-meat in the market. Paul is now much more allowing of the freedom to buy and eat probably-idol-tainted meat. Whereas Paul was firmly against eating in the temple, here, he says that even if you know it's idol meat, it might not be wrong for you to eat - but if you eat it in front of someone who knows and respects the idol, then you join in that respect, so it's wrong.

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

No, the command was not just given to Noah and his family. If that command about not eating blood in Gen. 9:4 was given to just Noah and his family, then the giving of all animals for food in Gen. 9:3 also was only to Noah and his family. In that case, they were the only ones authorized by God to eat any meat and none of their descendants were. Everyone after them would then have had to have been vegetarians until God authorized other people later on to eat meat.

If you are right and this is a blanket statement, then why would God assign dietary laws to the Jews later on in the Old Testament?  Were they not descendants of Noah?

Of course, they were descendants of Noah. God gave the Israelites the dietary laws to sanctify them to be uniquely His people. He wanted them to be distinctive from all the other peoples of the world, and one of the ways that He wanted them to be distinctive was in their dietary practices.

Jay's picture

He wanted them to be distinctive from all the other peoples of the world, and one of the ways that He wanted them to be distinctive was in their dietary practices.

Yes, I understand that the food ban was part of the distinctives, but it seems like you're sidestepping my question.  Why would God need to place a specific ban on certain foods if He had already banned them, particularly since the original ban is for everyone?  That makes no sense.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

RajeshG's picture

Jay wrote:

He wanted them to be distinctive from all the other peoples of the world, and one of the ways that He wanted them to be distinctive was in their dietary practices.

Yes, I understand that the food ban was part of the distinctives, but it seems like you're sidestepping my question.  Why would God need to place a specific ban on certain foods if He had already banned them, particularly since the original ban is for everyone?  That makes no sense.

I do not know what ban you are talking about. At the time of Noah, there was no ban. Only flesh with the blood could not be eaten. He gave distinctive guidelines later specifically for the Israelites that banned certain things for them that were not banned previously.

RajeshG's picture

RajeshG wrote:

 

Jay wrote:

 

He wanted them to be distinctive from all the other peoples of the world, and one of the ways that He wanted them to be distinctive was in their dietary practices.

Yes, I understand that the food ban was part of the distinctives, but it seems like you're sidestepping my question.  Why would God need to place a specific ban on certain foods if He had already banned them, particularly since the original ban is for everyone?  That makes no sense.

 

 

I do not know what ban you are talking about. At the time of Noah, there was no ban. Only flesh with the blood could not be eaten. He gave distinctive guidelines later specifically for the Israelites that banned certain things for them that were not banned previously.

"He" in my last sentence refers to God, not Noah.

Don Johnson's picture

dcbii wrote:

 

Don Johnson wrote:

 

 

Dan Miller wrote:

 

Whatever it is that Paul acknowledges in ch.8 is the right of the strong, that same thing he is adamantly against in 10:1-22. This is Paul modeling something I've been arguing for years on the basis of Romans 14.

 

 

well, I just don't agree at all. But as I said, we've been over it and over it. It is unlikely we will persuade each other.

 

 

So, can one of you sum up for the rest of us?  I think there's a little too much "shorthand" going on here.

Is the core of your disagreement that one of you thinks Paul is recognizing a "right to eat in the temple," but is later saying "never exercise that right," and the other is saying there is no such right?  If that's the case, is there a practical difference even if there is a theoretical one?  If it results in never eating idol meat in the temple, then what does it actually matter if there is such a right that can never be used or there is no such right?

I already realize that there are differences of opinion on whether "known idol meat" can ever be righteously eaten outside the temple.

Too bad it isn't easy to do tables in this format.

Well, here is what I think is going on:

1. The strong think an idol is nothing and it is ok to eat idol's meat.

2. The weak think you shouldn't knowingly eat idol meat at any time.

3. Paul concedes that an idol is nothing and that in principle no spiritual harm comes from eating idol meat.

4. But Paul further points out that a weak person can be tempted to sin against his conscience by imitating the strong.

So far, I think Dan would agree.

5. Paul shows how one's practice can embolden others by giving a hypothetical example: suppose you were to go eat meat in the temple, wouldn't someone weaker be emboldened to do that? (Paul assumes that the stronger would agree, and wouldn't at all go to a temple themselves).

This is where Dan and I disagree for sure

6. Since one can influence others to violate their conscience, Paul prohibits idol meat on the basis of conscience alone.

That's chapter 8.

Chapter 9, Paul talks all about rights and laying aside rights for the sake of the gospel. He doesn't specifically mention idol meat, but I think that it is still part of the same construction and argument, for various reasons I'll not go into here. The point here is that even if you think eating idol meat is a "right" because an idol is nothing, you should be willing to give up your rights for the sake of the gospel.

I don't think we have much disagreement over chapter 9

Chapter 10, Paul points out that those who think they are strong are not actually so strong. They could easily fall if they are not careful. He points out that there are spiritual realities behind those idols (even though the idol itself is nothing). So meat offered to idols, considered as just meat has no inherent taint, but meat offered to idols has spiritual significance. It is "spiritually tainted"

So if you knowingly eat meat offered to idols, you are getting too close to idolatry, so it is forbidden.

Paul adds two codicils - if you buy meat in the market place and don't know whether it is idol meat or not, don't worry about it. Just buy it and eat it.

