Revision of the Four-point Interdiction1James’s initial exhortation was to abstain from (1) “the pollutions of the idols” [τῶν ἀλισγημάτων τῶν εἰδώλων], (2) “and the illicit sexual intercourse” [καὶ τῆς πορνείας], (3) “and the strangled [things]” [καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ], (4) “and the blood” [καὶ τοῦ αἵματος] (Acts 15:20).2 Rather than atomizing each item, the threefold employment of the conjunction καί (“and”) instead of ἤ (“or”) links all four together. Rather than broadly generalizing them, the article (“the”) preceding each one seems to indicate specific engagement in a particular environment.3
Following the group consensus, when submitted in writing, the recorded listing differs from James’s original proposal in wording, sequence, and article omission (Acts 15:29): (1) “[things] sacrificed to idols” [εἰδωλοθύτων], (2) “and blood” [καὶ αἵματος], (3) “and strangled [things]” [καὶ πνικτοῦ], (4) “and illicit sexual intercourse” [καὶ πορνείας]. The rearrangement more readily links “blood” with “strangled [things]” and both to the first prohibition, which is more specifically identified as “[things] sacrificed to idols.” The “illicit sexual intercourse” proscription is moved to the end of the sequence, albeit still contextually relevant to the others.
About seven years later—after the dispersion of the apostles—James and the Jerusalem elders quoted what had earlier been written, though with slight variation (Acts 21:25). The sequence is the same, whereas the genitives (prepositional objects) are reworded as accusatives (direct objects) with no significant change of meaning. The first proscription is articular yet singular instead of plural: “that which is sacrificed to idols” [τό ... εἰδωλόθυτον]. The second is still singular: “and blood” [καὶ αἷμα].4 The third is changed from plural to singular: “and what is strangled” [καὶ πνικτὸν]. Other than grammatical case, the final abstention is the same: “and illicit sexual intercourse” [καὶ πορνείαν]. For all practical purposes, the written version of the appeal and the quoted version are essentially the same.
Abstention #1
After James’s allusion to “the pollutions of idols” (Acts 15:20), the first proscription in the written decree is more specifically identified as εἰδωλόθυτος (Acts 15:29; 21:25)—a strictly Jewish5 and likely Jewish-Christian6 expression—referring to “someth[thing] offered to a cultic image/idol, food sacrificed to idols” (BDAG 280). Gentile polytheists, on the other hand, typically used the term ἱερόθυτον, meaning “devoted/sacrificed to a divinity,” or as a substantive, “meat sacrificed to idols” (BDAG 470). Paul seems to make a comparative distinction between εἰδωλόθυτος (1 Cor. 8:1, 4, 7, 10; 10:19) and ἱερόθυτον (1 Cor. 10:28).7
The ongoing debate is whether εἰδωλόθυτος refers to (a) food specifically eaten as part of a cultic ritual devoted to a pagan deity, or (b) the consumption of food having been sacrificed to a pagan idol, irrespective of the occasion and location of the meal.
First Corinthians 8–10
Remembering that Paul participated in issuing and disseminating the Jerusalem-conference decree (Acts 15:2–16:5), a few years later he had the opportunity to make practical application in his correspondence to the Corinth church, albeit adapted to Corinth’s unique situation.8 In chapters 8–10 of 1 Corinthians, while discussing the limits of ἐξουσία (“liberty”),9 Paul addresses the contentious matter of εἰδωλόθυτα, “things offered to idols” (N/KJV), or “things sacrificed to idols” (ASV, NASB95), or “food offered to idols” (ESV, RSV), or “food sacrificed to idols” (CSB, NASB20, NIV, NET).
It is not necessarily the sacrificial food itself but idolatry with which Paul takes issue (10:7, 14; cf. 5:11-13; 6:9-11). The primary focus of chap. 8 is the effect one’s actions might have on a weaker Christian (presumably a Gentile Christian), whereas the primary focus of chap. 10 is the effect one’s actions might have on an unbeliever.
