Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
23 Ch. 1Co 11:1. Practical directions on the subject of Meats offered in Sacrifice
23. All things are lawful for me ] A repetition of the words in ch. 1Co 6:12, with a more emphatic enunciation of the doctrine that the great limiting principle of liberty is our neighbour’s edification. It is scarcely possible to help seeing in this repetition a confirmation of the view that the words were originally St Paul’s own, but had been used in a sense in which he did not intend them to be used.
edify not ] See note on ch. 1Co 8:1.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
All things are lawful for me – See the note at 1Co 6:12. This is a repetition of what he had said before; and it is here applied to the subject of eating the meat that had been offered to idols. The sense is, Though it may be admitted that it was strictly lawful to partake of that meat, yet there were strong reasons why it was inexpedient; and those reasons ought to have the binding force of law.
All things edify not – All things do not tend to build up the church, and to advance the interests of religion; and when they do not have this effect, they are not expedient, and are improper. Paul acted for the welfare of the church. His object was to save souls. Anything that would promote that object was proper; anything which would hinder it, though in itself it might not be strictly unlawful, was in his view improper. This is a simple rule, and might be easily applied by all. If a man has his heart on the conversion of people and the salvation of the world, it will go far to regulate his conduct in reference to many things concerning which there may be no exact and positive law. It will do much to regulate his dress; his style of living; his expenses; his entertainments; his mode of contact with the world. He may not be able to fix his finger on any positive law, and to say that this or that article of dress is improper; that this or that piece of furniture is absolutely forbidden; or that this or that manner of life is contrary to any explicit law of Yahweh; but he may see that it will interfere with his great and main purpose, to do good on the widest scale possible; and therefore to him it will be inexpedient and improper. Such a grand leading purpose is a much better guide to direct a mans life than would be exact positive statutes to regulate everything, even if such minute statutes were possible.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 23. All things are lawful for me] I may lawfully eat all kinds of food, but all are not expedient; . It would not be becoming in me to eat of all, because I should by this offend and grieve many weak minds. See the notes on 1Co 6:12, &c.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
All things here must necessarily signify many things, or, at least, (as some think), all those things I have spoken of, to eat meat offered to idols, &c. But if we interpret it in the latter sense, it is not true without limitations; for the apostle had but now determined, that to eat meat offered to idols in the idols temple, was to have communion with devils. I had rather therefore interpret all by many, as that universal particle must be interpreted in a great multitude of scriptures. So as the sense is: There are many things that are lawful which are not expedient; that is, considered in themselves, under due circumstances, they are lawful, but considered in such and such circumstances, are not so, because they are not for the profit or good, but the hurt and disadvantage, of others. Thus the apostle himself expounds it in the latter clause of the verse, where he saith, they
edify not, that is, they tend not to promote the gospel, or the faith and holiness of particular Christians.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
23. All things are lawful for me,&c.Recurring to the Corinthian plea (1Co6:12), he repeats his qualification of it. The oldest manuscriptsomit both times “for me.”
edify nottend not tobuild up the spiritual temple, the Church, in faith and love.Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decision (Ac15:1-29), which seems to have been not so much regarded outsideof Palestine, but rather to the broad principle of true Christianfreedom, which does not allow us to be governed by external things,as though, because we can use them, we must use them(1Co 6:12). Their use ornon-use is to be regulated by regard to edification.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
All things are lawful for me,…. All sorts of food are lawful to be eaten, every creature of God is good, there is nothing common or unclean in itself, polluted or polluting; and so things offered to idols may be lawfully eaten, but not as such, or in an idol’s temple, or before a weak brother; to do which is contrary to the honour of God, and the edification of the saints: and therefore
all things are not expedient; to be done always, and in all places, and before all persons. The apostle suggests, that though they might be lawful to him, and he might make use of his liberty in eating them; yet they might not be expedient, or of service, but on the contrary hurtful to others; and which therefore ought to be judged a sufficient reason for the omission of them:
all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not; though things of an indifferent nature may be lawfully used, yet they do not always tend to the edification of others, which should be consulted; and when this is the case, they ought to be disused. This is observed in answer to an objection taken from the doctrine of Christian liberty, allowing the free use of all the creatures, and disengaging men from an observance of the distinction of meats and drinks which the apostle grants; and yet argues from his own example, and the edification of the saints, that this is not always to be closely pursued; but believers should forego what they have a right to use, when the peace and welfare of their fellow Christians require it.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Christian Liberty. | A. D. 57. |
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. 24 Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26 For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. 27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof: 29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? 30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: 33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
In this passage the apostle shows in what instances, notwithstanding, Christians might lawfully eat what had been sacrificed to idols. They must not eat it out of religious respect to the idol, nor go into his temple, and hold a feast there, upon what they knew was an idol-sacrifice; nor perhaps out of the temple, if they knew it was a feast held upon a sacrifice, but there were cases wherein they might without sin eat what had been offered. Some such the apostle here enumerates.–But,
I. He gives a caution against abusing our liberty in lawful things. That may be lawful which is not expedient, which will not edify. A Christian must not barely consider what is lawful, but what is expedient, and for the use of edification. A private Christian should do so even in his private conduct. He must not seek his own only, but his neighbour’s wealth. He must be concerned not to hurt his neighbour, nay, he must be concerned to promote his welfare; and must consider how to act so that he may help others, and not hinder them in their holiness, comfort, or salvation. Those who allow themselves in every thing not plainly sinful in itself will often run into what is evil by accident, and do much mischief to others. Every thing lawful in itself to be done is not therefore lawfully done. Circumstances may make that a sin which in itself is none. These must be weighed, and the expediency of an action, and its tendency to edification, must be considered before it be done. Note, The welfare of others, as well as our own convenience, must be consulted in many things we do, if we would do them well.
II. He tells them that what was sold in the shambles they might eat without asking questions. The priest’s share of heathen sacrifices was thus frequently offered for sale, after it had been offered in the temple. Now the apostle tells them they need not be so scrupulous as to ask the butcher in the market whether the meat he sold had been offered to an idol? It was there sold as common food, and as such might be bought and used; for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof (v. 26), and the fruit and products of the earth were designed by him, the great proprietor, for the use and subsistence of mankind, and more especially of his own children and servants. Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer,1Ti 4:4; 1Ti 4:5. To the pure all things are pure, Tit. i. 15. Note, Though it is sinful to use any food in an idolatrous manner, it is no sin, after such abuse, to apply it, in a holy manner, to its common use.
III. He adds that if they were invited by any heathen acquaintances to a feast, they might go, and eat what was set before them, without asking questions (v. 27), nay, though they knew things sacrificed to idols were served up at such entertainments, as well as sold in the shambles. Note, The apostle does not prohibit their going to a feast upon the invitation of those that believed not. There is a civility owing even to infidels and heathens. Christianity does by no means bind us up from the common offices of humanity, nor allow us an uncourteous behaviour to any of our own kind, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices. And when Christians were invited to feast with infidels they were not to ask needless questions about the food set before them, but eat without scruple. Needless enquiries might perplex their minds and consciences, for which reason they were to be avoided. Any thing fit to be eaten, that was set before them at a common entertainment, they might lawfully eat. And why then should they scrupulously enquire whether what was set before them had been sacrificed? It is to be understood of civil feasting, not religious; for the latter among the heathens was feasting upon their sacrifices, which he had condemned before as a participation in their idolatrous worship. At a common feast they might expect common food; and they needed not to move scruples in their own minds whether what was set before them was otherwise or no. Note, Though Christians should be very careful to know and understand their duty, yet they should not, by needless enquiries, perplex themselves.
IV. Yet, even at such an entertainment, he adds, if any should say it was a thing that had been offered to idols, they should refrain: Eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience’ sake. Whether it were the master of the feast or any of the guests, whether it were spoken in the hearing of all or whispered in the ear, they should refrain for his sake who suggested this to them, whether he were an infidel or an infirm Christian; and for conscience’ sake, out of regard to conscience, that they might show a regard to it in themselves, and keep up a regard to it in others. This he backs with the same reason as the former: For the earth is the Lord’s. There is food enough provided by our common Lord, of which we maya eat without scruple. The same doctrine may be variously improved, as here: “The earth is the Lord’s, therefore you may eat any thing without scruple that is set before you as common food; and yet, because the earth is the Lord’s, eat nothing that will give offence, lay a stumbling-block before others, and encourage some in idolatry, or tempt others to eat when they are not clear in their own mind that it is lawful, and so sin, and wound their own consciences.” Note, Christians should be very cautious of doing what may thus prejudice the consciences of others, and weaken their authority with them, which is by all means to be kept up.
V. He urges them to refrain where they will give offence, while yet he allows it lawful to eat what was set before them as common food, though it had been offered in sacrifice. “Another man’s conscience is no measure to our conduct. What he thinks unlawful is not thereby made unlawful to me, but may be a matter of liberty still; and as long as I own God as a giver of my food, and render him thanks for it, it is very unjust to reproach me for using it.” This must be understood abstracted from the scandal given by eating in the circumstance mentioned. Though some understand it to mean, “Why should I, by using the liberty I have, give occasion to those who are scandalized to speak evil of me?” According to that advice of the apostle (Rom. xiv. 16), Let not your good be evil spoken of. Note, Christians should take care not to use their liberty to the hurt of others, nor their own reproach.
VI. The apostle takes occasion from this discourse to lay down a rule for Christians’ conduct, and apply it to this particular case (1Co 10:31; 1Co 10:32), namely, that in eating and drinking, and in all we do, we should aim at the glory of God, at pleasing and honouring him. This is the fundamental principle of practical godliness. The great end of all practical religion must direct us where particular and express rules are wanting. Nothing must be done against the glory of God, and the good of our neighbours, connected with it. Nay, the tendency of our behaviour to the common good, and the credit of our holy religion, should give direction to it. And therefore nothing should be done by us to offend any, whether Jew, or Gentile, or the church, v. 32. The Jews should not be unnecessarily grieved nor prejudiced, who have such an abhorrence of idols that they reckon every thing offered to them thereby defiled, and that it will pollute and render culpable all who partake of it; nor should heathens be countenanced in their idolatry by any behaviour of ours, which they may construe as homage or honour done to their idols; nor young converts from Gentilism take any encouragement from our conduct to retain any veneration for the heathen gods and worship, which they have renounced: nor should we do any thing that may be a means to pervert any members of the church from their Christian profession or practice. Our own humour and appetite must not determine our practice, but the honour of God and the good and edification of the church. We should not so much consult our own pleasure and interest as the advancement of the kingdom of God among men. Note, A Christian should be a man devoted to God, and of a public spirit.
VII. He presses all upon them by his own example: Even as I please all men (or study to do it) in all things (that I lawfully can), not seeking my own profit, but that of many, that they may be saved, v. 33. Note, A preacher may press his advice home with boldness and authority when he can enforce it with his own example. He is most likely to promote a public spirit in others who can give evidence of it in himself. And it is highly commendable in a minister to neglect his own advantage that he may promote the salvation of his hearers. This shows that he has a spirit suitable to his function. It is a station for public usefulness, and can never be faithfully discharged by a man of a narrow spirit and selfish principles.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
See on 6:12 for
lawful () and
expedient ().
Edify not ( ). Build up. Explanation of
expedient ().
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) All things are lawful for me. (panta eksestin) “All things (kind of things) are lawful (to me).” So far as eating meat formerly forbidden by the fulfilled Mosaic law was concerned, Paul asserted all things or all kind of things (under the law) were lawful to him, Col 2:14-17.
2) But all things are not expedient. (all’ ou panta sumpherei) “But all things do not harmoniously carry me forward.” Paul’s love for the church and his love for the brethren caused him to live a life restrained from doing anything that might hurt another, Rom 14:13.
3) All things are lawful for me. (panta eksestin) “All kind of things are lawful (to me)-.” Paul reiterates the first phase of this verse that he is no longer under ties and restrictions of the old law (of Moses), relating to eating, drinking, feast days, new moons, and their observance. All kinds of regulatory restrictions of that law had been fulfilled.
4) But all things edify not. (all’ ou panta oikodomei) “but all things do not enlarge, enhance, or build up.” For love’s sake Paul would do nothing that would hinder the edification, or building up of the church of the Lord and her members, Gal 5:13-14.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
23. All things are lawful for me Again he returns to the right of Christian liberty, by which the Corinthians defended themselves, and sets aside their objection by giving the same explanation as before. “To eat of meats that were sacrificed, and be present at the banquet, was an outward thing, and therefore was in itself lawful.” Paul declares that he does not by any means call this in question, but he replies, that we must have a regard to edification. All things are lawful for me, says he, but all things are not profitable, that is, for our neighbors, for no one, as he immediately adds, ought to seek his own advantage exclusively, and if anything is not profitable to the brethren, it must be abstained from. He, in the next place, expresses the kind of advantage — when it edifies, for we must not have respect merely to the advantage of the flesh. “What then? (594) Does a thing that is in other respects permitted by God, come on this account to be unlawful — if it is not expedient for our neighbor. Then in that case our liberty would be placed under subjection to men.” Consider attentively Paul’s words, and you will perceive that liberty, nevertheless, remains unimpaired, when you accommodate yourself to your neighbors, and that it is only the use of it that is restricted, for he acknowledges that it is lawful, but says that it ought not to be made use of, if it does not edify
(594) “ Dira quelqu’ vn;” — “Some one will say.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
Butlers Comments
SECTION 4
Insensitiveness (1Co. 10:23-30)
23 All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful. All things are lawful, but not all things build up. 24Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 26For the earth is the Lords, and everything in it. 27If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience. 28(But if some one says to you, This has been offered in sacrifice, then out of consideration for the man who informed you, and for conscience sake29I mean his conscience, not yoursdo not eat it.) For why should my liberty be determined by another mans scruples? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?
