First-century Christians Likely Ate Pork

Insight on the Scriptures, vol. I (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988) pp. 1172-3), under article entry "IDOLS, MEATS OFFERED TO," reminds us that first-century Christians had to give careful regard to the circumstances for when they might choose to eat some meat from an animal, part of which had been consumed in a sacrifice at a pagan temple, the more so when eating the other part of the meat while either in the company of unknowledgeable unbelievers or in the company of those newly converted to Christianity. What might some of those circumstances be? They are set forth in the article referred to above, and an excerpt of which follows here:

"Under inspiration Paul provided the Corinthian Christians with timely information to aid them in making the correct decisions. Although “an idol is nothing,” it would not be advisable for a Christian to go to an idol temple to eat meat (even though his eating was not part of a religious ceremony), because he could thereby be giving spiritually weak observers the wrong impression. Such observers might conclude that the Christian was worshiping the idol, and they could be stumbled by this. It could lead such weaker ones to the point of actually eating meats sacrificed to idols in religious ceremonies, in direct violation of the decree of the governing body. There was also the danger that the Christian eater would violate his own conscience and yield to idol worship.​—1Co 8:1-13.

"Since the ceremonial offering of meats to idols produced no change in the meat, the Christian could, however, with a good conscience buy meat from a market that received some of its meat from religious temples. This meat had lost its “sacred” significance. It was just as good as any other meat, and the Christian was therefore not under obligation to make inquiry respecting its origin.​—1Co 10:25, 26.

Furthermore, the Christian, upon being invited to a meal, did not have to make inquiry concerning the source of the meat but could eat it with a good conscience. If, however, an individual present at the meal were to remark that the meat had been “offered in sacrifice,” then the Christian would refrain from eating it to avoid stumbling others.​—1Co 10:27-29."

No, it would not per se--and not necessarily--be an act of idolatry for a Christian to eat some meat while seated in a dining room in a pagan temple even though some other part of the animal's flesh had just been offered in sacrifice to a pagan god/goddess, which was an act usually performed on an altar at or near the temple's entrance. It was not advisable for a Christian to do such a thing because an unbeliever at the temple might assume that the Christian there had ordered up the sacrifice, and was now eating his communion part of the sacrificial victim. True, dining rooms in a pagan temple usually accommodated celebrants of a cultic sacrifice, but not necessarily. At times, the banquet rooms served as a place where secular business might be conducted, and where acquaintances might meet for various other reasons, as is done today by those who reserve a restaurant's banquet room. 

So, what has all this to do with whether or not there is a likelihood that some first-century Christians qua Christians had eaten pork? Consider the research by Susan Cole, Associate Professor and Chair in the Department of Classics in the University at Buffalo New York's College of Arts and Sciences. An article that reviewed Cole's research was presented by Patricia Donovan and was released on August 16, 2000. Donovan (whose article titled Hog Wild in Athens B.C.E.! Role of Pigs in Social and Religious Life Provides Insights into Ancient Greece) is now retired from University Communications, University at Buffalo. Excerpts of her review are as follows: 

"Pork may be today's "other white meat," but when it comes to hog heaven, we can't hold a candle to the ancient Greeks.... 

"In Greece, for instance, the pig served as a sacrificial animal, a votive offering to gods, especially those who preferred swine to a chicken or a hecatomb of oxen. Since protein was an important food group but less available than grains and vegetables, it was the rare pig whose entire self was consumed in the sacrificial flame. Instead, since that meat went bad quickly, it was important that freshly killed animals be distributed for food as efficiently as possible.

"This was one function of the ubiquitous Greek cults, relatively small circles of individuals united by a particular religious devotion or practice that met to offer sacrifices on behalf of their patron deities....

"When a cult presented an animal for temple sacrifice, only part of the sacrifice was consumed by fire. That part was for the god. Although there were exceptions, the rest was usually shared by the sanctuary attendants and members of the sacrificing cult....

"Cole points out that meat distribution, particularly of a large animal like a sow or a boar, frequently took place at a sacrificial meal -- a fairly large dinner party -- held for members of the cult that had purchased the animal used in the sacrifice. In fact, Cole says, ancient dinner menus and records from sanctuaries and cults have survived and clearly indicate the importance of pork as a valued source of protein."--News Center, University at Buffalo. 

If, then, a non-Christian businessman assured his Christian business associate that for the sake of convenience he and other business associates could conclude a business deal over a meal in a temple dining room, but that there would be no cultic rituals participated by any in attendance, then the Christian might feel no compunction about attending and paying for a meal at the temple. True, his conscience might not send up a red flag against his attendance, but what about the conscience of others? Suppose a newly converted man stumbled? Suppose that unbelievers consider the Christian's behavior to be a betrayal of his faith? Suppose that the Christian immersed in the idolatrous hubbub occurring at the temple let himself become enticed to wander off into giving some form of worship to the temple's patron deity? So, the Christian shows wisdom when he refuses to eat a meal inside a temple. 

What, though, if the Christian is at a meal in an unbeliever's home, and another newly converted Christian weak in his faith is also in attendance at the dinner? Suppose the following remark is made by either the unbeliever or by the newly converted man: "This is meat from a boar sacrificed to Demeter"? Then the two Christians present at the meal ought not to eat, the newly converted Christian not to eat because he would wound his own conscience, and the more mature Christian also ought not to eat in order that he would not wound the newly-converted man's conscience, nor to eat because the unbeliever may be looking for a way to bring an accusation against the Christians eating a meal in his home.

The issue is joined over a matter of conscience that may operate differently in each believer according to how much knowledge each one has acquired in his study of God's word. The issue is not joined over the question of the nature of the meat being eaten--whether or not the meat is pork--, but whether or not the meat had come from an animal devoted to a false god/goddess. Quite often the animals sacrificed at a pagan temple were pigs. It is very telling against the thought that first-century Christians were forbidden to eat pork, for then the apostle Paul would certainly have invoked such a prohibition as an added reason for a Christian to be careful about the idea of his going to a temple to eat a meal.