Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 8

[rookie]

Greetings brothers and sisters.

I have a question. If we look at Acts 15:29, we have a few things the saints of the day should keep away from. And fornication is thrown into the mix. Then we get to 1 Corinthians 8, and there, the food seems to be if you are of strong spirit.

My question is, if in Acts, it's forbidden, and Corinthians it's permitted why? (I suspect I know this answer, but looking for other input).

Second question, why is it ok to eat meat if you're of strong mind, but fornication is never permitted. Why are they both thrown in the mix in Acts, and in Corinthians, only eating is permitted?

 

[MarieP]

1 Cor. 8
But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11 And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

I think this explains Acts 15

As for why moral law (fornication) is thrown into the mix, when my pastor preached that text, he said that it's possible it had to do with some of the kinds of marriages that had been common among the Gentiles, such as relatives marrying each other.

 

[Eoghan]

I am currently working through Corinthians and it is surprising to those unfamiliar with Paul to see him on different occasions being adamant (fornication), exhorting to a loving forfeiture of freedom and lastly giving no instruction but expressing an "opinion".

I have puzzled over the Jerusalem Council decree. Paul obviously has no problem with strangled meat in one context, but is sensitive to Jews and will abstain in another context. He seems to be interpreting the Jewish attitude to food in different cultural contexts. There is a general understanding that the ceremonial aspects of the food laws were abrogated. Jesus taught that food was not important, Peter had it revealed to him and Paul put on and put off his cultural Jewishness.

The question of incest however is interesting. There is no problem because of the degrees of consanguinity - you cannot marry anyone closer than a second cousin(?) it is rather the relationship as his father's wife that is the objection. If we were under the impression that all the Old Testament laws were abrogated this draws us up short. Paul is deeply concerned, not so much at the sin but at the laize faire attitude of the congregation. Were this to get back to Jerusalem it could be interpreted as a flagrant breach of the Jerusalem Council decision. It probably arose over the false teaching which somehow caused toleration of immorality in the fellowship at the same time as a seperation from the surrounding secular community(?).

As for this sort of thing being tolerated amongst the Gentiles - absolutely not. Bruce quotes Cicero to this effect Oedipus (Greek play) returns to unknowingly kill his father and marry his mother, he then plucks out his own eyes when he discovers what he has done - Greeks didn't accept it either! [ I would suggest we substitute the term "Freud Complex" for "Oedipus Complex" ]

 

[rookie]

My thoughts were along these lines.

Over and over, the Jews (in the gospels) were making mountains our of mole hills (not entering Pilate's house in fear of soiling themselves, yet they were committing murder, worrying over Christ performing miracles on the Sabbath, ignoring the fact that someone just got healed). And I have no doubt that they were focusing on the sacrifices more than they were the meat. Which is why they were told to say away from it, because they were not focusing on the eating, but on the law.

But when it came to fornication, there is nowhere in the bible that God grants exception to fornication. There's no context on which it can be acceptable, so he lumps them together since they are always making a big deal of the wrong things, and since there were some gentiles in the mix, which fornication was a way of life, Paul puts a halt to it all.

While in 1 Corinthians 8, fornication is covered in another chapter, and here he deals with eating meat...

Any chance I might be closer or am I falling way off?

 

[Eoghan]

I seem to recall that fornication was frowned on but adultery was not. It was not unknown for married men to have sexual relations with their slaves. Our society has gone the other way with fornication being the norm and hardly worthy of reproach whereas adultery is the great taboo today.

 

[Eoghan]

Marco Polo describes the practice of a son marrying his fathers wives upon his death (except his own mother) [The Travels of Marco Polo, Wordsworth edition, p69]

 

[SRoper]

The confusion only arises if you understand Paul to allow the eating of meat offered to idols. He does no such thing. It is often assumed that the question being asked by the Corinthians is, "Paul, can you explain to these weaker brothers why we are allowed to eat meat offered to idols?" We then read Paul's answer as, "yes, we both know you can eat meat offered to idols, but you are forgetting your obligation to love your weaker brothers." However, I believe that the question was more likely, "Paul, why did you tell us we can't eat meat offered to idols? Don't you know that this is a great hardship for us as it endangers our social standing and our livelihoods?" This comports well with the rest of Scripture which clearly condemns eating meat offered to idols in Acts 15 and Revelation 2. Paul's argument is multifaceted and it is easy to pick up on one piece and believe that he is arguing for the exact opposite of his actual position.

In 1 Corinthians 8 he finds common ground with the "strong" Corinthians. He agrees with them that idols are really nothing (v. 4). However, he implores them to refrain from eating what is offered to idols because of the conscience of a hypothetical weaker brother.

First Corinthians 9 is not a parenthesis, as it might seem at first, but continues his argument. The loss in acceptance with one's neighbors is a sacrifice, but Paul is not asking the Corinthians to make any greater sacrifice than what he has already made.

In 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, Paul argues against eating food sacrificed to idols from the (bad) example of Israel. Even though they had the spiritual food and drink of Christ (vv. 3-4), they chose to eat that which was offered to idols (v. 7). It is interesting that Paul uses their eating and drinking as synecdoche for the entire Golden Calf incident.

In verses 14-21, Paul brings the argument to their present day situation. One cannot eat at the Lord's Table and eat that which is offered to idols. To do so is to commune with demons (v. 20).

Paul concludes the chapter by clarifying that the Corinthians need not be over-zealous in their attempt to abstain from that which was offered to idols. There is no need to inquire in the marketplace as to the origin of the meat they are buying (v. 25), nor should they decline an invitation to a pagan's house (v. 27). There is a sense in which ignorance is bliss. However, if someone should inform them that what they are about to eat has been offered to idols, they are to act on this information by abstaining (v. 28). It is likely that the person informing the Christian is not the weaker brother (as it is often supposed) but rather the unbeliever who is his dining companion as he is the one who would actually know the provenance of the meat.

Probably the best treatment I have read on this subject is by David Garland. I found "The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1)" online, but it is not all that well formatted. I believe the same ideas can be found in his commentary on 1 Corinthians.

 

[Eoghan]

I was intrigued by Thiselton's commentary on 1 Corinthians chapter 6 p94. He discusses the way that Paul speaks about the 6:13 quote as saying that the body is "nothing" and destined for destruction.
[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 6:13[/BIBLE]
What Thiselton asserts is that Paul is far from writing off the body/soma and here starts to develop a "theology of the body". Not only does tha analogy of form and function not apply to sexual relations but
1. The body will be raised and we will have a resurrection body
2. Those with whom we are sexual partners are one with us in a special way
3. We are bought with a price and our soma/body is not "ours" to do with as we wish but belongs to Christ and must be treated as such

He (Thiselton, not Paul) explains that our life as a Christian affects how we treat/use/view out body and how we live out our life in public. As regards meat sacrificed to idols this may have been eaten in the (pagan) Temple precincts and so has an aspect of pagan worship attached to it. Our "freedom" is a freedom to follow Christ not to act independently of how our actions are interpreted by brethren and pagans in the wider community.