1Co. 10:23-24 Carelessness: As mentioned earlier, with Christian liberty there is risk. There is always an ever present danger that the Christian will become selfishly concerned foremost about his liberty and unconcerned about the scruples of his brother. Thus Paul repeats the fundamental principle of Christian liberty, All things are lawful . . . qualifying it with, but not all things are helpful. The Greek word sumpherei is translated, helpful, but means literally, brought together. It is often translated by the English word expedient, and is more accurately understood by the word advantageous, or, profitable. Paul goes on to say, All things are lawful, but not all things build up. The Greek word oikodomei is a word from the construction trades, oikos, house, and, demo, to build. One might even translate the phrase, . . . not all things are constructive.
The liberty of the Christian is not for the sake of self-indulgence. Christ set men free to reach their highest potential. Their highest potential is in the service of othersto be helpful, to build people up to do constructive things for others, so they may be reborn in the image of Christ. He who would be greatest among you must be the slave of all (Mar. 10:44).
Actually, Paul is not saying a Christian is free to do anything he wishes, participate in every human behavior, partake of any object on earth, or even think anything he wishes to think. Christian freedom is limited by the revealed (Biblical) word of God. When Paul says, All things are lawful the immediate context must be remembered. The context is the specific discussion of eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul declared Christ had set all Christians free from the legal restrictions of the Mosaic law concerning foods. If the law of Moses had not been superceded, no Christian could eat meat which had been butchered by a pagan lest he be ceremonially unclean. But the Mosaic restrictions no longer applied. Such food was not contaminated. Paul is saying All foods formerly prohibited by the Mosaic law are lawful (see 1Ti. 4:1-5). He was not saying, All actions are lawful. But while all foods were lawful, the Christian might sin partaking even of lawful food if he should wound the conscience of a weaker brother by doing so.
Life can never be at a standstill. If it is not growing or developing toward the higherif it is not being constructiveit is declining toward the lower. What is not used for growth will become atrophied and eventually destroy and be destroyed. Christian freedom that is careless and unconcerned about helpfulness and growth, inevitably contributes to destruction. Paul expressed this principle graphically in Rom. 14:19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and mutual up-building or in Rom. 15:2, let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to edify him. And now to the Corinthians, the shocking words, so diametrically opposed to modern, worldly me-ism, Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. The Christian is not simply to help his neighbor if the opportunity to do so happens to present itself. The Christian is to seek good for his neighbor. The Greek verb zeteito is present, imperfect, active, meaning the Christian is to go on and on and on seeking good for his neighbor. That is the Christians job! It may be of significance that Paul does not limit his exhortation to the Christian here to seek the good of a brother. He literally wrote, No one the thing of himself let him go on and on seeking, but the thing of the other. The word other is the Greek word heterou which denotes generic distinction or difference in character. It is translated neighbor. Christians are to put to practice the limits of love on Christian liberty toward all men.
1Co. 10:25-27 Complication: With the issue of Christian liberty and scrupulousness, comes the temptation upon the stronger to implicate the weaker in behavior contrary to the weaker ones conscience. Paul states the principle by which the Christian conducts himself properly and then he illustrates it with an hypothetical situation. First, Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of consciencefor the earth is the Lords, and everything in it. The Greek word makello translated meat market is found nowhere else in the New Testament. It is probably a word coined by the Greeks from the Latin word macellum which meant a bench or stall for marketing merchandise, especially, meats; it came to designate a slaughterhouse and since warfare usually turned a town into a slaughterhouse or a shambles that is how the word came to be translated shambles in archaic English. A drawing of archaeological discoveries in the ancient city of Pompeii shows both the slaughterhouse and the meat-shop next to the chapel of Caesar. This confirms the suggestions of our text that there was a very close connection between the meat-market and pagan idolatry. It would have been very difficult for any one, even a Christian, to buy meat in such a market without being immediately associated with worshiping at the temple of the idol.
So, writes Paul, the helpful or constructive (edifying) thing for a Christian to do, should any plate of meat be set before him, would be to refrain from questioning whether the meat came from the pagan meat-market or not. The Greek clause, meden anakrinontes (translated, discerned in 1Co. 2:14-15), translated here do not question, means literally, do not carry on an investigation. It is a legal term. Paul is not, of course, forbiding all questioning of right and wrong. He is not discussing the conscience of the eater at allbut the conscience of the server. The instruction is that the guest is not to implicate the conscience of the host by asking questions about the meat set before them.
Out of pure worldly arrogance, a strong, more sophisticated person may be tempted to implicate a weaker (more scrupulous) person just to elevate his own image of wisdom or sophistication by exposing the scruples of the more conscientious person. Paul says this is not fitting Christian conduct. It is not right for a strong Christian to exploit the scruples of a weaker brother or a pagan intending to display his own knowledge or freedom by agitating for such a comparison.
It is significant that Paul is setting forth proper ethical behavior of the Christian toward the unbeliever. There may be some Christians who think unbelievers do not deserve to be treated ethically. It is also interesting there is an assumption that the Christian would wait to be invited by the unbeliever to his home and would not push himself into the pagans fellowship uninvited. He says, kai thelete poreuesthai, and if you wish to go. . . . He does not command them to go, or even encourage them to gobut to go if they wished. And if they accept the invitation, Christian helpfulness, Christian purpose to edify, yes, Christian love, requires that no complicating implications be raised. To do so would be immoral!
Christians will not try to destroy weaker, even unbelieving, persons by irritating or ventilating consciences, without positive instruction in what is right and wrong so that edification will result. Conscience is a functioning characteristicnot a diagnosing or circumscribing characteristic. The conscience functions on the basis of what the mind diagnoses as right and wrong. The conscience does not tell a person what is right and wrong, its function is to judge the heart for having done either the right or the wrong. Information as to what is right and wrong comes from revelationfrom the word of God, the Bible. For the Christian to go into a home and begin to fuss and cross-examine an unbeliever as to how abominable it is to serve meat purchased in an idol-market, is to proceed to destroy the unbeliever. No Christian is to use his knowledge or his liberty to destroy another.
1Co. 10:28-30 Callousness: The questions arise, What if a Christian conscientiously believes it is not wrong for him to eat meat from the pagan meat-markets and there is an unbeliever present who believes it is wrong for the Christian to do so? And, what if the unbeliever says to the Christian, This has been offered in sacrifice? Is the Christian to reply, callously, If my eating offends you or bothers you, that is your problem, not mine. I know it is not wrong so I am going to eat it!? Paul says an emphatic, No! The Christian must sacrifice his liberty of conscience to the scruples of even an unbeliever. Out of consideration for the possible salvation of the unbeliever, and even for the sake of the unbelievers over-scrupulousness, the Christian is not to eat.
With all the freedom in Christ and with the liberated conscience of the believer comes the danger of callousness on the part of the person who knows an idol is not a god. It is often true that the non-Christian has a much stricter opinion of the proper behavior of a Christian than a fellow-Christian has. So the Christian must be willing to sacrifice his rights even when the unbeliever is excessively scrupulous. If a Christian is insensitive and disregards the scruples of an unbelieving friend, he almost inevitably damages his influence for Christ with that friend.
The final sentence of 1Co. 10:29, For why should my liberty be determined by another mans scruples? is not a cry of rebellion on the part of the stronger brother. 1Co. 10:29 b and 1Co. 10:30 are rhetorical questions from the apostle Paul, in anticipation of the answer in 1Co. 10:31-33. The Greek expression, hinati gar he eleutheria mou krinetai . . . . is stronger than the most English translations present it. It might be translated, To what end or purpose is my liberty to be determined by another mans scruples? J. B. Phillips has it correctly translated in The New Testament In Modern English, Now why should my freedom to eat be at the mercy of someone elses conscience? Or why should any evil be said of me when I have eaten meat with thankfulness, and have thanked God for it? Because, whatever you do, eating or drinking or anything else, everything should be done to bring glory to God. Why should the strong Christian brother be willing to make such sacrifices as to surrender his freedom to someone elses conscience? Or, conversely, if what the strong Christian eats is something for which he is able to thank God, and he is slandered for it, why is it proper that evil has been spoken of him? Because, any action that violates another mans conscience does not bring glory to God; and that includes even an action for which a strong Christian may give thanks to God.
1Co. 10:31-33 Conclusion: Paul is ready to move on to another problem that is plaguing the saints but before he does he wants to sum up what he has said about Christian liberty. The Greek verb poieite (English, do) is used twice in 1Co. 10:31. In that Greek form it may be either present indicative or present imperative. It appears Paul uses it both ways in this verse. It might be paraphrased, So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you are continuing to do, I command you to do all to the glory of God. The application of the actions of a Christian is as wide as the total sphere of the Christians movement in society. The actions of a Christian will have influence on everyone who sees him, hears him, or makes contact with him in any other way (see Rom. 14:7-9). And this is particularly true of the influence a Christian may have on unbelievers. In the Christian, the unbelieving world is seeing an attempt to live out in the flesh the personality or character of God and Christ. God is glorified when Christians live according to the principles of self-sacrifice and love enunciated by Paul in these chapters (8, 9, 10).
Strange as it may seem, there are Christians who, while being careful not to offend an unbeliever, are careless about offending a brother in Christ. That is somewhat like the behavior of certain persons toward their immediate family membersshowing deference and politeness to strangers while being rude and insensitive toward father, mother, brothers and sisters. So, Paul makes a point of saying, Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church (Gr. ekklesia, congregation) of God.
Paul never compromised on matters that were essential to ones belief in Jesus. He never compromised on matters of moral behavior clearly delineated in the scriptures. He would not even compromise on a matter of indifference (circumcision) when the Jews insisted that it was a matter of covenant relationship to Christ. So, those areas are not in the scope of his statement, . . . just as I try to please all men in everything I do. . . . He did accommodate himself to the scruples of others in matters that were opinions and not essential to covenant terms with Christ. Paul did not curry the favor of men. His primary goal in life was to please God (Gal. 1:10; 1Th. 2:5-6). A better translation of the Greek word aresko would be seems proper. Paul is saying, . . . just as I try to behave as seems proper toward all men in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Paul would do anything, short of apostasy and immorality, to save a man. He would sacrifice any of his privileges or rights to win men to Christ. He imitated Christ. He commands (Gr. ginesthe, imperative mood, Be!) all Christians to be imitators of him as he is of Christ. 1Co. 10:1 of chapter 11 should be considered the closing statement of the discussion of chapter 10. May God grant us the power and the motivation to do everything possible to win men to Christ!
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
Appleburys Comments
Text
1Co. 10:23-33. All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. 24 Let no man seek his own, but each his neighbors good. 25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience sake; 26 for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof. 27 If one of them that believe not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 28 But if any man say unto you, This hath been offered in sacrifice, eat not, for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: 29 conscience, I say, not thine own, but the others; for why is my liberty judged by another conscience? 30 If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no occasion of stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks, or to the church of God: 33 even as I also please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved.
Limitations of Christian Liberty (2333)
Commentary
All things are lawful.This principle was used in 1Co. 6:12 with reference to the use of the body. It seems to mean that there is a lawful purpose for everything God created, but it certainly does not imply that anything evil is lawful. Perversion of Gods intended purpose results in evil. The principle is applied to meats that had been used in idolatrous worship. Such use did not harm them as food, but it might not be expedient to use them. Why? They might cause offense to the weak brother who did not understand this. In which case, it would be better to forgo the right (liberty) to eat. Selfishness leads one to insist on his right, but Christian consideration for others may often cause one to give up his right.
Let no one seek his own.This principle can apply to many other things than meats. The lowliness of mind that causes each to look to the things of others rather than of self would solve much of the difficulty that occurs between brethren in the church, and perhaps in all the world as well. See Php. 2:1-5.
asking no questions.That is, do not conduct an investigation to discover the source of the food that may be set before you. Even if it had been used in pagan worship, it was still good for food. One need not let it bother his conscience for the earth is the Lords and all that fills it.
if one of them that believe not.It was wrong for a Christian to be found eating in a temple of an idol, for his example might cause some one who did not understand to be led into idolatry. But the apostle is now considering another situation. In the event of a Christian being invited to the home of one who is not a Christian it is all right to go if one is so disposed. He need not trouble his conscience over the food since he knows that even if it had been used in idol worship it was good for food.
But if any man say unto you.This was the thing to be concerned about. If one should say that the food had been used in the sacrifice to an idol, the Christian was to refrain from eating it.
for conscience sake.That is, for the sake of the conscience of the one who revealed the source of the food. Do not allow your liberty to be condemned by the scruples of another. But how can this be prevented? By forgoing the right to eat the meat when the weak brother reveals that it has been used in an idols feast.