Second, if you are in someone's home, and he offers you meat and announces it as idol meat, then don't take it - not because of your conscience but because of the conscience of the other, who marks out the meat as idol meat, thus making the idol connection significant. Otherwise, meat is just meat and don't worry about it.

Hope that helps.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Kevin Miller's picture

Don Johnson wrote:

Too bad it isn't easy to do tables in this format.

Well, here is what I think is going on:

1. The strong think an idol is nothing and it is ok to eat idol's meat.

2. The weak think you shouldn't knowingly eat idol meat at any time.

3. Paul concedes that an idol is nothing and that in principle no spiritual harm comes from eating idol meat.

4. But Paul further points out that a weak person can be tempted to sin against his conscience by imitating the strong.

So far, I think Dan would agree.

5. Paul shows how one's practice can embolden others by giving a hypothetical example: suppose you were to go eat meat in the temple, wouldn't someone weaker be emboldened to do that? (Paul assumes that the stronger would agree, and wouldn't at all go to a temple themselves).

This is where Dan and I disagree for sure

6. Since one can influence others to violate their conscience, Paul prohibits idol meat on the basis of conscience alone.

That's chapter 8.

Chapter 9, Paul talks all about rights and laying aside rights for the sake of the gospel. He doesn't specifically mention idol meat, but I think that it is still part of the same construction and argument, for various reasons I'll not go into here. The point here is that even if you think eating idol meat is a "right" because an idol is nothing, you should be willing to give up your rights for the sake of the gospel.

I don't think we have much disagreement over chapter 9

Chapter 10, Paul points out that those who think they are strong are not actually so strong. They could easily fall if they are not careful. He points out that there are spiritual realities behind those idols (even though the idol itself is nothing). So meat offered to idols, considered as just meat has no inherent taint, but meat offered to idols has spiritual significance. It is "spiritually tainted"

So if you knowingly eat meat offered to idols, you are getting too close to idolatry, so it is forbidden.

Paul adds two codicils - if you buy meat in the market place and don't know whether it is idol meat or not, don't worry about it. Just buy it and eat it.

Second, if you are in someone's home, and he offers you meat and announces it as idol meat, then don't take it - not because of your conscience but because of the conscience of the other, who marks out the meat as idol meat, thus making the idol connection significant. Otherwise, meat is just meat and don't worry about it.

Hope that helps.

I read the previous thread with this summary in mind, and the conversation made more sense. I see the reason for the disagreement in point 5 is due to the way Dan was seeing the "right" in point one. Dan was arguing that "The strong think an idol is nothing and it is ok to eat idol's meat in the idol's temple.". He was thus seeing point 5 not as a hypothetical example, but as a description of the right that is being discussed by Paul. So the list is correct in that you both agree with the statement of point 1 up to where you stopped the sentence, but Dan believes there actually were Christians who thought it was ok to go to the temple to eat the meat and Don doesn't think any Christian would actually eat meat in the temple.

Dan Miller's picture

Kevin Miller wrote:

I read the previous thread with this summary in mind, and the conversation made more sense. I see the reason for the disagreement in point 5 is due to the way Dan was seeing the "right" in point one. Dan was arguing that "The strong think an idol is nothing and it is ok to eat idol's meat in the idol's temple.". He was thus seeing point 5 [“reclining in the idol’s temple”] not as a hypothetical example, but as a description of the right that is being discussed by Paul. So the list is correct in that you both agree with the statement of point 1 up to where you stopped the sentence, but Dan believes there actually were Christians who thought it was ok to go to the temple to eat the meat and Don doesn't think any Christian would actually eat meat in the temple.

right. I don’t think eating in the temple in 8:10 makes sense as a theoretical-only example. Paul says, 

8:9 But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged...

Four reasons:

  1. “This right of yours” in v.9 clearly refers to whatever right is implied by the argument of v1-6. (Eating idol meat, which the strong think of as nothing-meat) (Don probably agrees so far.)
  2. ”For if” in v.10 means that what follows is the explanation for how the eating can cause stumbling. How would it do that? Because if a weak brother sees you eating in the temple, he’s going to feel like he should be able to go eat, against his conscience.
    •  Let’s say Tom is arguing that it’s ok to declaw cats. And you know that’s ok, but would violate the conscience of Vinny (who thinks it is cruel). Would it make sense to say, “Tom, be careful that this right of yours doesn’t become a stumbling block to Vinny. For if he sees you, who have knowledge beating your cat with a stick, he will be encouraged to be cruel to cats also.”
    • I don’t think this would make the point to Tom you want to make. Tom would say, “No! Why are you saying that we who have knowledge do beat our cats?!”
  3. ”you who have knowledge eating in an idol’ temple” in v.10 connects the ‘knowledge’ to this specific example, which is eating in the temple.
  4. The focus of the conclusion of Paul’s anti-idolatry argument in ch.10 is not eating at the idol’s table (10:21). Therefore Paul did view eating in the temple as something that needed to be dealt with.

 I just bought Alex T. Cheung’s book, Idol Food in Corinth. Here’s two quotes:

...’[S]trong’ Christians are those who claim ‘knowledge’ and ‘freedom’ (8:1-4,7-13) to eat idol food without qualms. Some even attend cultic meals at the temples (8:10; 10:14-22).

p. 86

Presumably, dining in an idol temple is included (8:10).

p. 93