Paul’s instructions about food seem to clarify, while at the same
time, confuse the issue of what foods are permissible for the Gentile believer. In First Corinthians, Paul wrote, “Eat anything that is sold in the meat
market” (1Cor 10:25), which
appeared to grant liberty for eating all foods.
Yet a few verses earlier, Paul cautioned believers, “the Gentiles…sacrifice to demons and
not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. 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.” (1Cor 10:19-20). So which position was Paul advocating, “Eat anything” or be discerning in what
you eat?
When both passages are placed in context, we
understand that “Eat anything…sold in the
meat market” addresses matters of personal conscious. Gentile believers could purchase food in the
open market that had potentially been sacrificed to idols, provided that this fact
was not broadcast and remained unknown to the believer. The words of Paul were not given to abolish
the commandments related to food in the Law.
Even if Paul desired to do differently, his authority is represented in
scripture as subordinate to the ruling of the Jerusalem council, “abstain from things sacrificed to idols and
from blood and from things strangled,” (Acts
15:29).
The type of guidance Paul provided in his
letters is referred to by the rabbis as “halakha,” or legal rulings. We understand Paul’s writings to often clarify
specific questions on what is permissible related to the commandments,
especially as related to issues about food.
For example, did a Gentile believer have to verify that food was not
sacrificed to an idol (guilty until proven innocent) or was it sufficient to
not possess knowledge that it was offered?
Was a believer obligated to ask questions before eating at someone’s
home or was it acceptable to eat without asking questions concerning the
preparation of food? What if a clean
food was contaminated with a small portion of unclean food such as a dead fly;
was the entire food to be thrown out?
While these questions might sound like endless hairsplitting, they
represented real life issues that first century Jewish and Gentile believers
considered in their desire to walk as Jesus walked.
The issues Paul dealt with were not unique to
first century believers, but similar to questions other Jews had struggled with
for 1500 years prior to Paul. The
underlying question was how to practically live out of the commandments in a
pagan world. The rabbis came to accept that
the fulfillment of commandments was a balancing act. In certain circumstances, the strict reading
of a specific commandment could be suspended to uphold a higher moral principle
of the Torah. A common example relates
to the preservation of life. The rabbis determined that all
commandments can be broken to preserve life, except for murder, adultery, or
idolatry. Jesus expanded this understanding
to teach us that the relief of suffering takes precedence over certain
commandments including the Sabbath.
The rabbis referred to this approach as, “to
act for the Lord,” based on a midrashic understanding of Psalm 119:126. In reference
to food, scholar Karin Zetterholm has noted,
“Jewish law allows for a certain degree of interaction with
non-Jews, and that overserving Jewish law also involves not offending his
non-Jewish hosts by not eating in their home, or making them go to extra
trouble…He (a Jew) assumes, that we (Gentiles) would not serve food forbidden
by Jewish law…
To be a Torah observant Jew requires a constant balancing act,
giving priority to some laws over others in a given situation…A
person involved in such a balancing act, who sets aside one law in order to
give priority to another law or general principle in a given situation, is
naturally not violating Jewish law or denying his or her commitment to it; he
or she is interpreting and applying it. Living
in a non-Jewish or non-observant environment makes such balancing acts even
more complex.”
[1]
Zetterholm
suggests that Paul performed a “balancing act” in his letters to the churches
for Gentile believers who no longer worshipped pagan gods, but were still
confined to live with their pagan worshipping family, friends, and co-workers. According to Zetterholm,
“The problem for these gentile adherents to the Jesus movement
was essentially the same as that which faced Jews living in a non-Jewish
environment; namely, how to live in a pagan society and not get involved in
idolatry.” [2]
“Far from ‘breaking the law,’ (in reference to food) Paul seems
to be engaged in the process of applying it (the ruling of Acts 15), defining
which acts in which circumstances constitute idolatry and which do not, in a
manner quite similar to the rabbinic debates in tractates of the Mishnah.” [3]
Paul’s standard related
to acceptable Gentile food appears came down to two overriding considerations
that I define as: Intention (Conscience)
and Interpretation. Did the believer
violate his own conscience by eating and could the action of one believer be interpreted
by another believer as giving liberty to break a commandment, “will not his conscience, if he is weak, be
strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?” (1Cor 8:10).
The role of personal
conscience is an overriding consideration for Paul, “Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions
for conscience sake,” (1Cor 10:25). The word “conscience” (1Cor 8:7),
is translated from the Greek word syneidesis,
which can mean both “conscience” and “intention”. Eating food sacrificed to an idol in
ignorance is not considered a violation, “Happy
is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves,” (Rom 14:22). However, if an individual secretly performs an
act to gain favor with people or a pagan god, such acts would be considered a
transgression of the commandments.