If I partake with thankfulness.The Old Testament gave certain regulations as to clean and unclean animals, but Paul, in his letter to Timothy, says, nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified through the word of God and prayer (1Ti. 4:4-5). But the problem at Corinth was somewhat different. Would the fact that one thanked God for his food be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the brother who believed that he was worshiping an idol if he ate food that had been sacrificed to the idol? Pauls question is: If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced? Actually there was no reason why he should let this happen for he could forgo his right to eat the food and avoid the criticism. This is in accord with the principle of limitation of liberty which he has used as the solution of the problem throughout his discussion. No mere saying of thanks over food could change the mind of a weak brother who believed that eating the sacrifice would constitute worship of the demon. His sense of right and wrong is offended; for that reason one should refrain from eating even though he had given thanks for the food.
do all to the glory of God.This is another principle regulating the conduct of the Christian. This like the principle of limiting liberty requires one to forgo certain rights for the sake of others. Do not offend Jews, or Greeks, or the church of God:
as I please all men.See comment on 1Co. 9:20-22. The apostle had set the example which he calls upon the Corinthians to follow. The goal he had in mind for himself and for them was the winning of some to Christ that they might be saved.
Summary
The closing remark of chapter nine, lest I myself be rejected, is explained in chapter ten. The abuse of rights can result in one being rejected. Take the case of Israel: they escaped from Egypt, but most of them did not reach the promised land for they perished in the wilderness. Among the many sins that caused them to fall was the sin of idolatry, the very thing about which Paul warned the Corinthians. Concern over being rejected is no idle thing. Israel fell, and the one who thinks he stands must take care lest he also fall.
The experience of the fathers had many lessons for the brethren at Corinth. Their escape from Egypt through the cloud and through the sea was like baptism. The fathers were sustained by food and water that was miraculously given to them. Paul speaks of their spiritual food and drink, for they continued to drink from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.
But God was not pleased with most of them, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Just so, Paul warns the Corinthians not to lust for the things of evil. He warned against the sin of idolatry, and cited the example of Israels worship of the golden calf at Sinai. Sin caused twenty-three thousand of them to fall in one day. Fiery serpents caused the complainers to perish. These things were written to admonish the Christians not to enter into such sinful practices. In view of this evidence, no one was to imagine that he could not But it is not necessary to be overcome in temptation, for God will not permit a trial to befall one which man cannot endure. God is faithful and will along with the temptation provide the way out that it may be endured.
Summing up the whole argument about idolatry which began in chapter eight, Paul says, Flee from idolatry. Then he turns to the Lords supper to enforce his appeal. It is impossible to eat at the table of the Lord and at the table of demons also. Idolatry in reality is demon worship. The cup which we bless as we speak of its significance is a sharing of the blood of Christ. The bread which we break is a sharing of the body of Christ. Because there is one bread, we are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Israel became partakers of the altar when they ate the sacrifice that was offered on it. This does not say that there is anything to idolatry, but it is mentioned to call attention to the fact that idolatry is actually demon worship. Paul did not want them to be partakers of the demons who were worshiped in idolatry. The Lord would not permit one who is an associate of de-demons to be a partner with Him by eating at His table.
The closing word in answer to the question about meats sacrificed to idols brings up the law of expediency. There is a limit to the thing that is lawful, for not all things build up the body of Christ. Therefore, let no one seek his own welfare, but that of others.
As to the meats sold in the markets, eat them without inquiring into the source of supply for conscience sake. The Lord created the earth and all that fills it. So, if some unbeliever invites you into his home, and you wish to go, eat the food set before you without asking about its source. But if one should say to you that it had been used in idol worship, dont eat it. You are to refrain for the sake of the conscience of him who called it to your attention. Why is liberty limited by the conscience of another? To keep him from stumbling, for Paul said, If meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no more meat (1Co. 8:13). The Christian is to do all things for the glory of the Lord. Cause no one to stumble, neither Jew, nor Greek, nor the church of God. Be imitators of Paul as he imitated Christ and gave up his rights to win some to Christ that they might be saved.
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(23) All things are lawful for me.The Apostle now proceeds to conclude, with some practical direction and advice, the question of the eating of meat offered to idols, from which immediate subject the strong expression of personal feeling in 1Co. 8:13 had led him to branch off into the various aspects of collateral matters which have occupied him since, and to which the subject treated of in 1Co. 10:14-22 of this chapter naturally lead back the thoughts of the writer. He repeats here the great principle of Christian liberty, All things are lawful for me (see 1Co. 6:12), but insists, as before, that its application must be limited by a regard (1) to the effect which each action has upon ourselves, and (2) its influence on the Church at large. Does this act tend to my own spiritual profit? Does it tend to build up others? should be the practical rules of Christian life.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
23. All things All natural gratifications are, in their proper kind and degree, lawful. See note on 1Co 6:12-13.
But This primitive all has its limitations.
Not expedient And so, being unprofitable and injurious, may thereby become unlawful. And now he proceeds to lay down some of the moral expediences and prudences by which the eating of meats must be regulated.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘All things are lawful, but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.’
Again he takes up their own challenge that ‘all things are lawful to us’ (compare 1Co 6:12). Quite right, he says, but they are not necessarily expedient, not necessarily for the best, not necessarily good. Such things may be lawful to them, but they edify neither them themselves nor those who see them in the act. Rather do they do them both harm. So what is of primary importance is not the assertion of liberty, true though it may be, but the concern to show love to one’s fellow. Freedom is glorious, but misused freedom is in this case devilish.
Once again we have here an example of the danger of what seem to be sensible catch phrases, but which turn out not to be so, for they always have to be qualified in some way. Trite sayings misrepresent truth.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Conclusion: All Things are Lawful, but all Things are not Beneficial In 1Co 10:15 to 1Co 11:1 Paul concludes this lengthy passage on foods offered until idols by giving them a divine principle to live by. In this passage he restates his original ruling principle that we must seek the well-being of others before seeking our own satisfactions; for the eternal soul of that person is at risk of falling. He first explains that as a believer they are free in many aspects of life. However, many things they may feel free to do may harm them or cause others to stumble. He gives the example of eating foods offer to idols. Paul explains that there in nothing evil about eating food, for Christ has set us free from many religious dietary rules, but eating meats offered to idols was closely associated in the Greek culture with temple prostitution, for both activities often took place in the same venue. Therefore, Paul was warning these believers to abstain from such festive occasions when invited if it causes another brother to stumble.
1Co 10:23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
1Co 10:23
1Co 6:12, “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.”
1Co 10:29 “why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience” Comments – That is, why should my liberty to eat anything become an opportunity to let another man’s conscience judge me as doing evil? So, Paul is saying do not put yourself in a situation to let another man who has not your knowledge judge you as an evildoer.
1Co 10:29 Comments – Feasting on foods offered to idols was a part of heathen temple worship. Thus, when we eat such foods, we may appear to our brother in Christ as a partaker of such temple worship and he would thus, be offended.
1Co 10:30 For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
1Co 10:30
[133] Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, M. Robinson, and Allen Wikgren, The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with Morphology) (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 2006), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), 1 Corinthians 10:30.
Comments Many modern English versions translate the word as “thankfulness, with gratitude, thankfully” rather than “by grace.”
ASV, “If I partake with thankfulness, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?”
Rotherham, “If, I, with gratitude, partake, why am I to be defamed, as to that for which, I, give thanks?”
RSV, “If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks?”
YLT, “and if I thankfully do partake, why am I evil spoken of, for that for which I give thanks?”
1Co 10:32 Word Study on “Gentile” BDAG says the Greek word is used in the strict sense to mean a “Greek,” or referring to the “Greek language and culture”; however, in its broadest sense, the word also means, “gentile, polytheist, Greco-Roman.” In 1Co 10:32 BDAG translates the word as “Gentile.” Modern English translations are divided on this meaning, translating as both “Greek” and “Gentile.”
Comments 1Co 10:32 shows us that in God’s eternal plan of redemption for mankind, He sees the people of the earth in three groups; the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Church. It lists these three groups in the order in which God has used them in His plan of redemption. The Jews represent the nation of Israel. During the time of Moses, God separated the Jewish nation as a holy people unto himself.
Exo 19:6, “And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”
The Gentiles refer to the nations of the earth:
Gen 10:5, “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”
The Old Testament placed emphasis upon the Jews as the nation of Israel. However, the book of Daniel stands alone in the Old Testament in much the same way that the book of Revelation is unique to the New Testament. Both are apocalyptic in nature, using symbolic figures to prophesy of future events. Daniel takes us through the Times of the Gentiles when God divinely works in this group of people to carry out His divine plan of election and redemption.
The New Testament reveals God’s plan of redemption as He works through the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Under the New Covenant, God created a third group of people. He took the Jews and the Gentiles and made one new man in Christ called the Church. This was the mystery that was kept hidden under the old covenant and reveled only in the New Testament. In Eph 2:11-22, we learn that through Jesus, God broke down the wall of division between the Jews and the Gentiles, creating the church (Eph 2:14).
Eph 2:14, “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;”
Thus, God created Himself again a holy nation (1Pe 2:9).
1Pe 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:”
We see a reference to these three people groups in Act 26:17.
Act 26:17, “Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,”
The Lord spoke to Billye Brim about this verse in the 1970’s by saying, “If you will remember this verse, it will keep your end-time doctrine straight.” [134] She went on to say that God will always recognize the nation of Israel forever, even in eternity, then she quoted Jer 31:35-36 and Isa 66:22 to support this statement.
[134] Billye Brim, interviewed by Gloria Copeland, Believer’s Voice of Victory (Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Fort Worth, Texas), on Trinity Broadcasting Network (Santa Ana, California), television program, 22 May 2003.
Jer 31:35-36, “Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.”
Isa 66:22, “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.”
Then Brim quoted Eph 3:20-21 to state that God will always recognize His Church throughout eternity.
Eph 3:20-21, “Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”
The theological hermeneutical principle that guides us in the interpretation of Scripture based on these three people groups is called the “Ethnic Division Principle.” [135]
[135] J. Edwin Hartill, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1947), 26.
1Co 11:1 “Be ye followers of me” – Comments – From 1Co 10:33, they should not seek to please themselves, but to live a life that leads others to Christ, the ultimate example.
1Co 11:1 “even as I also am of Christ” Comments – Paul is saying to follow him just like he is following Christ. Most versions translation the phrase “even as” using the proposition “as” ( NAB, RSV) or “even as” ( ASV, Rotherham). However, Weymouth interprets it to mean “in so far as,” which mean, “to the degree that I follow Christ,”
NAB, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
RSV, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”
ASV, “Be ye imitators of me, even as I also am of Christ.”
Rotherham, “Become imitators of me, even as, I also, am of Christ.”
Weymouth, “ Be imitators of me, in so far as I in turn am an imitator of Christ.”
1Co 11:1 Comments – 1Co 11:1 would seem to summarize the discussion on the discourse of idolatry found in chapters 8-10. In these three chapters, Paul has given himself as an example while making several points. He, therefore, concludes this topic of idolatry by asking the Corinthians to follow his example as he was following the example of Christ. The Corinthians had the zeal to serve the Lord, but they lacked the character and fortitude to crucify their flesh and walk in love. Thus, Paul gave himself as an example to follow in this epistle. The rest of Chapter 11 deals with two issues of assembly of the church, namely the role of women and the Lord’s Supper in the assembly.
John Calvin notes two observations from this verse. First, Paul is only offering to others what he himself has learned to walk in. Second, he points others to Christ as the final example of perfection, because Paul knew himself to be only a man who was subject to sin while still in the flesh. [136]
[136] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, vol. 1, trans. John Pringle (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1848), 350.
1Co 11:1 Scripture References – Note similar verses:
Eph 5:1, “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;”
1Th 1:6, “And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost:”
1Ti 4:12, “Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”
1Ti 4:15-16, “Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all. Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
Tit 2:7, “In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
1Co 10:23. The Apostle here proceeds with another argument against things offered to idols, wherein he shews the danger which might be in it, from the scandal it might give, supposing the thing lawful in itself. He had formerly treated on this subject, (ch. 8) so far as to let them see, that there was no good or virtue in eating things offered to idols, notwithstanding they knew that idols were nothing, and they might think their free eating without scruple shewed that they knew their liberty in the Gospel,that idols were in reality nothing, and therefore they slighted and disregarded them and their worship as nothing; but the Apostle informs them, that there might be great evil in eating,by the offence it might give to weak Christians, who had not that knowledge. He here takes up the argument of offence again, and extends it to Jews and Gentiles, 1Co 10:32; shewing that it is not enough to justify us in any action, that the thing we do is in itself lawful, unless we seek in it the glory of God, and the good of others, 1Co 10:23, to ch. 1Co 11:1.
All things The word all is here to be limited to such things as are the subject of the Apostle’s discourse; and his meaning is,”Supposing all these things be lawful; supposing it lawful to eat things offered unto idols; yet things that are lawful are not expedient: all things that are lawful for me, may not tend to the edification of others, and so ought to be forborne.” See Locke and Doddridge.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 10:23 . In connection, however, with this matter also, as with a former one, 1Co 6:12 , the principle of Christian liberty in things indifferent admitted of application, and had no doubt been applied in Corinth itself. Paul therefore now proceeds to treat the subject from this purely ethical side, introducing the new section without any connective particle (Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 345 [E. T. 403]), and enunciating in the first place the aforesaid principle itself, coupled, however, with its qualifying condition of love. Thereafter in 1Co 10:24 he lays down the general maxims arising out of this qualification; and then in 1Co 10:25 if. the special rules bearing upon the eating of meat offered in sacrifice.
