My friend Lydia McGrew<\/a> is a scholar in the area of English literature, philosophy, and theology, and author of the books, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts<\/span><\/a><\/i>, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels\u00a0From<\/span> Literary Devices<\/a><\/i>, and The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of John as Historical Reportage<\/a><\/i>. I am responding to a comment she made online<\/a> (dated 10-30-22) about the Jerusalem Council.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Lydia McGrew stated:<\/p>\n We can even see that varying interpretations of the decrees of the Jerusalem council are going on in the apostolic era. For example, the Jerusalem council definitely says (even citing the Holy Spirit as their source!) that Gentiles may not eat meat offered to idols. This suggests a very rigorist approach to that issue, to put it mildly. But in I Cor[inthians] Paul softens this by saying that they can eat whatever they buy in the market without worrying where it came from. And the same for food set before them at a meal that merely may be offered to idols. He adds that they should not eat meat that they are told<\/em> has been offered to idols, lest this harm the other person\u2019s conscience. So he basically institutes a don\u2019t ask don\u2019t tell policy on meat offered to idols. Which, to put it mildly, might have bothered people who crafted the council\u2019s decree. Paul could say that he is interpreting the council\u2019s decree, but that just reinforces the somewhat Protestant paradigm. (And he doesn\u2019t cite the council\u2019s decree on this or any other matter in any<\/em>\u00a0of his epistles.)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s cite the relevant passages so we can better understand what is being discussed here:<\/p>\n Acts 15:28-30<\/strong> (RSV) For it has 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 what has been sacrificed to idols<\/span> and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.\u201d [30]\u00a0So when they were sent off, they went down to Antioch; and having gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter.<\/p>\n Acts 16:4<\/strong> As they [Paul and Silas: 15:40] went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions<\/span> which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 8:4-13<\/strong> Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols<\/span>, we know that \u201can idol<\/span> has no real existence,\u201d and that \u201cthere is no God but one.\u201d\u00a0[5] For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth \u2014 as indeed there are many \u201cgods\u201d and many \u201clords\u201d \u2014 [6] yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. [7]\u00a0However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through being hitherto accustomed to idols<\/span>, eat food as really offered to an idol<\/span>; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.\u00a0[8] Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. [9] Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. [10] For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol\u2019s temple<\/span>, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols<\/span>? [11] And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. [12] Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. [13] Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother\u2019s falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:19-21, 25-33<\/strong> What do I imply then? That food offered to idols<\/span> is anything, or that an idol<\/span> is anything? [20] No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons<\/span> and not to God. I do not want you to be partners 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<\/span>. . . . [25] Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. [26] For \u201cthe earth is the Lord\u2019s, and everything in it.\u201d [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 some one says to you, \u201cThis has been offered in sacrifice,\u201d then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience\u2019 sake \u2014 [29] I mean his conscience, not yours \u2014 do not eat it.)<\/span> For why should my liberty be determined by another man\u2019s scruples? [30] If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? [31] So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. [32] Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, [33] just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.<\/p>\n Revelation 2:20<\/strong> But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jez\u2019ebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Let\u2019s examine Lydia\u2019s argument piece-by-piece (her words in green<\/span>). The context of a remark was an article written by Protestant apologist Jason Engwer the day before, which was a critique of Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, with regard to the Catholic rule of faith and Catholic conceptions of authority, including apostolic authority in the first century.