It may be helpful to pay attention to the pronouns and related pronominal expressions in these chapters.
o Obviously when first person singulars (“I,” “me,” “my”) are used, Paul is the lone referent (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:1-3, 6, 8, 15-23, 26-27; 10:1, 14, 15, 19, 20, 29-30, 33; 11:1), occasionally employing the exclusive “we” to involve his immediate coworkers (9:4-6, 11-12).
o When the entire congregation is brought into Paul’s sphere of reference, the inclusive “we” is used (8:1, 4, 6, 8; 9:1, 10, 25; 10:6, 8-9, 11, 16-17, 22).
o When directly addressing a segment of the congregation, namely those eating sacrificial meat, Paul employs second person (“you”) terminology, both plural (8:9, 12) and singular (8:10-11; 10:29).
o When speaking to the entire Corinthian church, he uses second person plural address (9:2, 11-13, 24; 10:1, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20-21, 25, 27, 31-32; 11:1).
In view of the reputation of ancient Corinth, Paul’s repeated warnings to the Christians there against idolatry and sexual immorality are understandable (1 Cor. 5:1–7:2; 8:1-13; 10:7-8, 14-33; 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:16; 12:21). Many in the church were former idolaters and “would then need to go out of the world” to have absolutely no contact at all with pagan temples, idols, and sacrifices (1 Cor. 5:10; 6:11a).10
From a monotheistic Christian perspective, “we know” [οἴδαμεν]11 that an idol is nothing in the world and “food” is not what brings us closer to God, so we do not fall short nor are we advantaged if we abstain or if we eat (1 Cor. 8:4-8; cf. 10:19). Meat consumption is spiritually and morally neutral, neither enjoined nor forbidden; it is a personal “right” [ἐξουσία] (8:9a) or “freedom” [ἐλευθερία] (10:29b). It is therefore unnecessary to be overly scrupulous in confirming the particulars of the meat’s source or history before eating it (10:25-27).
Rather than the circumstances of the animal’s slaughter, Paul’s main concern in the context of the Corinth church is intent, perception, and influence. The environment is secondary. The meat of animals sacrificed in idol temples was regularly sold at the markets, eaten as common meals in private homes, served at weddings and funerals, at various family and social gatherings, at labor union meetings, political assemblies, and banquets. While a pagan temple was the venue for many of these occasions, the facility itself was not solely for idol worship but also functioned as a community center or restaurant for non-religious (non-idolatrous) social events.12
Erastus, who served in Corinth’s local government, was one of the prominent members of the Corinth church (Rom. 16:23b; cf. 13:1-7) and would have been hard pressed to avoid participating in public festivals tied to pagan idolatry and sacrificial meat consumption.13 In fact, Paul assumes somebody in the church is “eating in an idol-temple” (1 Cor. 8:10).
Whether secular or religious, the location does not necessarily determine the nature of the meal. One could eat at home or at a neighbor’s house as an act of veneration to a false god or not. One could eat at an idol’s temple as an act of veneration to a false god or not. Seeing that pagan religious ceremonies were essentially demonic, Christians must avoid knowingly engaging in them (1 Cor. 10:14-22; cf. 5:11-13; 6:9-11; 2 Cor. 6:11–7:1). But the mere eating of something “offered to idols” [εἰδωλόθυτος] is not inherently idolatrous or sinful, unless, of course, the participant intends it as such. The determining factor is intent, although Paul takes this a step further and considers perception.
Strictly speaking, it would be permissible to eat sacrificial meat bought from the market, or in an idol’s temple or at a neighbor’s house or at home, as long as it was not part of a religious ceremony (1 Cor. 8:4, 8-9a, 10a; 10:25-27, 29b-31). However, this “right” ought to be surrendered if the meal is part of a religious ceremony (10:14-22) or perceived as such (8:7; 10:28), or leads to lapsing into idolatry or conscience violation (6:9-11; 8:7-12; 10:7, 14), or spiritually harms a fellow-Christian (8:9-12), or compromises one’s Christian influence (8:13; 9:19-27; 10:28-29, 32-33). The answer lies, not in mere knowledge, but in love (8:1-3), which always seeks the best interests of others (10:23–11:1; 13:4-7).
Romans 14–15
Although Romans 14:1–15:13 may appear to be an adaptation of what was earlier written in 1 Corinthians 8–10, the respective audiences and circumstances are quite different. In 1 Corinthians there is nothing comparable to Romans 14 as per vegetarianism, special holy days, “clean” vs. “unclean,” and abstaining from wine (vv. 2, 5-6, 14, 20, 21). While debated in scholarly circles, the context of Romans 14–15 seems to involve Jewish believers and others influenced by Jewish traditions holding onto the special days and dietary regulations of the Mosaic system.