] promotes the Christian life of the brethren, 1Co 8:1 . Comp on Rom 14:19 . See the counterpart to this in Rom 14:13 ; Rom 14:15 ; Rom 14:20 .
As to , see on 1Co 6:12 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
E. Concluding admonition to live in such matters so as to profit one another, and to glorify God
s 1Co 10:231Co 11:1
23All things are lawful for me [om. for me],9 but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me [om. for me],1 but all things edify not. 24Let no man seek [that which is] his own, but every man10 [that which is] anothers wealth [om. wealth]. 25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [meat-market], that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake: 26For the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof. 27If11 any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience sake. 28But if any, man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols [om. unto idols],12 eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness 29thereof [om. for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof]:13 Conscience, I, say, not thine own, but of the other:14 for why is my liberty judged of another mans 30conscience? For [om. for] if I by grace be a partaker [if I partake with, thankfulness ], why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? 31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do [or do any thing, ], do all to the glory of God. 32Give none offence, neither to the Jews,15 nor tothe Gentiles [Greeks, ], nor to the church of God: 33Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of [the] many,16 that they may be saved.
1Co 11:1 Be ye followers [imitators, ] of me, even as I also am of Christ.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
1Co 10:23-24. He here anticipates an objection that might be raised against his previous injunctions on the score of Christian liberty, by pointing out the ethical limitations which restrict that liberty.All things are in my power.[This is the old statement made in vi. 12, setting forth the broad privileges of the Christian freeman, and to which the Apostle in a measure assents.]But all things are not expedient.This is the first limitation of expediency. But expedient for whom? The word might, in view of the previous warning, seem to imply expedient for the subject himself. It were better, however, to take the word in its broadest application, advantageous not only to the subject, but also to all others concerned.But all things edify not.The second limitation; since it is the duty of every Christian to make edification a special object. In the verb edify the reference to others is more fully brought out, and here it denotes the furtherance of the welfare of the Church.In the next verse this limitation is more definitely expressed in the form of a maxim inculcating the exercise of an unselfish love. It is a general truth which he by no means intends to limit simply to the case in hand.Let no man seek his own (wealth), but (every man) that of another.Here the negation is to be taken absolutely, and not relatively, as though it meant, seek not merely his own wealth, but also that of another. The seeking of ones own denotes the selfish attempt to make ones own enjoyment, ones own liberty, ones own rights the sole paramount consideration, regardless of the good of others; and this falls under an absolute prohibition as being a violation of the great law of love. The idea here is, that even what is indifferent in itself becomes sinful when done to the prejudice of a neighbor. Neander. From we obtain for the nominative in the positive clause an a ease of Zeugma. Like expressions occur in 1Co 13:5; Php 2:4; Rom 15:2 f.
1Co 10:25-26. First he asserts that the eating of flesh exposed for sale in the market, and thus disconnected from idolatrous worshipeven though it may have been cut from sacrificial victims, was altogether innocent, since this meat as well as the whole earth and all things in it belonged unto God.Whatsoever is sold in the meat-market., a word taken from the Latin and=. [The sale of the portion of the sacrificial meat, which fell to the priests, formed a part of their revenue, and was not to be distinguished from ordinary meat, except perhaps by its excellence, as the animals offered at the altar were usually of a superior kind.] that eat, without special inquiry., carefully searching nothing, i. e., as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not.on account of conscience. . [What is this to be joined with? Some say the previous participle, as setting forth the particular point as to which the inquiry is made, and meaning on the score of conscience; others connect it with the whole participial clause, as assigning the ground for not inquiring, being equivalent either to: in order that your conscience may not be disturbed, or: because your conscience being well informed as to the real nature of idols needs no inquiry]; it had best however be joined with the whole previous sentence, and the meaning would then be: eat without inquiry in order that the conscience be not burdened or troubled. [Such is the view of Meyer and Alford. Hodge gives another interpretation which he considers the simplest and most natural: buy what you want and eat, making no matter of conscience in the thing. You need have no conscientious scruples, and, therefore, ask no question as to whether the meat had been offered to idols or not.By reason of what is said in 1Co 10:28, one may be led to suppose that it was the conscience of an observer that was meant, which by that act might become disquieted or sullied, inasmuch as he too might be influenced through the example of one deemed stronger in the faith to eat likewise in spite of his scruples. [So De Wette, Bengel, Rckert]. And in justification of this, reference is made to 1Co 10:29, where the conscience of another person is particularly specified. But the cases are not parallel; and in 1Co 10:29, the reference to others is distinctly denoted through the preliminary clause in 1Co 10:28, and there being no such reference here, it were far more natural to suppose the conscience of the inquirer to be intended.The exhortation in our passage applies to all parties, especially to the weak, who would anxiously ask about their duty in the premises. Yet it was also suited for the strong whose freedom of opinion might suffer damage through the inquiry, since their conscience had been quickened by the Apostles instruction in reference to this whole matter.The act of eating he justifies, by a citation from Psa 24:1, [which was the common form of Jewish thanksgiving before the meal, and hence probably was the early Eucharistic blessing, and thus alluded to in this place. Stanley].for the earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof.The word denotes that with which a thing is filled, being passive, as everywhere in the New Testament. That which belongs to God can never pollute, and His children need have no scruple about using and enjoying it freely. [And this meat which had been offered to idols, was in fact no less His than any other meat. An idol being nothing could not vitiate it for its original use], (Comp. on 1Co 8:6; 1Ti 4:4; also Osiander in hoc loco, and the citations from Calvin and Melancthon by him).
1Co 10:27-30 : The same maxim is here applied to their conduct at a banquet given at a private house by a heathen to which they might be invited.If any of the unbelievers invite you.The invitation here is not to a sacrificial feast, for in such a case the person would not need to be told whether the meat set before him had been offered to idols, [nor yet would it be allowable for a Christian to be present here].and ye desire to go.A slight hint that remaining away would be a little better; since heathenish customs were everywhere in vogue, and the temptation to deny their Master on the part of those not firmly established was very strong. He here has in view the more liberal-minded whose liberty he did not wish to retrench, and inasmuch as the case often involved the relations of family and friendship, by means of which the truth might be brought home to those who were still unbelievers.whatsoever is set before you eat, asking no question on account of conscience.See comments on 1Co 10:25.The case, however, is altered when the attention of the guest has been turned to the sacrificial character of the meat presented.But if any man say unto you,not the host, as is clear from the repetition of the , and from what is added further, which cannot in any case be referred to an unbeliever. For the same reason, we cannot explain it, of a heathen fellow-guest who might indicate the fact to the Christian, either from love of mischief, or from a wish to test him, or even out of good-will. Only a Christian can here be meant, and that too some weak brother who has discovered the fact pointed out, and now warns his fellow-believer of it. Not a Jewish Christian, since such a one would not ordinarily accept the invitation of a heathen; but some converted Gentile, infected with Jewish prejudices, who regarded idols as demoniac powers, and in partaking of the sacrificial flesh, felt himself brought into contact with them. Neander. Even a weak brother might be supposed to partake of such a meal, being influenced by his particular relations, and yet with a determination to refrain from every thing polluting.This is offered in sacrifice.. and not , see critical notes. The former is a neutral word, and is used advisedly to represent what would be said at a heathens table; but the latter is a contemptuous expression, which we could hardly suppose would be employed there.eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake.The latter expression is explanatory of the former, and the connecting , and, specifies only the particular point to which the more general statement that precedes applies. If the informant were a heathen, then this expression, for conscience sake, would be unsuitable, or we should have to regard it as a second reason derived from the weaker brother, whose conscience we must suppose to be meant. Or we must take it to mean that the person must refrain from eating in order not to allow the heathen informer to suppose that the participant still had to do with idols, and in order not to violate the conscience of weak Christiansobviously, a forced interpretation. [Evidently then it is some weaker brother that is here meant, for whose sake it was duty to abstain. The union of the most enlightened liberality with the humblest concession to the weakness of others here exhibited, may well excite the highest admiration. The most enlightened man of his whole generation was the most yielding and conciliatory in all matters of indifference. Hodge]. He next explains himself more fully, putting it beyond a doubt whose conscience is referred to.Conscience I say, not thine own, , i.e., of any one who may come into such circumstances (not= ).for why is my liberty judged of anothers conscience?This is not to be taken as expressing the defiant remonstrance of the liberal-minded to his weaker brother, who objected to be governed by his prejudices. Such an interpretation would be unsuitable both by reason of the for, which in this case would be inapposite, and also because the following exposition gives no reply to it. Several other interpretations here offer themselves. Rckert and others think they find here a further reason for the command not to eat (1Co 10:28), taking the words to moan that the liberal-minded should not by eating give occasion for others to judge and blaspheme. But in this case they arbitrarily insert the thought, to give occasion, and entirely pass over what precedes.17To this there is joined another interpretation, which would find in this verse a vindication of the freedom of conscience, which the Apostle maintained in the name of the liberal-minded, q. d., About ones own conscience I am not now speaking; for it is altogether improper for my liberty to be judged by anothers conscience. If I am blamed for that which I for my part thankfully enjoy, so that by my thanksgiving such enjoyment is sanctified, this unfounded condemnation neither violates nor endangers my own conscience; so that in not eating, my concern is chiefly for the conscience of anothersome weak brother which ought to be spared, and not mine own. [This is Meyers explanation, who finds here the reason asserted why Paul did not mean the persons own conscience, for the sake of sparing which he enjoined abstinence from eating in the case mentioned in 1Co 10:28, but the conscience of
another. The mans own conscience, he says, did not need such consideration, for it is not affected by anothers judging and blaspheming, since both are ground-less. The reason therefore for abstaining, could only be found in the conscience of another, and not in the danger done to ones own conscience; and this also is Bengels view].The. = , in order that what may happen?why? a form for introducing a question about something which has no object or ground, as here, and the verb judge () here denotes a disapproving, condemning judgment, as is seen in the parallel verb, , in the next clause.If I with grace do partake.Here corresponds to in what follows, and is not to be understood of the goodness of God, which allows of such participation, or gives me the light which liberalizes my spirit, and hence is not to be translated through grace [or by grace, as the E. V. has it], but it means, with thanks, referring to the Eucharistic blessing which accompanied the social meal, as may be seen in the expression still common in many placesto say grace. As the object of the verb partake, we are to supply meat and drink.why am I evil spoken of respecting that for which I give thanks?, lit., to blaspheme, a sharp word, denoting the bitter condemnation pronounced on the liberal-minded, as on one false to his principles. In the use of it there lies a sharp rebuke of the lack of love exhibited by the person judging (comp. Rom 15:3; Rom 14:16).