<\/p>\n We can even see that varying interpretations of the decrees of the Jerusalem council are going on in the apostolic era. For example, the Jerusalem council definitely says (even citing the Holy Spirit as their source!) that Gentiles may not eat meat offered to idols. This suggests a very rigorist approach to that issue, to put it mildly.<\/span><\/p>\n The object of the post and insinuation of Lydia\u2019s comment on it was to suggest a contradiction between Scripture and the Catholic rule of faith. I see no such contradiction (per my present argument).<\/p>\n I shall contend that St. Paul doesn\u2019t contradict<\/em> what the council decreed; rather, he developed<\/em> it and elaborated<\/em> upon it. All we have from the conciliar decree is what is recorded in the Bible. It may have been longer, or it may not have been. If it was as short as what we know about, then as a legal-type matter, it\u2019s self-evident, I think, that it would necessarily have to be expanded upon<\/em>, because application<\/em> is always much trickier than the mere statement of a law or moral precept. That\u2019s clearly true of secular law (e.g., the very spare freedom of speech and religion clauses in the Constitution), and it had the precedent of long Jewish history (the Talmud), of interpreting thousands of specific situations and how Mosaic Law would or could be applied to each.<\/p>\n So I submit that the dynamic in play in this instance is not \u201crigorist\u201d vs. a \u201ca don\u2019t ask don\u2019t tell policy\u201d. The council\u2019s spirit, I would contend, was the very opposite of \u201crigorist.\u201d It rescinded, after all, the age-old requirement of circumcision for Gentiles, and it\u2019s overall impact was to abrogate the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law altogether in the case of Gentiles (who would, of course, be almost all of the Christians in short order). I think the more accurate comparison of the two statements and approaches is \u201cbaldly stated and less developed\u201d compared to (not \u201cvs.\u201d) \u201cmore developed and particularized and nuanced.\u201d<\/p>\n But in I Cor[inthians] Paul softens this by saying that they can eat whatever they buy in the market without worrying where it came from. And the same for food set before them at a meal that merely may be offered to idols. He adds that they should not eat meat that they are told<\/em> has been offered to idols, lest this harm the other person\u2019s conscience. So he basically institutes a don\u2019t ask don\u2019t tell policy on meat offered to idols. Which, to put it mildly, might have bothered people who crafted the council\u2019s decree.<\/span><\/p>\n I have posted what Paul wrote about food and idols above, so folks can read the context. I found a great article regarding this issue, entitled, \u201cThe Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1<\/span><\/a>),\u201d by <\/span>David E. Garland, of\u00a0George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Baylor University. It fits in very nicely with my opinion that Paul\u2019s treatment of food offered to idols is a consistent development of the \u201ckernel\u201d or \u201cessence\u201d of the decree of the Jerusalem Council (and as such, in no way contrary<\/em> to the council):<\/p>\n The thesis of this paper is that, contrary to a popular reading of 1 Cor 8:1-11:1, Paul forbade Christians from any association with any food overtly connected to idolatry.\u00a0\u00a0He understands the Christian confession of one God and one Lord to require exclusive loyalty so that even a token or make-believe show of fealty to an idol compromises the loyalty owed only to God and Christ.\u00a0 . . .<\/p>\n His oblique argument has tended to throw off interpreters.\u00a0\u00a0Some have regarded the chapters to be a patchwork of interpolations, while others misread Paul\u2019s unequivocal rejection of anything explicitly connected to idols and assume that he made concessions and permitted supposedly innocuous, social dining in an idol\u2019s shrine.\u00a0\u00a0Neither view is correct. . . .<\/p>\n Christians might avoid overt associations with idolatry by declining to attend meals connected to idols and their shrines, but what were they to do when they were guests at someone\u2019s house and offered food sacrificed to an idol?\u00a0\u00a0They had colleagues, relatives, and patrons who were devotees of other gods and goddesses, and they would be put in socially awkward situations when invited to another\u2019s home and offered food that had been sanctified by an idol by a religiously minded host. . . . The issue Paul addresses in chapters 8-10 involves three different types of situations: (1) eating food sacrificed to an idol at the temple of an idol (8:7-13; 10:1-22); (2) eating food of unknown history that is bought in the market (10:23-27); and (3) eating food in the private homes of unbelievers (10:28-31).