This paper addresses the apparent contradiction between the prohibitions established by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, which forbid eating meat sacrificed to idols, and Paul’s seeming allowances of it in Corinth. The Council’s prohibition against idol food, alongside Paul’s discussions in 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1 suggests that the issue of food dedicated to an idol was complex and not easily resolved. This is still indicated today as many interpreters arrive at varied conclusions on the matter. Admittedly, discovering Paul’s coherent position in Corinth and its alignment with the Council proves to be a challenge. The majority of scholars, including Bruce Fisk, Gordon D. Fee, and David E. Garland, offer differing conclusions, yet seem to presume that a consistent stance exists, and so continue excavating in search of it. Others, like Peter D. Gooch and C. K. Barrett, have, as it were, given up the ghost, resolved to accept Paul was just inconsistent. Additionally, a more concerning perspective, advocated by F. F. Bruce, that Paul’s application in Corinth was decidedly counter to the Council’s directives. However, one’s conclusion gains greater significance when considering the implications regarding the nature of God and revelation.
Is there an interpretation that reconciles the texts while preserving the integrity of God and His revelation? It seems there is. However, one must start from the beginning. Investigating Paul’s application in Corinth through the lenses of linguistic and cultural contexts offers a scriptural and theological conclusion that resolves any apparent contradictions in the Spirit’s leading. In Corinth, idolatry was complex and widespread, and Paul addresses it using a specific rhetorical device along with a key additional term, enabling him to navigate the Corinthian context while aligning with the prohibitions set by the Council. This study aims to demonstrate that the underlying issue for both the Council and Paul is more about the “menu” rather than the “venue” (focusing not on the menu itself, but on its association with idolatry). The work first outlines the seeming contradiction and various perspectives regarding it, along with their respective implications. Next, it clarifies the critical vocabulary involved, examines the Council’s prohibitions, and considers Paul’s permissions within their historical and linguistic contexts. Ultimately, this culminates in an interpretation that reveals the coherence of the goals and directives of Paul’s arguments alongside those of the Council.