The primary focus in the Corinthian letter is the “conscience” [συνείδησις] and more about idolatry and pagan sacrifice [εἰδωλόθυτος] than dietary laws, whereas the main concern in Romans is strained relations in the church due to differing levels of faith and understanding. From Paul’s perspective, the “weak” among the Romans would have included anyone contributing to disunity, guilty of selfish disregard for others and unwarranted judging. The more obvious overlapping theme of 1 Corinthians 8–10 and Romans 14–15 is not sacrificial meat or sexual immorality but the need for self-restraint and consideration of fellow-Christians. Meanwhile, back in Jerusalem, the proscriptive guidelines for Gentile believers were still considered relevant (Acts 21:25).
Revelation 2
Issues that prompted the Jerusalem-conference decisions and some of Paul’s written exhortations evidently persisted across the Roman Empire throughout the first century. In the final book of the NT the Lord revealed, through his servant John, messages to seven churches in Western Asia Minor, two of which are pertinent to our study.
Despite satanic forces and brutal hostilities, the church in Pergamon held fast to the Lord’s name and did not deny the faith. Nevertheless, like the OT account of Balaam (Numbers 22–25), false teachers were responsible for “a stumbling block” [σκάνδαλον], luring people “to eat [things] offered to idols and to commit illicit sex” (Rev. 2:14). The comparative OT story involved sacrifices to Moabite gods, eating, bowing down to pagan deities, and harlotry. The church in Thyatira, although commended for their (good) works, love, faith, service, and perseverance, were tolerating a movement “to commit illicit sex and to eat [things] offered to idols” (Rev. 2:20).
Paul had also used examples from the OT to warn against idolatry and sexual misconduct (1 Cor. 10:1-8). Both sins are addressed in his letter to the Romans (1:18-32), and he employs the “stumbling block” [σκάνδαλον] metaphor in the context of dietary scruples (Rom. 14:13). He further exhorts, “take heed of those causing the divisions and the stumbling blocks [σκάνδαλα] contrary to the teaching you have learned, and stay away from them” (Rom. 16:17).
Conclusion
As we examine applicable information in scripture, we need to be mindful of the variety of contexts involving different historical, chronological, geographical, and sociocultural factors.
o The Jerusalem conference (ca. AD 50) initially convened to address disruptions caused by judaizing instigators among Christ’s ethnically mixed churches, particularly communities from Judea northward through Syria and northwestward through Cilicia and Galatia in Central Asia Minor. The resulting pronouncement nullified unnecessary burdens placed on non-Jewish Christians, while offering the four-point abstention related to “the pollutions of idols” in consideration of those with deep convictions under the influence of old-covenant Judaism.
o The Corinthian correspondence (ca. AD 56) concerns eating meat associated with pagan idolatry in mid-first-century Corinth in the Roman province of Achaia (Lower Greece), with particular emphasis on intent, perception, and influence, although Jew-Gentile tensions are not as evident.
o In Romans (ca. AD 57) the issue is how Christian brothers and sisters of mid-first-century Rome treat one another and potential disunity among the churches. This apparently involved Jewish believers and perhaps others influenced by Jewish traditions holding onto the special days and dietary regulations of the Mosaic system, whereas other church members did not share these sentiments.
o Near the end of the first century in Western Asia Minor (ca. AD 96), at least two of the seven churches of Revelation were dealing with the problems of sexual immorality and eating food sacrificed to idols, bringing us full circle back to the Jerusalem-conference decree.
In the next post the other proscriptions will be more closely examined.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 When the group decision was put into writing, it was later described as τὰ δόγματα (Acts 16:4), the plural form of the noun δόγμα, referring to “a formal statement concerning rules or regulations that are to be observed .... of formalized sets of rules ordinance, decision, command” (BDAG 254), variously rendered “decrees” (ASV, NASB95, NET, N/KJV), “ordinances” (NASB20), “decisions” (CSB, ESV, NIV, N/RSV).
2 Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.