<\/p>\n An underestimation of the religious nature of meals at temple shrines has lead to a misunderstanding of the nature of the dispute Paul addresses.\u00a0\u00a0Many recent interpreters imagine that the Corinthians wrote to Paul to arbitrate an internal squabble between the \u201cstrong\u201d and the \u201cweak\u201d who were of different minds regarding food offered to idols. . . .<\/p>\n This dominant view assumes that the \u201cweak\u201d Christians felt neither so free nor so bold.\u00a0\u00a0They were converted pagans \u2013 Jews could not be described as \u201cuntil now accustomed to idols\u201d (8:7) \u2013 and their past associations of the sacrificed food with pagan rites and shrines were simply too strong for them to eat in good conscience.\u00a0\u00a0They did not have the strong\u2019s liberating knowledge in their emotions and sensibilities but felt pressure from the strong to imitate them and not be so squeamish or sanctimonious.\u00a0\u00a0Some contend that the so-called \u201cstrong\u201d castigated their more scrupulous brothers and sisters as the \u201cweak\u201d in their letter to Paul and sought to raise their consciousness by encouraging them to attend meals in pagan temples and to consume the idol food. . . .<\/p>\n The hypothesis that a dispute raged between \u201cstrong\u201d and \u201cweak\u201d Corinthians does not bear careful scrutiny.\u00a0\u00a0Paul never<\/u> identifies any particular group as \u201cthe strong.\u201d\u00a0 He never addresses the weak and only describes them in the third person as reasons for giving up what one considers to be a right. \u00a0There is no indication in the text that the \u201cstrong\u201d are trying to bend the will of the weak to see things their way. . . .<\/p>\n The traditional view is also fundamentally wrong in assuming that Paul would have jettisoned the basic covenantal demand of exclusive allegiance to the one Lord by permitting Christians to do things that implied that they formed a common front with anything overtly connected to idols (cf. 2 Cor 6:14-7:1). \u00a0For Paul, idolatry is the vice that leads to all vices (Rom 1:19-32) and prominent in the catalog of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20).\u00a0\u00a0Idolaters (among others) will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). . . .<\/p>\n A major error of the traditional view is the weight it places on Paul\u2019s warning about the potential harm that eating idol food might cause a Christian with a weak conscience.\u00a0\u00a0It assumes that this was Paul\u2019s only problem with eating idol food. . . . He did not pass off eating of idol food, with full awareness of its idolatrous connections, as a matter of indifference.\u00a0\u00a0It is a dangerous, sinful act since Paul explicitly links idol food to idolatry in 10:19-20 and never says, \u201cEat idol food as long as the weak are not caused to stumble.\u201d\u00a0 He allows one to eat any food bought in the market or offered in another\u2019s home without asking its origins or history.\u00a0\u00a0If one somehow were informed that the food was idol food, then Paul insists that one must abstain. . . .<\/p>\n Paul addresses the question of food of questionable origins \u2013 food that may have been sacrificed to idols before it comes into the hands of a believer.\u00a0\u00a0To answer the question how a Christian can act with integrity in a world brimming with idols, he moves from an absolute prohibition based on general arguments about the dangers of associating with anything idolatrous to conditional liberty based on the biblical tenet that the earth is the Lord\u2019s and everything in it (10:26; Ps 24:1).\u00a0\u00a0He gives the go-ahead on everything that is beyond an idol\u2019s orbit.\u00a0\u00a0It is not permanently poisoned.<\/p>\n Paul clarifies that food is food and permissible to eat\u00a0unless<\/u> it is specifically identified as idol food, which puts it in a special category that is always forbidden to Christians.\u00a0\u00a0They need not abstain from all food on the chance that it may have been sacrificed to idols.\u00a0\u00a0He basically says, \u201cOf course, you can buy food in the provision market\u201d (10:25).\u00a0 \u201cOf course, you can dine with friends\u201d (10:27).\u00a0\u00a0His prohibition of idol food does not mean that they must retreat to the seclusion of a gloomy ghetto. . . .<\/p>\n Paul permits buying food in the market-place that may or may not have been sacrificed in a pagan temple.\u00a0\u00a0But if its history was disclosed and it was announced to be idol food, then he forbids eating it.\u00a0\u00a0He permits dining with friends who may be worshipers of idols, but if the food is announced to be idol food, then he forbids eating it.