1Co 10:311Co 11:1. His exhortation here turns to the Church in general, describing the end and aim which should control the entire conduct of every Christian. And this he connects directly with the last word in the previous verse, , which denotes an ascription of honor to God.Therefore,q. d., in like manner, as ye thank God for your nourishment, so in all your eating and drinking, etc. Or if this mode of connection does not satisfy, we may take the therefore to indicate the logical inference of a general truth from the special one,whether ye eat, whether ye drink, whether any thing ye do.The first may be taken either as generic, including under itself also the eating and drinking, or, it may be taken as expressing action, in contrast to enjoyment. In the first case, the emphasis would lie upon , as equivalent to , whatsoever; in the second, it would lie upon the verb,but this is hardly to be preferred, [though Alford does prefer it]. In like manner, Col 3:17. From what has been said, Paul here deduces a general didactic inference; he exhorts them so to adjust and use every thing, however indifferent, that Gods name may be hallowed. Neander.Do all to the glory of God.[This may mean either, Do all things with a view to the glory of God; Let that be the object constantly aimed at; or, Do all things in such a way that God may be glorified. There is little difference between these modes of explanation. God cannot be glorified by our conduct, unless it be our object to act for His glory. The latter interpretation is favored by a comparison with 1Pe 4:11, That God in all things may be glorified. See Col 3:17, all the special directions given in the preceding discussion are here summed up. Let self be forgotten. Let your eye be fixed on God. Let the promotion ofHis glory be your object in all ye do. Strive in every thing to act in such a way that men may praise that God whom you profess to serve. Hodge]. This thought is further expanded negatively.Give none offence, neither to Jews, nor to Greeks, nor to the church of God.He here specially addresses the liberal-minded, as in 1Co 10:31, who by the reckless use of their liberty were putting a stumbling-block as well in the way of the Jews to whom every approach to heathenism was an abomination, as in the way of the heathen who beheld in their lax conduct a want of fidelity to a religion which professed to separate itself so strictly from heathenism, and would become disgusted at the divisions thus created among Christians; and also in the way of the Church of God, both at Corinth and elsewhere, which would feel injured by conduct so ambiguous and so prejudicial to its unity. And while thus the recognition of the true God in Christ would be obstructed both among Jews and Gentiles, and the Church would be hindered in its happy success, the result would be, in its final bearings, dishonorable to the glory of God. The regard here paid to Jews and heathen, should not so surprise us, as to force us to the supposition that Jewish and heathen converts were meant; for in 1Co 9:20 also, we find the Apostle laying just as great a stress on the duty of taking pains to win both.This exhortation he finally strengthens by a reference to his own example.Even as I please all, in all things.Comp. 1Co 9:19 ff., the accusative of more exact definition. The verb please, as in Rom 15:2, means to seek to please, try to prove acceptable to, and is to be taken in a good sense, as the subsequent explanations show. It is otherwise in Gal 1:10.Not seeking,[ , the use of the subjunctive negative here, shows the implication of a particular affection, which he ascribes to himself, and brings into the supposition, q. d., as one who, as far as I can, am seeking, see Winer, p. III. , 55, 5, 13],mine own profit, but that of the many.Here he puts in contrast over against his own single self, the vast multitude (as in Rom 5:15) whose interests were the object of his pure and affectionate endeavor. Their profit which he sought, was the highest conceivable,that they might be saved.Comp. 1Co 9:22; 1Co 1:18.Assured of this his purpose, he urges them to imitate his example (comp. 1Co 4:16) even as he himself imitated the example of Christ, in the exercise of a love which renounced all selfish interests.Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.Only in so far should they imitate him, as he set forth the image of Christ. Of course the whole picture of Christs life stood before the eyes of the Apostle. But then Paul must have had a historical portrait of the acts and sufferings of Christ, just as it is exhibited in the traces sketched by the Evangelists, and in this we have an argument against the mythical view of the life of Christ. Neander.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The Christians inheritance in this earth, and the duties consequent upon it. The earth is the Lords, and the fullness thereof. In this one sentence there is opened to the Christian an inexhaustible wealth of joy and satisfaction, as well as a wide sphere of sacred obligations. If the earth, with all that fills and adorns it, belongs to the Lord, because it is His work, then in every earthly good which nourishes and quickens him, which strengthens and delights him, ought the Christian to taste the favor and the goodness of his God (Psa 136:1; Psa 34:8), to perceive His power and glory, and to receive it all as the gift of His love. In all his observations and researches, he ought to mark the footsteps of the Divine wisdom and greatness; of the Divine faithfulness and care for His creatures, and above all, for His human creatures made in His own image. Wherever he turns, the thoughts of God which are expressed in the manifold productions of earth, will reveal themselves to his thought. The earth itself, with all its rich and varied life, will become to him a manifestation of the Divine glory and grace; and the more he searches, the more clearly will this open before him. Thus he acquires a large open heart, and becomes ever more capable of enjoyment. Every thing narrow and contracted about him will drop away by degrees. What once seemed strange and mysterious will become known and familiar; he will be able to rejoice in it, freed from all anxious thoughts.Such results are, however, conditioned on the fact that he walks as in the presence of God, that the earth appears to him as a sanctuary, where he ventures to tread, only after he has taken off his shoes, i. e., only after he has divested himself of the commonness of his earthly sense, of vain and proud thoughts, of selfish and interested projects and endeavors, and after he has become collected in spirit; so that out from the midst of all the manifold phenomena around him, the one Divine ground and aim had in them, the Divine idea in forming, and so richly unfolding itself therein, shall shine out upon his spirit. His God, who furnishes him all this fulness for his use and enjoyment, for his study and comprehension, has by this means put him under obligations also, i. e., inwardly bound him to Himself, so that he shall be dependent on Him, as on the One who is the ground and goal of all things; so that all participation and all joy of discovery shall issue in thanksgiving and praise to His great and good name, and so that he, as the priest of God, shall conduct His creatures to Him in an intelligent, susceptible, and worshipful spirit, moulding and fashioning them out of his own spirit, in such a way as to awaken in them Divine thoughts and endeavors, and to cause the natural to wear the impress more and more of the spiritual. In this is included a tender, delicate, gracious treatment of all creatures, and also a temperance and modesty in their use, to the exclusion alike of all conduct that is crude, severe, arbitrary, reckless and excessive; and of all mismanagement as well through unmercifulness, as through foolish fondling and petting.Cf. Scriver;Gottholds: Four hundred occasional prayers; Paul Gerhards: Go forth, my heart, and seek my joy, etc.; and much in J. Bhme, Oetinger, Herder, Schubert, etc.
2. The success, perfection and development of the church of Christ is conditioned on the prevailing power of righteousness, which, on the one hand, takes account of the weakness of unconfirmed and scrupulous natures in considerate, tolerant self-denying love, honors the severity of earnest Christians even though oftentimes abrupt and inordinate, and presents an offering of self-denial to one another with perfect willingness; yet, on the other, injures in no respect the right of evangelical liberty, but avows it and maintains it, and, with all readiness to deny itself of this and that in order to give no occasion of offence, also insists upon the fact that the conscience of a person living in faith is not dependent upon the scruples, and narrow thoughts and judgments of another, but, on the contrary, stands free and far above them, inviolable, in untroubled calmness and clearness. It is thus that, a true advance can be made towards the sound expansion and softening of a narrow and stringent mode of thought, as well as towards the healthy restriction of that which is broad and free; and thus the glory of God be promoted and strengthened in His Church.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Starke:1Co 10:33 (Spener). A God-loving Christian willingly refrains from needlessly doing anything which may awaken doubts as to its propriety. It is not enough to have truth in view, and according to this our rights, and according to our rights our liberty; but the rules of Christian prudence and moderation, directed to general edification, require compliance with love, that true mistress, which, though it often yields its rights, never loses its good conscience.1Co 10:24. Since self-love has become so far corrupt as to lift us not only above our neighbor, but also above God, self-denial has come to be the first rule of Christianity, in order that our love may be properly balanced; since there is no danger of our ever absolutely forgetting self. Indeed, the equity of love demands that we, in many circumstances, prefer our neighbor to self, i. e., the profit of his soul to our own bodily convenience.(Hed.) Let every one seek what is anothersso, in fact, selfishness and avarice say, i. e., take, rob, get by fraud what is anothers. But mark what is added: Let no one seek his own.1Co 10:25. The Christian is free to eat everything, provided no offence is given to his neighbor. Useless inquiries and curious subtleties awaken many scruples. Against all such, simple-mindedness is a sure antidote.1Co 10:26 (Luther). Christ is Lord, and free, and so are Christians, in all things.Oh, man, thou art not lord-proprietor, but only steward in Gods domain! What a rich Father we have if we are Gods children.1Co 10:29 (Luther). My conscience shall remain unbound, though I outwardly comply with my neighbor for his good. We may eat what we will, provided we have it righteously, take it as a gift from God, and receive it with thanksgiving.1Co 10:31. All acts, however small, are sanctified and ennobled by a single reference to the glory of God; and this is promoted, when we do that which accords with a well ordered love toward ourselves and our neighbor, and abstain from whatever deseorates Gods name.1Co 10:32. Believers ought to walk unreprovably, not only among brethren, but also among unbelievers and hypocrites, in order that such may find no occasion for blaspheming Christian doctrine.All have one common Father; we ought, therefore, to be serviceable to one as well as to another.1Co 10:33. Ministers should be an example to their hearers, in order that they may not retract with the left what they give with the right.1Co 9:1. Christ is the perfect pattern of a holy life, who, for our sakes, renounced all comfort and personal convenience. To follow in His steps is the preminent token of a true minister. Such imitation is possible through the privilege we have of drawing from His fulness (Joh 1:10).
Berlenb. Bible:1Co 10:23. A soul truly emancipated may, by reason of its innocence and simplicity, do much which is not only not displeasing, but even acceptable to God; nevertheless, it. may not be always advisable to do it Love must be the standard in all things.1Co 10:24. Let none say, why must I consult for another? Why must he be so weak? Wherefore, then, didst thou wish to become a member of the Church if thou art unwilling to inquire after its members?In this way thou severest thyself from the Head.1Co 10:25. We must deal very tenderly with the conscience on account of our corrupt state. Many are scrupulous where they might be unhesitating, and reckless where they ought to be careful.1Co 10:26. What the earth produces is good; the great point is, how is it used?1Co 10:27. The liberty which Christ has earned for us should be guarded as a priceless jewel, that Christ may have His own.1Co 10:28 ff. A person may possess something and yet refrain from its use, preserving his liberty intact.1Co 10:31. A Christian must order his entire life, so as to render it a perpetual God-service. Even our calling is a service of God; therefore refrain not from it. If with singleness of purpose thou dost consecrate all thy labor to God, then does it become a divine service. This rule put in exercise, sanctifies everything, even our natural work; and converts every meal into a sort of sacrament, so that it, in its own way, as if an acted prayer, shall receive its reward. By this means our most general works are hallowed, and without this our costliest works are punishable. Such searching method in the service of the Spirit many call legal. But it is the right method of faith, whereby the Son makes us free from the law of sin and death. The believer does, according to the spirit, nothing but good so far as he is a believer; he pleases God in all things by virtue of the divine life in him, which he has by faith. His doing, thinking, speaking, all transpires in God and before God.1Co 10:32. If a person desire to honor God, and yet set his neighbor aside, his eye would be playing the rogue. Be void of offence!
1Co 11:1. Christs example is both a gift and an influence. If we put on His example, His Spirit, His compassion, He makes out everything which can happen in our outer and inner life. He is the original, according to which all must be fashioned. The Apostles, indeed, referred to themselves; but they had a good conscience.
Rieger:1Co 11:1. Christ is certainly the most perfect example; yet, since it is difficult for us, in all our varied circumstances, always to track His footsteps, the types of Christ seen in the Old Testament, and the patterns after Him found in the New Testament, serve to present to us His mind in a form adapted to our every day conditions.
Bengel:
1Co 10:30. Giving thanks at meals sanctifies all food, denies the authority of idols, and acknowledges that of God.
Heubner:
1Co 10:24. The Christian pays a tender regard to the conscience of others, without proudly asserting his own rights, and without loftiness of spirit.
1Co 10:29. In doubtful cases, do not insist upon anothers deciding according to your own conscience.
1Co 10:30. Since a thankful spirit sanctifies every enjoyment, all that thou canst, with a clear conscience, give thanks for and ask a blessing on, is allowable.
1Co 10:31. Also in the society of the unholy ought a Christian to keep in view his highest aim, i. e., to glorify God by his life; hence he should join in nothing that dishonors God.
1Co 10:32. By carefully avoiding offences, a Christian should preserve his own honor and that of his Church. The immoralities of professing converts may prove a cause of stumbling even to unbelievers.
1Co 10:33. The Christians pleasing is a holy pleasing. It aims not at his own enjoyment, but at the spiritual good of others; it proposes to win them, and the agreeable exterior is designed to open a way to the interiorthe sanctuary within.1Co 11:1. Christ has taken care to provide for us a multitude of examples, in order to show us that we likewise may follow Him.
W. F. Besser:
1Co 10:24. Liberty is given thee in all sorts of things, not to use them for thine own sake at pleasure, but rather to serve thy neighbor therewith, and to seek his prosperity.
1Co 10:25. There is a hunting after conscientious scruples, in which many persons carry out their whole Christianity, ending, alas! oftentimes, in straining out gnats and swallowing camels.
[A. Fuller:
1Co 10:33. Paul pleased men in all things, and yet he says, if I pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ, Gal 1:10. From the context in the former case, it appears plain that the things in which the Apostle pleased all men require to be restricted to such things as tend to their profit, that they may be saved. Whereas the things in which, according to the latter passage, he could not please men, and yet be the servant of Christ, were of a contrary tendency. Such were the objects pursued by the false teachers whom he opposed, and who desired to make a fair show in the flesh, lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ, 1Co 6:12. The former is that sweet inoffensiveness of spirit which teaches us to lay aside all self-will and self-importance, that charity which seeketh not her own, and is not easily provoked; it is that spirit, in short, which the same writer elsewhere recommends for the example of Christ Himself: We, then, who are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not Himself; but as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.But the latter spirit referred to is that sordid compliance with the corruptions of human nature, of which flatterers and deceivers have always availed themselves, not for the glory of God or the good of men, but for the promotion of their own selfish designs].
[M. Henry:
1Co 10:23. They who allow themselves in everything not plainly sinful in itself, will often run into what is evil by accident, and do much mischief to others. Circumstances may make that a sin, which in itself is none.
1Co 10:27. Christianity does by no means bind us up from the common offices of humanity, or allow us an uncourteous behaviour to any of our own kind, however they may differ from us in religious sentiments or practices.
1Co 10:33. A preacher may press his advice home with boldness and authority, when he can enforce it with his own example. He is most likely to promote a public spirit in others, who can give evidence of it in himself. And it is highly commendable in a minister to neglect his own advantages, that he may promote the salvation of his hearers. This shows that he has a spirit suitable to his function. It is a station for public usefulness, and can never be faithfully discharged by a man of a narrow spirit and selfish principles].
[F. W. Robertson:
1Co 10:29. The duty of attending to appearances.Now we may think this time-serving; but the motive made all the difference: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other. Study appearances, therefore, so far as they are likely to be injurious to others. Here, then, is the principle and the rule; we cannot live in this world indifferent to appearances. Year by year we are more and more taught this truth. It is irksome, no doubt, to be under restraint, to have to ask not only, Does God permit this? but, Will it not be misconstrued by others? and to a free, open, fiery spirit, such as the Apostle of the Gentiles, doubly irksome, and almost intolerable. Nevertheless, it was to him a most solemn consideration: Why should I make my goodness and my right the occasion of blasphemy? Truly, then, and boldly, and not carelessly, he determined to give no offence to Jews or Gentiles, or to the Church of God, but to please all men. And the measure or restraint of this resolution was, that in carrying it into practice he would seek not his own profit, but the profit of many, that they might be saved].
