Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Paul's Antinomianism on Idol Meat Issue versus Jesus
What do we do then with such absolute commands as Jesus gave against eating meat sacrificed to idols? Jesus clearly threatens spewing out of His mouth those committing such deeds.
Modern Paulunists find no problem. First, they apparently share the young Luther's view that the Book of Revelation is noncanonical. Thus, they do not regard Jesus' prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols as a hurdle for Paul to overcome. Then what of Exodus' commands (Ex. 34:13-16) designed to prevent eating idol meat? Paulunists defend Paul's position that eating idol meat is permissible by saying the Law was abolished. They then insist this means that any legalistic notion to not eat meat sacrificed to idols was abolished. In fact, these same Paulunists ridicule any first century Christian who would have tried to enforce the command against eating such meats. The Law has been utterly abolished, they explain.
- Dr. Peter Barnes (Senior Pastor, First Presbyterian Church, Boulder, Colorado), The Question About Christian Freedom ((1Cor. 8:113)) (2002) reprinted at http://www.fpcboulder.org/Sermons/Sermonl27-02.htm
Dan Hill, Pastor of Southwood Bible Church in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shows you that if you came to the conclusion in the first century that you should not eat idol meat, you were in serious error. You were violating Paul's antinomian morality based on expediency. Pastor Hill describes the error of such a first century crusader against eating such meat:
So you start a crusade, you get a banner, get others to march, you
picket the temple and the shambles, you chant, you sing, you light
candles, you campaign against the sin of eating the idol's meat.
And remember, you have some pretty good verses to use on this matter. You can pull them out and get very dogmatic about what God thinks (or what you think He thinks).
Then you go to Bible Class one day and there the Pastor is reading Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians. And you find out that... you... have liberty [because Paul teaches]:
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient
[i.e., Paul's axiom].'
You were wrong, especially in trying to force your decision upon others.
But you would have even been more wrong in thinking that you had to figure out what God thinks... that is part of the fatal assumption of the Law . 7
Thus, Pastor Hill affirms antinomianism as why Paul said it was permissible to eat meat sacrificed to idols. There is no law. There are no absolute principles. Your first mistake was to think there are any laws. There is just a question of what is expedient. Eating idol meat is only wrong if it is inexpedient to do so. Eating such meat might set you back in evangelism or offend another Christian. It might become inexpedient temporarily. Otherwise, there are no absolute rules against eating such meat.
- Pastor Dan Hill, (Rom. 6:14) (Grace Notes) (reprinted at http://www.realtime .net/-wdoud/romans/rom2_6_.html)
What Pastor Hill is saying is that had he been alive in the first century, he would admonish the 'trouble-maker' Christian. 'Stop trying to make people avoid eating meat sacrificed to idols! ' Pastor Hill would not admonish the one eating the meat. They are OK. He would scold you if you said it was wrong to eat such meat.
Unwittingly, Pastor Hill helps us prove how to interpret Jesus' response. Jesus is looking at Paul's entire outlook on the Law. Paul's broader message is because there is no Law any longer, it is permissible to eat such meat. Paul, in fact, says James' command in Acts 15:20 against eating such meat is not binding. The Laws of Exodus are not directed to God's people. You apply an expediency test whether to follow it or not. Jesus was the end of the Law, as Paul says. (Rom. 10:4).
Jesus' remarks prove Pastor Hill's notion cannot possibly be true. Jesus is angry to the hilt in (Rev. 2:6), 14. He is upset that Christians are being told they can commit fornication. He is furious they are told they can eat meat sacrificed to idols. If there is no more strict Law for Christians, and just expediency is the test, then Jesus' words are pointless. We are covered. There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. ((Rom. 8:1)). Jesus apparently had not read that passage. He didn't Team' its truth. Instead, Jesus is full of condemnation for Christians who violate laws !
-
If you live by Paul's principles, it is totally acceptable to outwardly behave in a manner that does not offend others, while inwardly you do not have to live and believe those principles. What did Jesus repeatedly say to the Pharisees who reasoned to the same conclusion as Paul? Jesus' response is in Mat 23:28:
"Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men , but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." (WEB)
In truth, Jesus in Revelation chapter 2 is clearly attacking antinomianism. He is laying down absolutes on fornication and eating meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus is highlighting the error of the Nicolaitans. They were known from Irenaeus' writings to be antinomians. Irenaeus said they believed they could eat any foods. The Nicolaitans taught the Law was abrogated and they lived under grace instead. 9
Jesus' attack on antinomianism is also obvious from Jesus' condemnation of the pennissiveness on the issue of fornication. Jesus is not only prohibiting fornication at idol worship ceremonies, as a few Paulunists contend. To save Paul's validity, some seriously contend Jesus meant to prohibit fornication only at idolatrous ceremonies. However, no such limitation can be found in the text. The fornication prohibition is stated just as absolutely as the prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols. There are no exceptions. There are no plausible hairsplitting arguments that can construe Jesus as only prohibiting fornicating at a pagan ceremony. (If true, it would imply Jesus permitted fornication otherwise). This spin to save Paul leads to absurdities.
Thus, one cannot read into Jesus' words any expediency-test on eating meat sacrificed to idols any more than you could read such a test into Jesus' words condemning fornication.
Apostle John, who is the human hand of Revelation, took Jesus' attack on antinomianism to heart. He later wrote likewise that those who say they know Jesus but disobey His commands are liars. John's attack on antinomianism appears in (1John 2:4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.***3:10...whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.... (ASV)
- See text and footnote on page 121.
Conclusion
John and Jesus are encouraging strictly following Jesus' commands. This includes His command to not eat meat sacrificed to idols. Apostle John has a harsh message for those who claim to know Jesus but who refute His commands. You are a liar when you say you know Jesus. Who else is called a liar by John's pen? The one who told the Ephesians falsely he was an apostle of Jesus. (Rev. 2:2). We shall see that it is no accident 1 John 2:4 would affix the label liar to Paul for his contradiction of Jesus' command on idol meat. (Rev. 2:2) affixes the same label of liar to someone the Ephesians put on trial for claiming to be an apostle and found he was not one. (See the chapter entitled "Did Jesus Applaud the Ephesians for Exposing Paul as a False Apostle?" JWO/JWO_10_01_DidJesusApplaudtheEphesiansforExposingPaulasaFalseApostle__0045).