Excuse XXVI

Paul Sanctioned It

Question:

When writing about eating meat offered to idols, didn’t the apostle Paul teach that certain practices that may have been wrong in the past could be permissible in the present?

~~~

One of the most disappointing arguments presented in defense of dining out on the Sabbath, was offered up by the doctrinal committee of a very prominent COG association. According to them, because Paul permitted the Corinthians to partake of food consecrated to a pagan god, under “different circumstances,” God’s people today may seek out Sabbath-breakers and partake of the fruit of their sin, because our circumstances are different as well. Here is how they put it.

However, this example [eating meat offered to idols] would be germane to the subject if it were sinful, in one context but permissible in different context [as we believe].

Yet Paul permitted the eating of meat offered to idols under different circumstances, therefore they were not an accessory to the sins committed while the food was prepared. Each situation has to be weighed individually.

At this point it is interesting to note that this prominent church never explained what the "circumstances" were that prompted Paul to present this teaching. They didn't. But we will.

Furthermore, the facts pertaining to Paul's words on this issue disprove the very practice these leaders are advocating. In truth, he doesn't come close to doing what these learned men suggest. Furthermore, his teaching stands as incontrovertible proof that God's people should never dine out on the Sabbath or holy days. To better understand this, a little background is necessary.

The Jerusalem Conference

One of the most significant events in the history of God's Church took place in Jerusalem in 49 AD. At that time a conference was held pertaining to the issue of Gentile converts and what was required of them as new members of the Christian faith. The conference was prompted by a severe debate that had emerged over the issue of circumcision. As a result, the leading apostles, including Paul, came together to resolve the conflict.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye (1) abstain from meats offered to idols, and (2) from blood, and (3) from things strangled, and (4) from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well...(Acts 15:28-29, see also: Acts 21:25).

While the church leadership agreed that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, they WERE ABSOLUTELY required to abstain from meat offered to idols! On this there can be no doubt. Furthermore, Paul was in total agreement with this decision and was even commissioned to bring it to the churches in Antioch (Acts 15:22-32).

What did Paul Teach?

The question for us to consider today is: What did Paul teach Gentile converts concerning this ruling? The answer lies in his first epistle to God's Church at Corinth. This letter was written approximately four years after the Jerusalem conference. Therefore, it is obvious that the Gentiles under his care must have been well aware of the Church's position regarding this issue. However, there was a problem.

How Can You Know for Sure?

Although we do not know for certain what prompted Paul' to write on this subject, it is reasonable to conclude that various Gentile converts in Corinth were reluctant to purchase any meat sold in the open market because it might have been used in a sacrifice to a false god. Since there was no way for them to know which meats may have been used in pagan worship, they were uncertain of what to do.

Paul not only addressed their concern, but also offered some keen insight into the heart of the matter. In doing so he explained how the pronouncement at the Jerusalem conference should be applied.

As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).

Here, Paul is explaining that the idol to which the meat MAY have been offered is not really a god at all. In truth, it is NOTHING. This is because there is only one TRUE God. Therefore, if these Gentile converts inadvertently ate something that was offered to an idol, no sin would be imputed to them. After all, the idol does not contaminate the meat. The point here is that this issue is not about food, but rather the act of willfully partaking of a pagan sacrifice.

A Grave Misunderstanding

There are some who contend that Paul was teaching that because the idol is worthless, God's people were now free to eat meat offered to it even if they were aware that it was used in a sacrifice. This is totally FALSE. Paul gave absolutely no dispensation for knowingly eating food consecrated in pagan worship. On the contrary, he forbade it, as did the apostles in Jerusalem. Paul even explained that these sacrifices were actually to devils, and as such, followers of Christ were to have nothing to do with them.

What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 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. (1 Corinthians 10:19-21)

Not Causing Offence

Although meat offered to an idol cannot defile God's people, the same cannot be said about proactively seeking it out. To suggest that Paul taught otherwise is a distortion of the Biblical record. In truth, Paul was upholding the teaching of the Church which prohibited such things (Acts 15:28-29, 21:25). However, when exhorting the Corinthians, he also offers another reason for refraining from this practice. It involves how it could be perceived by those who may have doubts.

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7)

The “knowledge” Paul was speaking about is the understanding that an idol cannot defile the meat because the idol is nothing. Therefore, to UNKNOWINGLY eat meat offered in a pagan sacrifice was not a sin.