Footnotes:
[2]1Co 10:16.The verb , is sometimes placed after , and sometimes after . The latter position has the best authority in its favor. [Tischendorf, in both questions of this verse, puts immediately after . In the first question he follows A. B. Sahid. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. Beda. Lachmann, Bloomfield, Alford, Stanley and Words., place it at the close of the sentences, not only on account of external evidence (C. D. F. K. L., Sinait., Ital., Goth., Chrys., Theodt., Ambst.), but because the other order seems to be a correction to avoid the harshness of this verb at the end of the sentence, and in such close proximity to the other . In the second question, the Sahid. omits altogether, and B. agrees with those authorities which placed it after in the first, in putting it at the end of this sentence; and only A. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. and Bede make it precede C. P. W.].
[3][1Co 10:17.Before , D. E. F. G., the Ital. and several copies of the Vulg. (not amiat.), Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede insert . D. and E., however, omit .C. P. W.].
[4]1Co 10:19.In the Rec. the words and occur in their inverse order, but the authority for such an order is feeble. The second word was probably thrown out by the copyist through mistake, and then was reinserted where it seemed most fitting (the cause before the effect). [The Rec. is sustained by K. L. and most of the cursives, the Syr. and Gothic versions, and Chrys. and Theodt., and is adopted by Bloomfield, Osiander and Reiche. Some MSS., including A.C. (1st hand) Sinait. and Epiph. entirely omit the question relating to . In favor of putting in the former, and in the latter question, we have B. C. (2d hand) D. Sinait. (1st hand), Vulg., Copt., th., Aug., Ambrst., Pelag., Bede. and this order is preferred by Tisch., Alford, Stanley and Wordsworth.C. P. W.].
[5]1Co 10:20.Rec. has , , but it is opposed by decisive authorities. The interpolation of made necessary the alteration of into . Lachmann puts the second after , in accordance with A. B. C., et al. [In favor of , we have A.C. K. L. (placing the words after ), Sinait., el at., Vulg., Goth., Copt., Sahid., Syr. Chrys., Theodt., Orig., Aug., Bede. In favor of (twice) we have A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Sinait. The text as given by Tisch. is: . Alford and Stanley have the same text, only they place the second .C. P. W.].
[6][It is observable that two of the Evangelists, Matthew (Mat 26:26) and Mark (Mar 14:22), use the word , having blessed, in their description of Christs action at the institution of the Lords Supper, before the consecration of the bread; and Luke (Luk 22:19) and Paul (1Co 11:24) use the word , having given thanks; but in the benediction of the cup Matthew (Mat 26:27) and Mark (Mar 14:23) use the word , whereas Paul uses the word here. This variety of expression gives us a fuller and clearer view of the nature of the act here spoken of. It was eucharistic and also eulogistic; it was one of thanksgiving and one of benediction, and in the application of each of the terms to each of the elements, we learn more fully and clearly what the true character of the Holy Communion is, and what are our duties in its administration and reception.2Wordsworth (ad sensum)].
[7][We here give Stanleys ingenious and valuable note entire. From this passage his meaning has often been taken to be that, although the particular divinities, as conceived under the names of Jupiter, Venus, etc., were mere fictions, yet there were real evil spirits, who under those names, or in the general system of pagan polytheism, beguiled them away from the true God. (So Psa 96:5, ). Such certainly was the general belief of the early Christians. But the strong declaration in 1Co 8:4, reiterated here in 1Co 10:19, of the utter non-existence of the heathen divinities, renders it safer to understand him as saying that in the mind of the heathen sacrificers, whatever Christians might think, the sacrifices were really made to those whom the Old Testament called . It is in fact a play on the word . The heathen Greeks (as in Act 17:18, the only passage where it is so used in Biblical Greek) employed it as a general word for Divinity, and more especially for those heroes and inferior divinities, to whom alone (according to the belief of this later age), and not to the supreme rulers of the universe, sacrifices as such were due. The writers of the New Testament and the LXX., on the other hand, always use it of evil demons, although never, perhaps, strictly speaking, for the author of evil, who is called emphatically Satan, or the Devil. It is by a union of these two meanings that the sense of the passage is produced. The words of Deu 32:17, truly describe their state, for even according to their own confession, although in a different sense, they sacrifice to demons. A similar play on the same word, although for a different object, occurs in the Apology of Socrates, where he defends himself against the charge of atheism, on the ground that he believed in a demon (); and that demons () being sons of gods ( ), he must therefore be acknowledged to believe in the gods themselves].
[8][We let our authors statement of sacramentarian theories, and his expressed preference, pass without debate. The main point of doctrine he has well brought out in the first paragraph; and some will think that the Calvinistic theory of the Real Presence will answer all its demands. In the words of the Westminster Catechism, the sacrament of the Supper may be said to represent, seal, and apply Christ and the benefits of the new covenant to all believers. And this is done through the Spirit who takes of the things that are Christs, and shows them unto us in His ordinances according to their intent. Those interested in the question here mooted, we would refer to the current works on Dogmatic Theology, also to Hooker. Ecc. Pol., B. V., 100:67; Edward Irving, Homilies on the Lords Supper. Coll. Writings, Vol. II., p. 439 ff. J. M. Mason, Letters on Frequent Communion. Works, Vol. I. p. 372 ff.D. W. P.].
[9]1Co 10:23.The Rec. has after in each clause, bat it is opposed by the best authorities, and was probably taken from 1Co 6:12. [As the Apostle was here unquestionably repeating the same expression as was used in 1Co 6:12, the internal evidence would seem to be in favor of (Bloomfield, Rinck). But the documentary evidence in its favor (H. E. L. Sin. (3d hand), the Syr. both, one copy of the Vulg., Chrys., Theodt., Orig, August, and some inferior MSS., which omit ., . .) is too feeble, and that in opposition to it [A. B. C. (1st hand) D. Sin. (with Clem., Athan., Damasc., Iren., Tert. and many others), too strong to warrant its insertion.C.P. W.].
[10]1Co 10:24.The Rec. also inserts after , but it was perhaps borrowed from a similar passage in Php 2:4. [It is not found in A. B. C. D. F. G. H., Sin., six cursives, the Ital, Vulg., Copt., Sahid. and Arm. versions, and some Greek and Latin Fathers. Even Bloomfield, who at first defended it, now brackets it.C. P. W.].
[11]1Co 10:27.The is wanting after in some good manuscripts [A. B. D. (1st hand) F. G. Sin, and some cursives, the Ital., Copt, and Vulg. versions, and Antioch., Chrys., Theodt., Aug., Ambrst.], and was probably, inserted because it was supposed to be needed as a connecting particle. [It is retained by Tisch. with C. D. (3d hand) E. H. K. L., some Sahid., Syr., Goth. versions, Theodt., Theophyl. and cum, but it is cancelled by Lach., Alf., Mey., Stanl. and Wordsworth. D. E. F. G:, the Ital., Vulg. and Copt, versions, and Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede (not the Aug.) insert after .C. P. W.].
[12]1Co 10:28.The Rec. has , but it is probably a gloss which has been substituted in the text for the more uncommon . Neither word was common, but . was of the classical, and . of the Hellenistic Greek (Bloomfield). The former had a neutral, and the latter a contemptuous signification (Stanley), and hence some have thought that no one would be likely to use the latter at the table of an unbeliever, unless, as Bloomfield suggests, by a weak fellow-Christian in an under tone, or aside. The former word is not too respectful for the Apostle to use, and it would imply nothing false. It is adopted by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford and Stanley, on the authority of A. B. H. Sin., two cursives adduced by Bloomf.; the Sahid. version and some indirect testimonies produced by Tischendorf. Julian quotes Paul as using this word in this connection, and his opponent Cyril admits the same (Tisch). The Latin versions of D. and F. use the word immolaticium, to which some Vulg. MSS. add idols, one (amiat.) has immolatium (2d cor. has immolativum) idolis, and the Vulg. (ed.) has immolatum idolis. The Rec. is favored by C. D. E. F. G. K. L., Chrys. and Theodt., and it is defended by Scholz, Reiche, Bloomfield and Wordsworth.C. P.W.].
[13]1Co 10:28.The Rec. after . has , but these words are not found in the best MSS., and are a repetition of 1Co 10:26. [They are left out in A. B.C. D. E. F. G. H. (1st hand), Sin., the Ital., Vulg., Copt., Syr., Sahid. and Arm. versions, and Damasc, August., Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede, and are retained in H. (2d hand) K. L., the Goth., Slav., some Syr. and Arm. versions, and Chrys., Theodt., Phot., cum. and Theophyl.C. P. W.].
[14]1Co 10:30.The Rec. after inserts , but it is feebly sustained.
[15]1Co 10:32.The Rec. has ., but . , is better sustained by the MSS. [The latter has for it A. B. C. Sin., 17, 37, 73, Orig., Didym., Cyr., while D. E. K. L. Sin. (3d hand), some cursives, and Chrys., Theodt. and Damasc. are in favor of the Recep.C. P. W.].
[16]1Co 10:33.The Rec. has , but has better authority. [The former is more usual, and is sustained by D. E. F. G. K. L. Sin. (3d hand), while the latter is sustained by A. B. C. Sin. Comp. on the same variation of reading in 1Co 7:35.C. P. W.].
[17][Kling here hardly does justice to the interpretation he so summarily sets aside, and which is advocated by Chrys. and the Greek commentators, Heyd., Billr.. Olsh., Neand., Hodge, Stanley, and many others. This takes for , in the sense of condemn, and finds here a valid reason for enjoining the liberal-minded brother not to eat against the convictions and prejudices of the weaker one, who has pointed out to him the objectionable meat. The reason is that there is no propriety in doing that which seems censurable to another, and gives occasion for observers to blaspheme, even though it may be right in our own esteem, and accompanied with thanksgiving to God. This. as Hodge well says, brings the passage into harmony with the whole context, and connects it with the main idea of the previous verse, and not with an intermediate and subordinate clause].
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
(23) All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. (24) Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth. (25) Whatsoever is sold in the meat market, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: (26) For the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof. (27) If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. (28) But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof: (29) Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience? (30) For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? (31) Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. (32) Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God: (33) Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
I do not think it necessary to detain the Reader with any particular observations on those verses. everything in them is plain, and obvious. But I would just remark, what a blessed frame of mind, that regenerated child of God must be in, who can always keep in view, and through grace act upon it, what the Apostle hath said, in a general comprehensive manner, of all actions. Whatsoever we do, whether we eat or drink, to do all to the glory of God. This, if followed, would make our most ordinary meals carry with them a savoriness that would be sacramental. And very certain it is, that many a blessed believer, from the unction of the Holy Ghost, enjoys more of Jesus at his own table, than all unregenerated persons do of Jesus at the Lord’s table. And it must be so. For how shall a soul unawakened, bear and know the joyful sound? How shall a soul dead in trespasses and sins, perform a living act of faith upon a living Savior, or spiritually eat of the body and blood of Christ? But he that bottoms everything upon Christ, makes Christ what Jehovah hath made him, the first and the last, the Author and Finisher of salvation: this truly regenerated believer hath God’s glory in view, in all the acts of providence and grace; in ordinances, and all the means of social and godly life. This is what the Apostle elsewhere calls, the knowledge of the love of Christ, which passeth all understanding, and being filled with all the fulness of God, Eph 3:19 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
Ver. 23. All things are not expedient ] An liceat, an deceat, an expediat, Is it permitted, is it proper, is it expedient, are three most needful questions. (Bernard.) Things lawful in themselves may be unseemly for our state and calling; unbehoveful also to the benefit of others. Think unlawful for thee whatsoever implies either inexpediency or indecency.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
23. ] He recurs to the plea of ch. 1Co 6:12 ; reasserts his modification of it , with a view, after what has passed since, to shew its reasonableness, and to introduce the following directions.
] viz. the Christian body : tend to build up the whole, or the individual parts, of that spiritual temple, God’s .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
23 11:1. ] Now that he has fully handled the whole question of partaking in idol feasts, and prepared the way for specific directions as about a matter no longer to be supposed indifferent, he proceeds to give those directions , accompanying them with their reasons, as regards mutual offence or edification.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 10:23 . On . . ., see notes to 1Co 6:12 . The form of that ver. seems to be purposely repeated here ( only omitted), with the effect of bringing out the altruistic as complementary to the self-regarding side of Christian expediency. On Paul’s dialectical use of the words of opponents, cf. 1Co 8:10 ff. and notes. Closing his discussion about the sacrificial meats, P. returns to the point from which he set out in ch. 8., viz., the supremacy of love in Church life there commended as superior to knowledge , here as supplying the guard of liberty ; in both passages, it is the principle of edification . The tacit obj [1543] of (see 1Co 8:1 , 1Co 3:9-17 ) is “the Church of God” (1Co 10:32 ). Edification, in its proper meaning, is always relative to the community; P. is safe-guarding not the particular interests of “the weak brother” so much as the welfare of the Church, when he says, “Not all things edify”.