\u00a0\u00a0Christians may not participate in any function that overtly smacks of idolatry. He basically \u201cdefines what is idol food in doubtful cases\u201d \u2013 when it is not specified as idol food. \u00a0All food outside of the idol\u2019s orbit is permitted, so he gives them leave to eat anything sold in the public market without investigating its history to certify that it is free from any idolatrous contamination.\u00a0\u00a0Christ has not called them to be meat inspectors.\u00a0\u00a0Outside of its idolatrous context, idol food becomes simply food and belongs to the one God (Rom 14:14). . . .<\/p>\n The premise behind this instruction comes from Ps 24:1 (cf. 50:12; 89:11), . . . It affirms that God is sovereign over all things (8:6) and that everything created by God is good (cf. 1 Tim 4:4).\u00a0\u00a0The whole creation belongs to God, not part to God and part to idols. \u00a0Idol food therefore loses its character as idol food as soon as it leaves the idol\u2019s arena and the idolater\u2019s purposes.\u00a0\u00a0Paul does not complete the thought with a conclusion from the biblical citation, but it is implicit: \u201cNothing is unclean in itself\u201d (Rom 14:14; cf. Acts 10:15).\u00a0\u00a0If it can be eaten in honor of the Lord (Rom 14:7), it is permitted.\u00a0\u00a0What Paul finds sinful is eating idol food in any setting that might give others the slightest hint that Christians sanctioned idolatry, no matter how attenuated the religious aspects attached to the meal or the place might be.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul could say that he is interpreting the council\u2019s decree, but that just reinforces the somewhat Protestant paradigm.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n He is interpreting the decree by expanding upon it and applying it to real-life situations, which is what always<\/em> happens to legal decrees. This is a development and not a contradiction or difference of opinion. Paul goes into great detail about what (in effect) the decree in its elegant simplicity meant<\/em>. That is not in the slightest degree in opposition to the Catholic rule of faith. It\u2019s an apostle, who also wrote inspired Scripture, developing and authoritatively interpreting the decree of an apostolic council, which he and St. Peter attended, which produced a decree: which also made it into inspired Scripture, by God\u2019s design.<\/p>\n By analogy, the Jerusalem Council is like ecumenical councils in the Catholic Church: arguably even led (in the thrust of its ideas) by Peter, the first pope: who God also chose to reveal His will to include Gentiles and to relax the Law\u2019s requirements (especially regarding food). Paul (who was a very minor figure at the council, at least judging by what we know, is functioning as a bishop or theologian or catechist, or even (dare I say it?) an apologist, in elaborating upon its meaning. He may be making vague allusions to it in his statements cited above, since it is the same subject matter. Acts 16:4, cited above, shows us that he declared the conciliar decree \u201cfor observance.\u201d This more or less proves that he completely agreed with it, and continued to do so when he developed it in his own epistles.<\/span><\/p>\n So this proves nothing in terms of it supposedly being some sort of biblical argument against Catholic ecclesiology.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Photo credit:<\/strong> Reconstruction of Herod\u2019s Temple (at the time of Jesus), with Robinson\u2019s Arch in the foreground\u00a0<\/span>[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Paul, in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, develops and consistently expands upon the decree of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) regarding the eating of food offered to idols.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Reply to Lydia McGrew My friend Lydia McGrew is a scholar in the area of English literature, philosophy, and theology, and author of the books, Hidden in Plain View: Undesigned Coincidences in the Gospels and Acts, The Mirror or the Mask: Liberating the Gospels\u00a0From Literary Devices, and The Eye of the Beholder: The Gospel of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":68382,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131,1567],"tags":[598,779,514,52,33,13685,246,16779,16782,190,1327,11174,32,35,47,932],"class_list":["post-68379","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","category-development-of-doctrine-2","tag-apostolic-succession","tag-apostolic-tradition","tag-bible-only","tag-catholic-tradition","tag-christian-authority","tag-council-of-jerusalem","tag-development-of-doctrine","tag-food-offered-to-idols","tag-forbidden-foods","tag-idolatry","tag-jerusalem-council","tag-lydia-mcgrew","tag-rule-of-faith","tag-scripture-alone","tag-sola-scriptura","tag-tradition"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/12\/TempleHerodB.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n(And he doesn\u2019t cite the council\u2019s decree on this or any other matter in any<\/em> of his epistles.)<\/span><\/p>\n