However, God's apostle was also aware that there were some who still felt uncomfortable with making that mistake. Simply put, they didn’t want to take any chances. Because of this, Paul presents a wonderful lesson to those who were strong. At the core of this lesson is Christian charity. Notice what he says.

But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:9-12)

Here, Paul is saying that even if you could innocently consume the meat because you are totally unaware if it was used in a sacrifice it would still be wrong to do so if it would offend someone who was weak in the faith. He then punctuates this point by offering a personal example of how he shows consideration toward others.

Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. (1 Corinthians 8:13)

The point God's servant was making is that in order to prevent his brother from stumbling, he would not only abstain from eating meat that may have been offered to an idol, he would abstain from eating meat altogether.

A Lesson to God's Ministers Today

With this said, is there a lesson from the example of Paul for God's ministers today? In other words, what would Paul do as a pastor if he knew members of his congregation were offended by him dining out on the Sabbath or holy days—assuming that such a practice was lawful? Would he still do it? Or, out of respect for the "weak," would he abstain? In other words, would Paul bring a meal on holy days and eat it with those who, for conscience sake, will not dine out? Or, would he go to a local restaurant and let the "weak" eat by themselves?

Are You Required to Investigate?

We now come to another problem requiring Paul’s attention. What responsibility did Corinthians have in determining whether or not, food was offered to an idol?—since the meat offered to idols was often sold in public markets right along side other meat that was not used in such a way? Paul acknowledges this dilemma and provides the perfect answer. He explains that because the sacrifice could not contaminate the meat, there was nothing wrong with unknowingly eating it. Furthermore, it was not even necessary to ask if it was offered in a pagan sacrifice.

Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. (1 Corinthians 10:25-26)

In essence, Paul is saying that since the meat itself is not affected by the process of offering it to an idol, it may be eaten, provided one DOES NOT consciously seek it out. Furthermore, it isn't even necessary to ask. It is totally irrelevant to the purchase. In other words, your purchase does not require someone to commit idolatry. You could just as well have selected food that was not sacrificed.

What About Dining Out on the Sabbath?

However, this is NOT the case when one dines out on the Sabbath. When God's people engage in this activity they are relying on the fact that God’s law is being VIOLATED. Why?—because it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that someone profane the Sabbath in order for them to enjoy their meal. In other words, in order to dine out on the Sabbath, God's people must actively seek out those who desecrate what God has made HOLY—without that sin they can't eat. Does anyone honestly believe that Paul was teaching that God's people may proactively seek out a pagan altar and partake of its delicacies simply because the false god is nothing but a piece of wood? Sadly, this is exactly what defenders of Sabbath dining appear to be asserting.

At this point it is important to understand that contrary to what this COG claims, Paul's ruling contradicts NOTHING in God' law or the pronouncement of the council at Jerusalem. In other words this act was not “sinful in one context but permissible in another context” as they assert. Paul was NEVER giving permission to seek out idolaters and solicit their sin. As much as this Church wants it to be true, in order to justify their own Sabbath dining trespass, it just didn’t happen. What Paul was saying in effect was if you go shopping for food on a Monday and unknowingly selected something that required Sabbath labor, no sin would be imputed to you. However, if you consciously seek out Sabbath labor that is a different case altogether—and according to Paul is forbidden.

Returning to the Argument

The whole point this prominent COG is attempting to make when invoking Paul's teaching, is that just because they dine out on the Sabbath does not mean they are complicit in the Sabbath labor of the employees of the restaurant, any more than Gentiles living in Paul's time where complicit in idolatrous worship if they inadvertently ate food that was used in a pagan sacrifice. However, this assessment is totally FALSE. What this COG is advocating and what Paul was teaching is light years apart. In order for their assessment to be correct this is what Paul would have to teach.

Because you enjoy the taste of food offered in sacrifices to Baal, you may now enter his temple and request that they offer a sacrifice for you, because, you know that Baal is a false god and has no power whatsoever, and you don't even believe in him. Furthermore, these pagans would be offering their idolatrous sacrifice for someone else if they didn't do it for you, so it's not like you are making them sin. Therefore, feel free to seek them out and place your order.

What part of this thinking sounds like it came from God's apostle? Our answer: ZERO! Furthermore, when these COG leaders attempt to rehabilitate their sin by associating it with one of God's most faithful servants, they reflect an attitude of desperation. There isn't a hint in Paul's words that remotely suggest this is how he would approach eating meat offered to an idol, let alone dining out on the Sabbath. The bottom line is this. Contrary to what these Church leaders assert, Paul never changed anything based on the “circumstances.” In truth, NOTHING changed. God’s people were never to knowingly seek out the ungodly and partake of their sin like so many do whenever they dine out on holy time.

Excuse #27
Moderation and Balance