[1543] grammatical object.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1 . 34. LIBERTY AND ITS LIMITS. The maxim “All things are lawful” was pleaded in defence of the use of the idolothyta, as of other Cor [1541] laxities; so the Ap. has to discuss it a second time ( cf. 1Co 6:12 ). In ch. 6. he bade his readers guard the application of this principle for their own sake, now for the sake of others; there in the interests of purity, here of charity (1Co 10:23 f.). When buying meat in the market, or when dining at an unbeliever’s table, the Christian need not enquire whether the flesh offered him is sacrificial or not; but if the fact is pointedly brought to his notice, he should abstain, to avoid giving scandal (1Co 10:25-30 ). Above all such regulations stands the supreme and comprehensive rule of doing everything to God’s glory (1Co 10:31 ). Let the Cor [1542] follow Paul as he himself follows Christ, in living for the highest good of others (1Co 10:32 to 1Co 11:1 )
[1541] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[1542] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1 Corinthians
THE LIMITS OF LIBERTY
1Co 10:23 – 1Co 10:33
This passage strikingly illustrates Paul’s constant habit of solving questions as to conduct by the largest principles. He did not keep his ‘theology’ and his ethics in separate water-tight compartments, having no communication with each other. The greatest truths were used to regulate the smallest duties. Like the star that guided the Magi, they burned high in the heavens, but yet directed to the house in Bethlehem.
The question here in hand was one that pressed on the Corinthian Christians, and is very far away from our experience. Idolatry had so inextricably intertwined itself with daily life that it was hard to keep up any intercourse with non-Christians without falling into constructive idolatry; and one very constantly obtruding difficulty was that much of the animal food served on private tables had been slaughtered as sacrifices or with certain sacrificial rites. What was a Christian to do in such a case? To eat or not to eat? Both views had their vehement supporters in the Corinthian church, and the importance of the question is manifest from the large space devoted to it in this letter.
In 1Co 8:1 – 1Co 8:13 we have a weighty paragraph, in which one phase of the difficulty is dealt with-the question whether a Christian ought to attend a feast in an idol temple, where, of course, the viands had been offered as sacrifices. But in 1Co 10:1 – 1Co 10:33 Paul deals with the case in which the meat had been bought in the flesh-market, and so was not necessarily sacrificial. Paul’s manner of handling the point is very instructive. He envelops, as it were, the practical solution in a wrapping of large principles; 1Co 10:23 – 1Co 10:24 precede the specific answer, and are general principles; 1Co 10:25 – 1Co 10:30 contain the practical answer; 1Co 10:31 – 1Co 10:33 and 1Co 11:1 of the next chapter are again general principles, wide and imperative enough to mould all conduct, as well as to settle the matter immediately in hand, which, important as it was at Corinth, has become entirely uninteresting to us.
We need not spend time in elucidating the specific directions given as to the particular question in hand further than to note the immense gift of saving common-sense which Paul had, and how sanely and moderately he dealt with his problem. His advice was-’Don’t ask where the joint set before you came from. If you do not know that it was offered, your eating of it does not commit you to idol worship.’ No doubt there were Corinthian Christians with inflamed consciences who did ask such questions, and rather prided themselves on their strictness and rigidity; but Paul would have them let sleeping dogs lie. If, however, the meat is known to have been offered to an idol, then Paul is as rigid and strict as they are. That combination of willingness to go as far as possible, and inflexible determination not to go one step farther, of yieldingness wherever principle does not come in, and of iron fixedness wherever it does, is rare indeed, but should be aimed at by all Christians. The morality of the Gospel would make more way in the world if its advocates always copied the ‘sweet reasonableness’ of Paul, which, as he tells us in this passage, he learned from Jesus.
As to the wrapping of general principles, they may all be reduced to one-the duty of limiting Christian liberty by consideration for others. In the two verses preceding the practical precepts, that duty is stated with reference entirely to the obligations flowing from our relationship to others. We are all bound together by a mystical chain of solidarity. Since every man is my neighbour, I am bound to think of him and not only of myself in deciding what I may do or refrain from doing. I must abstain from lawful things if, by doing them, I should be likely to harm my neighbour’s building up of a strong character. I can, or I believe that I can, pursue some course of conduct, engage in some enterprise, follow some line of life, without damage to myself, either in regard to worldly position, or in regard to my religious life. Be it so, but I have to take some one else into account. Will my example call out imitation in others, to whom it may be harmful or fatal to do as I can do with real or supposed impunity? If so, I am guilty of something very like murder if I do not abstain.
‘What harm is there in betting a shilling? I can well afford to lose it, and I can keep myself from the feverish wish to risk more.’ Yes, and you are thereby helping to hold up that gambling habit which is ruining thousands.
‘I can take alcohol in moderation, and it does me no harm, and I can go to a prayer-meeting after my dinner and temperate glass, and I am within my Christian liberty in doing so.’ Yes, and you take part thereby in the greatest curse that besets our country, and are, by countenancing the drink habit, guilty of the blood of souls. How any Christian man can read these two verses and not abstain from all intoxicants is a mystery. They cut clean through all the pleas for moderate drinking, and bring into play another set of principles which limit liberty by regard to others’ good. Surely, if there was ever a subject to which these words apply, it is the use of alcohol, the proved cause of almost all the crime and poverty on both sides of the Atlantic. To the Christians who plead their ‘liberty’ we can only say, ‘Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.’
The same general considerations reappear in the verses following the specific precept, but with a difference. The neighbour’s profit is still put forth as the limiting consideration, but it is elevated to a higher sacredness of obligation by being set in connection with the ‘glory of God’ and the example of Christ. ‘Do all to the glory of God.’ To put the thought here into modern English-Could you ask a blessing over a glass of spirits when you think that, though it should do you no harm, your taking it may, as it were, tip some weak brother over the precipice? Can you drink to God’s glory when you know that drink is slaying thousands body and soul, and that hopeless drunkards are made by wholesale out of moderate drinkers? ‘Give no occasion of stumbling’; do not by your example tempt others into risky courses. And remember that ‘neighbour’ 1Co 10:24 resolves itself into ‘Jews’ and ‘Greeks’ and the ‘Church of God’-that is, substantially to your own race and other races-to men with whom you have affinities, and to men with whom you have none.
A Christian man is bound to shape his life so that no man shall be able to say of him that he was the occasion of that one’s fall. He is so bound because every man is his neighbour. He is so bound because he is bound to live to the glory of God, which can never be advanced by laying stumbling-blocks in the way for feeble feet. He is so bound because, unless Christ had limited Himself within the bound of manhood, and had sought not His own profit or pleasure, we should have had neither life nor hope. For all these reasons, the duty of thinking of others, and of abstaining, for their sakes, from what one might do, is laid on all Christians. How do they discharge that duty who will not forswear alcohol for their neighbour’s sake?
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 10:23-30
23All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. 25Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26 for the earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains. 27If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
1Co 10:23 This is a return to the subject begun in chapter 1Co 6:12 about how to balance Christian freedom and responsibility (cf. Rom 14:19). 1Co 10:23-33 address the strong brother.
“All things are lawful” This phrase is repeated twice. Some translations put this phrase in quotes (cf. NRSV, TEV, NJB) because they think it was a slogan of one of the factious groups at Corinth or a cultural proverb. This is the emancipated world view of the “strong” Christian (cf. 1Co 6:12; 1Co 10:26; Rom 14:14; Rom 14:20).
SPECIAL TOPIC: CHRISTIAN FREEDOM VS. CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY
“but not all things edify” The practical, spiritual test is, “Does it edify the body (i.e., the believing community)?” (cf. 1Co 6:12; 1Co 14:3-4; 1Co 14:26; 2Co 12:19; Rom 14:19; Rom 15:2). This must be the test in all believers do or say. One’s freedom in Christ must not hurt another for whom Christ died (cf. Rom 14:15).
Just a personal word, this is not to imply that spirituality must float at the lowest level of the weakest believer, but that mature believers must not flaunt their freedom at the expense of fellow-believers. Some believers are dogmatic, Pharisaic legalists. I do not have to succumb to their rules, but I must love them, pray for them, fully accept them, and not publicly embarrass them or flaunt my freedom. I am spiritually responsible for my fellow believers! See SPECIAL TOPIC: EDIFY at 1Co 8:1.
1Co 10:24 “Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor” This is a present active imperative. Mature Christianity puts the welfare of others to the forefront (cf. 1Co 10:33; 1Co 12:7; 1Co 13:5; Rom 14:7; Rom 15:2; Php 2:1-5; Php 2:21).
1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27 This is the voice of emancipated faith. But “strong” faith publicly yields to “weak” faith (cf. 1Co 10:28-29).
1Co 10:25 “conscience” There is not an OT counterpart to the Greek term “conscience” unless the Hebrew term “breast” implies a knowledge of self and its motives. Originally the Greek term referred to consciousness related to the five senses. It came to be used of the inner senses (cf. Rom 2:15). Paul uses this term twice in his trials in Acts (i.e., Act 23:1 and Act 24:16). It refers to his sense that he had not knowingly violated any known religious duties toward God (cf. 1Co 4:4).
Conscience is the developing understanding of believers’ motives and actions based on (1) a biblical worldview; (2) the indwelling Spirit; and (3) a lifestyle knowledge based on the word of God. A Christian conscience is made possible by the personal reception of the gospel. See fuller note at 1Co 8:7.
1Co 10:26 “For the earth is the lord’s and all it contains” This is the affirmation of the goodness of all created things (cf. 1Co 6:12; 1Co 10:26; Rom 14:14; Rom 14:20), taken from a combination of Psa 24:1; Psa 50:12, which was used by the OT Jews as a blessing at meals.
The Textus Receptus repeats 1Co 10:26 at the end of 1Co 10:28. This is not original. It is missing in the Greek manuscripts , A, B, C, D, F, G, H*, and P, also it is not included in the Vulgate, Syriac, or Coptic translations.
1Co 10:27 This verse is crucial in making a distinction between participation in public idolatrous feasts versus common daily socializing with unbelievers. Paul does not have hard and fast rules. He prioritizes personal relationships (i.e., evangelism and discipleship). People are priority. People are eternal. People are the purpose of Christ’s death, not food! 1Co 10:29-33 show us Paul’s summary on this issue.
1Co 10:27; 1Co 10:30 “If” Both of these are first class conditional sentences, which are assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.
1Co 10:28 “If” This is a third class conditional sentence, which means potential action.
“do not eat it” This is a Present active imperative with the negative particle which usually means stop eating it. If the Christian is informed he/she must not eat because the very fact the issue is brought up shows the presence of weak faith or a seeking faith (cf. 1Co 10:29).
1Co 10:29
NASB”why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience”
NKJV”why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience”
NRSV”why should my liberty be subject to the judgment of someone else’s conscience”
TEV”why should my freedom to act be limited by another persons’ conscience”
NJB”why should my freedom be governed by somebody else’s conscience”
The NRSV punctuates this as if these were Paul’s words. The TEV translates this as if they were another question asked by a supposed objector. This is the literary technique called diatribe (cf. 1Co 6:12-13).
This is the crucial question you must answer for yourself. Each of us, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, must define the boundaries of our self-limitation for others, out of love and respect for Christ.
SPECIAL TOPIC: JUDGING (SHOULD CHRISTIANS JUDGE ONE ANOTHER?)
1Co 10:30 This refers to a meal for which the believer has given thanks and eaten. The question sets the stage for the universal principle about how to exercise our Christian rights, which follows in 1Co 10:31.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
all things, &c. = not all things are expedient, or profitable.
all things, &c. = not all things edify. Greek. oikodomeo. See Act 9:31.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
23.] He recurs to the plea of ch. 1Co 6:12;-reasserts his modification of it, with a view, after what has passed since, to shew its reasonableness, and to introduce the following directions.
] viz. the Christian body: tend to build up the whole, or the individual parts, of that spiritual temple, Gods .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 10:23. , expedient) 1Co 10:33. The power, by which all things , are lawful, is given by God: , expediency, is a thing affecting myself: , edification, relates to another.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 10:23
1Co 10:23
all things are lawful;-[This is limited to things indifferent, not having a moral quality.] The reference here is to chapter eight, where he insisted that, as the idol was nothing, he who could eat without offense to others was at liberty to do so.
but not all things are expedient.-Here he is referring to the sacrifices made at the altars of the false gods, and as the gods are nothing the altars are nothing, and a man might eat at them without injury to himself; but it was not expedient for Christians to do so, lest weak Christians and the heathen world should be encouraged to worship the idol.
All things are lawful; but not all things edify.-Eating meat at the altar of an idol may be lawful, but will not build up or strengthen the weak, which is the chief concern of the Christian. When we lead a weak brother into sin, or encourage one in sin to remain in it, we sin against Christ who died to save the weak and lost.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Do All to the Glory of God
1Co 10:23-33; 1Co 11:1
There seems to be a, clear distinction in the Apostles directions between feasting in an idol temple on the one hand, and the acceptance of an invitation to a private house, as in 1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27, on the other. The believer in Christ knew that an idol was nothing in itself, and the fact of food having been offered before a shrine did not make it better or worse. It was a common practice, and meant nothing so far as Christian disciples were concerned. But if an unbeliever were to make the meal a test of faith, by reminding believers that in partaking of such food they were implicitly partners in heathen rites, then there was no course but to refuse and abstain.