Technically, “nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom
14:14), since foods are only judged as clean or unclean by the standard of God’s
commandments. Yet, a Jewish believer is obligated
to the full weight of the commandments, “who thinks anything to be unclean, to
him it is unclean.” (Rom
14:14). Less this whole issue of food
become a stumbling block to the brethren in the church, Paul offered the
following directive, “Do not tear down the work
of God for the sake of food. All things
indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense,”
(Rom 14:20). Although Paul allowed a greater choice for
the Gentile believer, a Gentile believer’s actions must be muted because of
their potential effect on Jewish believers, or even on another Gentile believer
who may misinterpret a meal as permitting foods sacrificed to idols.
Interpretation of a
believer’s eating habits is the other major consideration in Paul’s letters, “if someone sees you…dining in an idol’s
temple, will not his conscience…be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to
idols?” (1Cor 8:10). Paul’s use of another person’s interpretation
follows a rabbinic principle (mar’it‘ain)
that restricts the performance of an acceptable act because the action may be
incorrectly interpreted leading another person to perform an act that is
not permitted. This rabbinic idea is reflected
in Paul’s instructions, “Take care that
this liberty of yours does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if
someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his
conscience, if he is weak be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols?”
(1Cor 8:9-10).
The rabbis seemed to
enjoy identifying actions that they felt could be interpreted incorrectly. This resulted in numerous rulings by the rabbis
such as the following examples:
(1)
A Jew may not lease a
bath house to a Gentile, since the bath
house might be referred to by his (the Jew’s name) and the Gentile may heat it
up on the Sabbath and thus people might believe that the Jewish owner is
profaning the Sabbath (m. Aod Zar 1:9).
(2)
A Jew must consider
his act before picking up a coin in front of a pagan temple. One can collect the coin
provided he turns his back to the temple before picking up the coin. One is not allowed to bow toward the temple
to pick up the coin on the chance that someone may be watching and conclude
that bowing before an idol is acceptable.
(3)
Rabban Gamliel saw no
problem in visiting a bathhouse featuring the statue of a pagan god (Aphrodite). “Only what they (the pagans) treat as a deity is prohibited,
but what they do not treat as a deity is permitted” (m.Abod. Zar 3:4). “Rabban Gamliel argued that since the pagans
do not treat the statue of Aphrodite in the bathhouse as a god, it can be
regarded as mere decoration. By narrowing down the definition of idolatry to
include cultic activity only, the rabbis rendered acceptable the non-cultic but
still religious aspects of pagan society, making it possible to live and
function in an environment permeated with idolatry.” [4]
David Rudolph, in his chapter “Paul and the
Food Laws” [5]
provides an excellent perspective that places the words of Paul in the
historical context of first century Pharisaic “halakha” (interpretation of the
Law). According to Mr. Rudolph, Romans
chapter 14 largely reflected an ongoing discussion in Pharisaic Judaism related
to the purity of food eaten, and what level of contamination of a “clean” food
was permissible. For example, if a fly
landed in your soup and dies (a dead body), could you still eat your soup? (This just happened to my dad while I was in
Dallas on a recent trip after I had written the previous words.) If a piece of
bacon fell on your salad, was the entire salad uneatable? The rabbis established some general guidelines
for food contamination that are beyond this writing, but as a general rule, if
the contamination was less than 1/60th of the overall portion,
eating was generally permissible. (My dad still sent the soup back.)
Food concerns had always been a consideration
for Jews desiring to follow the commandments.
What changed for the early church was the introduction of Gentile into
the mix of believers previously limited only to Jews and Samaritans. The introduction of Gentiles presented the
potential for unlawful practices and conflict.
Had the meat brought by Gentiles to the community meal been sacrificed
to an idol, killed in a manner contrary to the Law, or had it come in contact
with some form of contamination. As a
general rule, it was better to not know “for
conscience’s sake”. But if there was
a question about a person’s act might be interpreted, “It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by
which your brother stumbles,” (1Cor
10:21).
- Scott
[1] Paul
Within Judaism, “The Question of Assumptions”, Karin Hedner Zetterholm,
page 81&89
[2] Paul
Within Judaism, “The Question of Assumptions”, Karin Hedner Zetterholm,
page 93
[3] Paul
Within Judaism, “The Question of Assumptions”, Karin Hedner Zetterholm,
page 99
[4] Paul
Within Judaism, “The Question of Assumptions”, Karin Hedner Zetterholm,
page 101
[5] Paul
the Jew, Gabriele Boccaccini & Carlos A. Segovia (Editors), 2016
Edition, pages 151-181
No comments:
Post a Comment