3 Textual variation notwithstanding: καὶ [τοῦ] πνικτοῦ (“and [the] strangled”)?
4 The Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus include the article here: καὶ τὸ αἷμα (“and the blood”), whereas other standard texts do not.
5 BDAG 280; Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 139; Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 357.
6 See esp. Ben Witherington III, “Not So Idle Thoughts about Eidolothuton,” Tyndale Bulletin 44.2 (1993): 237-39.
7 There is textual variation among manuscripts containing 1 Cor. 10:28. The Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus read εἰδωλόθυτόν instead of ἱερόθυτόν, but the weight of textual evidence supports the latter. A non-Jewish person would say, “This is meat that worshipers have dedicated to an idol” (Summer Institute of Linguistics Translator’s Notes, SIL International, United Bible Societies TIPs [retrieved 25 June 2026], <Link>). Scholars are divided as to whether either term or both or just one would be counterpart to the Aramaic Korban (Mark 7:11) alluding to what is dedicated to Yahweh in the Jewish temple as opposed to something dedicated to a pagan god in a pagan temple.
8 Silas (a.k.a. Silvanus) was also involved in the Jerusalem conference, writing the decree, and the work at Corinth (Acts 15:22–18:5; 2 Cor. 1:19).
9 The theme of ἐξουσία (“right, liberty, freedom”) in 1 Corinthians is introduced at 7:37, along with synonymous expressions (7:39; 8:9; 9:1, 19; 10:29), and applied to particular issues in the Corinth church (8:1–11:16). See K. L. Moore, “Female Head-coverings: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (8 June 2013), <Link>, “Part 2” (22 June 2013) <Link>.
10 Second-century geographer Pausanias (Description of Greece 2.1.7–38.7) noted at least twenty-six sacred places, which would have included shrines of Apollo (god of prophecy/music), Octavia (sister of Augustus and maternal grandmother of Claudius), Poseidon (god of the sea), Hermes (messenger of the gods), Isis (Egyptian goddess of nature), Aphrodite (goddess of love), Asklepios (god of healing).
11 Some translators have inserted quotation marks in 1 Cor. 8:1 (CSB, ESV, GNT, NET, NIV, NLT, N/RSV) and 8:4 (CSB, ESV, NET, NIV, N/RSV), raising the question of whether or not Paul is joining the Corinthians in making these observations. Paul’s frequent use of the rhetorical expression “we know” [οἴδαμεν] supports his referential inclusion (Rom. 2:2; 3:19; 7:14; 8:22, 26, 28; 1 Cor. 8:1, 4; 2 Cor. 5:1, 16; 1 Tim. 1:8).
12 See David G. Horrell, “Theological Principle or Christological Praxis? Pauline Ethics in 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1,” JSNT 67 (1997): 83–114; M. V. Hubbard, “Greek Religion,” in World of the New Testament, eds. J. B. Green and L. M. Martin (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013) 114; Andrew David Naselli, “Was It Always Idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to Eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an Idol’s Temple? (1 Cor 8–10),” STR 9.1 (Spring 2018): 23-45, <Link>. A number of scholars limit the meaning of εἰδωλόθυτος to the consumption of sacrificial meat inside an idol-temple and/or in the presence of an idol as a worshipful act, e.g., Philip Brown, “Exegeting a Pauline Assessment of Cultural Change: ‘Idol Sacrifice’ in I Corinthians 8–10,” Holy Joys, republished from apbrown2.net (7 August 2019), <Link>; Ben Witherington III, op. cit. However, the term εἰδωλόθυτος itself simply refers to something offered to an idol, regardless of where and why it is eaten (see BDAG 280).
13 Erastus is identified as “the steward of the city” [ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως] (Rom. 16:23), also rendered “city treasurer” (ESV), “town clerk” (Phillips), or “director of public works” (NIV). A pavement-stone inscription has been preserved in the ruins of ancient Corinth, documenting Erastus having laid the limestone block at his own expense in return for the honor of the office of aedile. This office included the maintenance of public buildings and regulating public festivals, although during the Empire era the authority and responsibilities of this position varied in the different cities and colonies.
Related Posts: Jerusalem Conference Decree: Part 1, Part 3
Related articles:
Image credit: https://greekasia.blogspot.com/2019/12/sacrificial-ritual-in-ancient-greece.html