In every meal and act we must so conduct ourselves that praise and honor may redound to God. The thankful enjoyment of Gods gifts of food, which constitutes the essence of a Christian meal, must always be subordinated to our consideration of the religious scruples of others; and we must avoid doing anything which would blunt and injure their faith. Though our intelligence may give us a wide liberty in regard to personal conduct, we must allow a check to be placed on it by the thoughtfulness of Christian love.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
things are lawful: 1Co 6:12, 1Co 8:9, Rom 14:15, Rom 14:20
edify: 1Co 8:1, 1Co 14:3-5, 1Co 14:12, 1Co 14:17, 1Co 14:26, Rom 14:19, Rom 15:1, Rom 15:2, 2Co 12:19, Eph 4:29, 1Th 5:11, 1Ti 1:4
Reciprocal: Gen 9:3 – even 2Co 6:3 – General 2Co 8:10 – expedient 1Ti 4:4 – and Tit 1:15 – the pure
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 10:23. All things is said with regard to questions on which there is no specific legislation from the Lord, some of which will be considered soon. To be expedient means to be profitable; a thing might not be wrong, but if it would not benefit anyone it would not be expedient.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 10:23. All things are lawful; but all things edify not (see on 1Co 6:12 and ch. 8).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Our apostle having in the former part of this chapter resolved the case concerning public eating things offered unto idols in the idol-temples, and by several arguments proved it to be absolutely unlawful; he comes now to resolve another case, concerning private buying and private eating of things offered unto idols; for it seems to have been a custom to set to sale in the market, flesh that was sacrificed, (the gain whereof went to the priests,) as well as other flesh; but first he answers an objection.
Some might be ready to say, all things are lawful for me; that is, all meats may be lawfully eaten by me. If so, says the apostle, yet all lawful things are not expedient to be done in respect of our weak brother; plainly intimating, that there are many things lawful in themselves, which, considered under such and such circumstances, are very inexpedient: so far are they unlawful.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Seeking The Good of Brethren
Paul knew all things not morally wrong were lawful, but some of those would not build up or strengthen the church. When Christians have the right to do something, the question should be “How will it affect others?”
The apostle said brethren did not need to ask questions about meat bought in the marketplace, since meat there would have been divorced from idolatrous practices. He went on to quote from Psa 24:1 , which proves all meat is pure since it comes from God. Neither did the apostle deem it necessary for the one asked into a heathen friend’s home, and not to a sacrificial feast, to ask questions about the food since such would not be an act of worship ( 1Co 10:23-27 ).
However, if someone, probably a weak brother, pointed out that the meat had been offered to an idol, Paul said a Christian should not eat for the sake of the one who pointed it out. Of course, he would still have the right to eat, but should have forfeited it for the sake of the other ( 1Co 10:28-29 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Co 10:23-24. All things, &c. He here comes to speak of another case, namely, the buying and eating privately, meats which had been offered to idols: are lawful for me All kinds of meats according to the gospel. See on 1Co 6:12. But Granting this, it must also be acknowledged that all such things are not, in every circumstance, expedient For the reasons mentioned before; (see on 1Co 8:9-13;) and all things edify not others Do not help them forward in holiness. And we ought certainly to consider what may most effectually conduce to the edification of our brethren, and of the church of God in general, as well as what may suit our own particular inclinations or conveniences; for we may find good reasons for declining many things as insnaring to others, which, were we to consider ourselves alone, might be perfectly indifferent. Let no man, therefore, seek his own Advantage or pleasure; but every man anothers wealth Or weal, namely, spiritual; the edification and salvation of his soul, 1Co 10:33. Or, let no man prefer his own temporal profit or satisfaction before anothers spiritual and eternal welfare.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 23 forms the transition to this third passage, which is, as it were, the recapitulation of the whole matter treated in these three chapters.
Vv. 23. All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful, but all things edify not.
The apostle here repeats the adage already enunciated, 1Co 6:12, applying it, however, to a wholly different matter. We must beware of concluding from this repetition, as has been done, that the whole intermediate part has only been a digression. Such a subordinate position would not be in keeping with the gravity of the subjects treated. What meets us in these words is simply a sort of dictum which had come to be used at Corinth on all occasions, without discernment and without taking sufficient account of the limitations enjoined by watchfulness and charity. The logical bond between this rash affirmation of Christian liberty and the thought of 1Co 10:22 is obvious.
The term all things applies to external acts, in themselves indifferent, such as using this or that kind of food. The pronoun , for me, ought probably to be omitted in this sentence, as well as in the following, with the majority of authorities, not, however, without remarking that this pronoun is read in the two propositions of the verse, not only in K L and the Peschito, but also in the Coislinianus (H), a MS. of the sixth century, transcribed from the autograph MS. of Pamphilus of Caesarea.
The same meaning is usually given to the two verbs , is expedient, and , edifies. But this would be a pure tautology. It seems to me probable, from 1Co 10:33, that the former applies to spiritual good in general, including our own (comp. 1Co 9:23 to 1Co 11:22), and the second more specially to our neighbour’s (comp. 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 9:22).
Such is the general principle; it will be repeated at the close (1Co 10:31) in different terms. 1Co 10:24 reproduces it immediately in a negative form, in order to exclude the great obstacle to its realization.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify. [See comment on1Co 6:12]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
23-24. All things are not lawful, but all things are not profitable: all things are lawful, but all things do not edify. We must remember that the way to Heaven is much narrower than the law. Many things are lawful which the clear light of Gods Spirit, Word and Providence would have us deny. In Pauls cloudless spiritual day he could see that offering meat to an idol did not hurt it; hence it was lawful for him to eat it, but not expedient if some one walking in a dimmer light should stumble over his example. Let no one seek his own, but that of another. It was Cain the fratricide who said to God: Am I my brothers keeper? Certainly you are your brothers keeper.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1. From the meal in the idols temple Paul passes to the question as it arose in daily life. He repeats that while all might be lawful all was not expedient (1Co 6:12) or tended to edify. Each must study his brothers interest rather than his own. What was exposed for sale in the meat market might be freely bought without question as to its antecedents, for it belonged to God. If they accepted a heathens invitation (Paul does not encourage them to do so), they should similarly eat without question. But if anyone volunteers the information that certain food has been offered in sacrifice, they should abstain. Perhaps the weak brother is the informer, though he would not be likely to accept the invitation or be in a position to make this definite statement. It may quite well be a heathen, possibly the host who would best know the origin of the meat. If so, he saves his Christian guest from violating his principles. He assumes that he will have a conscientious objection to such food. The Christian may really have no such scruples, and could, therefore, take the meat freely. But the heathen would inevitably regard him as untrue to his convictions and playing fast and loose with religion. And this will prejudice him against Christianity, but it may also blunt his own conscience to see conscience thus apparently flouted. Anothers conscience must not be made the measure of ones own, nor can one be censured for eating food over which thanks has been pronounced. All must be done to Gods glory without placing a hindrance before the Jews, heathen, or Christians, just as Paul seeks the profit of others for their salvation, so they should make him their pattern, as he makes Christ his own.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 23
All things, &c. The sense is, Many things are lawful which are not expedient, &c. This is intended to apply to those acts, which, while they do not imply any guilty participation in idol worship, might have that appearance, and so ought to be avoided. Examples are given below.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
I CORINTHIANS
SECTION 19 FOR OTHERS’ SAKE, DO NOT EAT WHAT IS POINTED OUT TO YOU AS AN IDOL-SACRIFICE CH. 10:23-11:1
All things are allowable: but not all things are profitable. All things are allowable: but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own interest; but that of his fellow.
Everything sold in the shambles, eat, making no examination because of conscience. For the Lord’s is the earth and the fullness of it. (Psa 24:1.) If any one invites you, of the unbelievers, and you wish to go, all that is set before you eat, making no examination because of conscience. But if any one say to you, This is a sacred-sacrifice, do not eat, because of him who pointed it out and because of conscience; conscience, I say, not thy own, but the other’s. For why is my liberty judged by another’s conscience? If I with thanks partake, why am I evil spoken of about that for which I for my part give thanks?
Whether then you are eating, or are drinking, or are doing anything, do all things for the glory of God. Become men giving no cause of stumbling either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God. According as I also in all things please all, not seeking my own profit but that of the many, that they may be saved. Become imitators of me, as I also am of Christ.
18 dealt with one side of the matter of DIV. IV. viz. with attendance at idol-feasts: 19 will deal with the other side of it, viz. with the eating at a private meal of meat offered to idols. An abrupt reassertion of the general principle of 1Co 6:12, modified and developed, marks the transition from the one side to the other; and forms a suitable platform from which to treat of the only question now remaining about idol-sacrifices.
1Co 10:23-24. All things etc.: see under 1Co 6:12.
Profitable: to ourselves or to others. It thus bears on 18 and on 19. Though all kinds of food are lawful, it is against our interest to drink a cup which demons put in our hands. Consequently, the advice of 18 is consistent with full Christian liberty.
Edify: spiritual progress resulting both (1Co 14:4) to ourselves and (1Co 14:17) to others from our actions. That the latter chiefly is in Paul’s thought, we learn from 1Co 10:24, the foundation stone of 19. Cp. Rom 15:2. In 1Co 6:12 he developed profitable by be mastered by any; because he was dealing with a sin which robs man of self-control. But here, in view of injury to others from our conduct, he develops it by the word edify.
Let no one seek his own interest: a broad principle which must guide our entire conduct. Cp. Php 2:4. Our own interest must not be our real aim. If we make even our spiritual profit our final aim, we shall miss the object aimed at. Regardless of all else we must seek to do the greatest possible good to men around us. It is true that in order to do this we must care for the preservation and greatest possible development of our bodily and spiritual life. But this must be a means to an end. And, between making it a means and an end, is an infinite moral and practical difference.
1Co 10:23-24. Specific advice.
Examination because of conscience: do not allow yourselves to be compelled, by that inner judge which pronounces sentence on conduct, to inquire, when buying food, whether it has been offered to idols. Just as all the meat eaten, even privately, by Israel in the wilderness, had (Lev 17:2-6 : contrast Deu 12:21) first been presented as a sacrifice to God, so the heathens frequently offered as a sacrifice the animals slain for food. Consequently, a Christian might, without knowing it, eat an idol-sacrifice either (1Co 10:27 f) in the house of a heathen, or as 1Co 10:25 implies, by purchase in the public market. Paul bids his readers not trouble themselves about this possibility.
Conscience: the man’s own, as representing the abstract and definite idea of conscience. There is no hint here, as there is express and emphatic mention in 1Co 10:29, of another conscience.
For the Lord’s etc.: word for word from Psa 24:1; a reason for 1Co 10:25. Cp. 1Ti 4:3 f.
The fullness of it: parallel with they that dwell therein: the totality of men and things, with which the world is full, and without which it would be empty. Cp. Rom 9:12. In itself and looked upon as mere material, everything belongs to God: and therefore nothing is in itself defiling. For a Christian to eat an idol-sacrifice, is merely to claim for God that which is His by right, but which a rebel has offered to His enemy. Whatever evil there is about any created material comes from its associations. But the fear which Paul here declares to be needless rests upon a belief that meat offered to idols is in itself defiling.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
10:23 {6} {t} All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
(6) Coming to another type of things offered to idols, he repeats that general rule, that in the use of indifferent things we ought to have consideration not of ourselves only, but of our neighbours. And therefore there are many things which of themselves are lawful, which may be evil when done by us, because of offence to our neighbour.
(t) See before in 1Co 6:13 .
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Earlier Paul had addressed the issue of Christian liberty and had said that all things were lawful for him, but all things were not beneficial (1Co 6:12). Now he went further and clarified that beneficial means beneficial for others, not just self. Thus he sought to bring the rights-conscious Corinthians to their knees.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
4. The issue of marketplace food 10:23-11:1
As with the issue of marriage, however, Paul granted that there are some matters connected with idolatry that are not wrong. He next gave his readers some help in making the tough choices needed in view of the amoral nature of some practices connected with pagan worship and the immoral nature of others. He suggested applying the test of what is edifying to these decisions. He proceeded to explain that food formerly offered to idols but sold in the marketplace was all right for Christians to eat at home. He himself had eaten such food (1Co 9:19-23), and the Corinthians had challenged him for doing so (1Co 10:29).
"But the real issues seem to lie deeper than the mere question of eating food. Both the nature of their argument for eating at the temples (1Co 8:1; 1Co 8:4; 1Co 8:8) and their criticism of Paul (1Co 9:1-3; 1Co 9:19-23) have revealed a basic confusion between absolutes and adiaphora (nonessentials). They had tried to make temple attendance an adiaphoron; for Paul it was an absolute because it was idolatry. At the same time they had confused the true basis for Christian behavior. For them it was a question of knowledge and rights (gnosis and exousia). For Paul it is a question of love and freedom (agape and eleutheria). [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 477.]
This section’s chiastic structure reflects Paul’s alternating concern for personal freedom and love for others.
A The criterion stated: the good of others (1Co 10:23-24)
B Personal freedom explained (1Co 10:25-27)
C The criterion illustrated: love governing liberty (1Co 10:28-29 a)
B’ Personal freedom defended (1Co 10:29 b-30)
A’ The criterion generalized: that all may be saved (1Co 10:33 to 1Co 11:1)