Meat - 1 Corinthians 8

Even though I can deduce that in chapter 8 Paul is answering a question asked to him specifically about eating the meat form pagan sacrificial animals, I can’t for the life of me figure out what his position on the subject is. Paul introduces the subject, “now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we have knowledge.” And then for several verses he talks about being “puffed up” in our knowledge, or “if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing.” This is true and excellent commentary on the human condition, but I don’t really understand why he’s bringing it up here.

Maybe Paul is letting them know that anyone who has ruled on this topic yet has been incorrect, or perhaps there had been some individuals who had given advice but done so to feed their ego instead of being thoughtful about the topic at hand. I tried to think about what ego driven advice about this subject would look like, and what I came up with is something like “I would never be seen associating with this person or faith,” or something like that.

When I first read this chapter and the introductions, I was under the impression that the meat would be coming from the sacrifice of an animal in a pagan ritual and then sold at the market unassumingly or something like that. Following that logic, avoiding the meat because of its association with paganism would be attributing powers to the ritual that weren’t there. This would lead me to believe that partaking of the meat would be perfectly acceptable because paganism has no power.

Paul makes this same point noting that “meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.” It’s like what Jesus said in Matthew 15:11, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” The sentiment is the same, the food that we eat doesn’t make us holy or unholy, but our character. The food doesn’t matter, but what comes with the food does.  The IM quotes Elder Bruce R. McConkie as commenting about Paul’s answer, “he replies that in theory it is completely immaterial whether the saints eat such meat or not, because idols are not true gods, and there is actually no religious significance to the pseudo-sacrifices one way or the other.”

The reason why this question arose in the first place has to do with the main difference between my understandings of this issue as an outsider displaced by 2,000 years, and what is really at hand here is what came with the meat. The gospeldoctrine.com section here presents a hypothetical situation that would illustrate an actual occurrence where this question would arise. It talks about “a national feast in ancient Greece honoring the goddess Diana. Every year, the Greeks would gather in Athens for an elaborate holiday with a sumptuous feast. 

It was customary among all Greeks to gather together as families and celebrate this feast as a matter of patriotism. A certain Corinthian saint- one who had been well taught both by Paul and by the Spirit- celebrated the feast with his family. They ate a sumptuous feast in the temple of Diana and enjoyed each other’s company. This saint knew that the celebrations honored the pagan goddess Diana and his family partook of the festivities not with any intent to honor the Greek gods, but as a part of their culture and heritage.” 

I’m trying to think would the equivalent to this would be in our day, maybe celebrating a Hindu festival while living in India? But then again, I think about it and I almost certainly would do that because it would be fun and because it would give me to opportunity to show others who knew that I wasn’t Hindu that I respect that faith. It would be similar to going to a full Catholic mass at Christmas time or for a funeral, which I have done. Maybe a main difference would be if I started praying the rosary or something. I absolutely could go to another denomination’s service, but maybe I wouldn’t need to participate in their prayers or something like that. I could certainly say my own prayers during that time, I wouldn’t want to make a scene, but as far as chanting or anything like that, that might be my line. 

The article goes on to explain the confusion that a new convert might experience after seeing a devout Christian celebrating a pagan holiday. So again, it’s not about the food or the meat, it’s about the festivities surrounding its consumption. It says, “Paul partly agreed with Corinthian rationalizers- the gods were mythical, and the pagan priests offering sacrifices were powerless. Yet the principle of eating in pagan worship was wrong, even if the motivation was food, not worship. What kind of an example was being set, Paul asked, for the weaker brother? After reviewing Israel’s idolatry at the exodus from Egypt, Paul made the critical point that walking the borderline of any principle is not living the principle.”

I think that part of this might be so emphasized because of the condition of the saints in Corinth, such as being brand new converts, bringing a brand new religion to the people, etc. And I also think that this can very well go the opposite way, which I think is what we are leaning towards right now, the whole “I can’t associate with anyone not of my same religion” and that is just as detrimental, so we need to make sure that we are walking the fine line between respecting others and being influenced too much by others.

One final note on this chapter come to us from verse 5 which says, “for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many.)” I had absolutely no idea what Paul was talking about here, but my initial understanding was that Paul was referring to the heathen and pagan gods that were the subjects of the worship rituals being discussed.

But the IM quotes the Prophet Joseph Smith as noting, “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages ad three Gods… Some say I do not interpret (Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 8:5) the same as they do. They say it means the heathen’s gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods… I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text.”

I’m not exactly sure why that is significant, but it was discussed extensively so I thought that I should include it.  Also I’m going out of town for a couple of weeks, so if I’m sporadic in my writings, then that’s why and because I’m getting ready to go.