Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 10:25
Whatsoever is sold in the meat market, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles ] This and the two following verses are directed against over-scrupulousness. Some Christians were afraid to buy meat in the public market, lest it might have been offered in sacrifice to an idol. See note on ch. 1Co 8:1.
asking no question for conscience sake ] Rather, entering upon no inquiry. This may be interpreted (1) as directing, that no inquiry was to be made, lest the answer should suggest conscientious scruples, or (2) as urging that no conscientious scruples need be felt which should lead to any necessity for making inquiries. The latter is more in accordance with the robust morality of the Apostle, and with the context The conscience need not be sensitive upon such points; it need not suggest entangling difficulties, where in truth there were none. This is better than to suppose with some, that information was to be kept back in order to avoid anxiety on the part of the scrupulous.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles – In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honor of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it.
Asking no question for conscience sake – Not hesitating or doubting, as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things. But:
(1) That which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits or any other intoxicating drinks because they were offered for sale, any more than it would be to commit suicide because people offered pistols, and bowie-knives, and halters to sell.
(2) There are many things now concerning which similar questions may be asked; as, e. g. is it right to use the productions of slave-labor, the sugar, cotton, etc., that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that which is known to be made on Sunday; or that which it is known a man has made by a life of dishonesty and crime? The consciences of many persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case before us:
- If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the market, if it be in itself lawfill, if there is no ready mark of distinction, then the apostle would direct as not to hesitate.
- If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach of Sunday, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living, then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to use it. If a man abhors slavery, and violations of Sunday, and dishonesty, then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and extend these abominations?
- If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will be construed into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain; see 1Co 10:28. No man is at liberty to patronize slavery, Sunday violations, dishonesty, or licentiousness, in any form. Every man can live without doing it; and where it can be done it should be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth than for good people to act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and of gain that results from oppression and fraud.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat] The case to which the apostle refers is simply this; it was customary to bring the flesh of the animal to market, the blood of which had been poured out in sacrifice to an idol; or, taken more particularly, the case was this; one part of the sacrifice was consumed on the altar of the idol: a second part was dressed and eaten by the sacrificer; and a third belonged to the priest, and was often sold in the shambles. To partake of the second share, or to feast upon the sacrifice, St. Paul absolutely forbids, because this was one part of the religious worship which was paid to the idol; it was sitting down as guests at his table, in token that they were in fellowship with him. This was utterly incompatible with receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which was the communion of the body and blood of Christ. But as to the third share, the apostle leaves them at liberty either to eat of it or forbear; except that, by eating, their weak brethren should be offended; in that case, though the thing was lawful, it was their duty to abstain. See the notes on 1Co 8:1, c. Hindoos eagerly embrace whatever has been offered to an idol: hence it is common to see the flowers that have been thus offered placed in the hair of a Hindoo. Water that has been thus made sacred is preserved in Hindoo houses, and with it they rub their bodies, and occasionally sip a drop, regarding it as the water of life.-See Ward.
Asking no questions for consciences sake] Dr. Lightfoot observes, that “the Jews were vexed with innumerable scruples in their feasts, as to the eating of the thing, as well as to the company with which they ate and even the manner of their eating. Of fruits and herbs brought to the table, they were to inquire whether they were tithed according to custom; whether they were consecrated by the Truma, or whether they were profane; whether they were clean, or touched with some pollution, c. And concerning flesh set on the table, they were to inquire whether it was of that which had been offered to idols whether it were the flesh of an animal that had been torn by wild beasts; or of that which had been strangled, or not killed according to the canons; &c., &c. All which doubts the liberty of the Gospel abolished as to one’s own conscience, with this proviso, that no scandal or offence be cast before another man’s weak or scrupulous conscience.”
From this it is evident that the apostle had the case of the Jewish converts in view, and not the Gentiles. The latter were not troubled with such extraordinary scrupulousness.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It is possible that butchers, before they brought their meat into the market, might offer some part of it to the idol; or it is possible that the priests, who had a share in the beasts offered to idols, or the people that had offered such beasts, who, also had a share returned them, might out of covetousness come and bring it to be sold in the market. The apostle directeth the Corinthians in such cases to make no scruple, but eat of it, if it were commonly sold in the shambles; which argued, that the thing in itself, considered nakedly, was not sinful. But yet he would have them in that case ask no questions, whence it came? Or whether it had not been offered to an idol? For the sake of other mens consciences, lest some others standing by should take notice that they bought and ate such meat. Or their own consciences, lest, though the thing in itself, so separated from a sacred use, and returned to its common use, might be lawfully eaten, yet their consciences should afterwards reflect upon them for the doing of it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
25. shamblesbutchers’ stalls;the flesh market.
asking no questionwhetherit has been offered to an idol or not.
for conscience’ sakeIfon asking you should hear it had been offered to idols, a scruplewould arise in your conscience which was needless, and never wouldhave arisen had you asked no questions.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,…. the word
, rendered “shambles”, here used, is a Latin word, and is made use of by Latin writers in the same sense as here, for a place where food was sold i. The original of the name is said k to be this; one Macellus, a very wicked and profane man, being for his robberies and filthy life condemned to die, a place was built in his house by Aemylius and Fulvius, censors, for selling of provisions, and which from his name was called “Macellum”. The Syriac version retains the word here, and so do the Talmudists, and Rabbins l frequently; who say m,
“Nylwqm, the “shambles”, and the butchers of Israel, though flesh of them is found in the hand of a stranger, it is free:”
into these places the priests sent to be sold what was offered to their idols, which they could not dispense with themselves, or thought not lawful to make use of; for the Egyptians, as Herodotus says n, used to cut off the heads of their beasts that were sacrificed, and carry them into the market and sell them to the Greeks, and if there were no buyers they cast them into the river. Now the apostle allows, that such meat that was sold in the shambles might be bought and eat of, but not in an idol’s temple; there was a difference between an idol’s temple, and eating things sacrificed to idols there, and buying them in shambles or meat market, and eating them at home:
that eat; buy, carry home, dress and eat, in your own houses:
asking no question; whether it was sacrificed to idols, or not:
for conscience sake; either a man’s own, which may be hurt, wounded, and defiled, by eating contrary to it, should he know that what he eats had been offered to an idol; whereas if he asks no questions, and knows nothing of the matter, his conscience will not be afflicted: or else another man’s that may stand by whilst the meat is bought, and sold; and who hearing questions asked and answered, and yet observes the meat, though sacrificed to idols, dressed and ate by the buyer, his conscience being weak, may be offended and grieved.
i Vid. Suet. Vita Jul. Caesar, c. 43. & Tiber. Nero, c. 34. k Alex. ab Alex Genial Diet. l. 3. c. 23. l T. Hieros. Chagiga, fol. 76. 2. T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 29. 2. Bereshit Rabba, fol. 75. 3. m T. Bab. Cholin, fol. 95. 1. n L. 2. c. 39.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
In the shambles ( ). Only here in N.T. A transliterated Latin word macellum, possibly akin to and the Hebrew word for enclosure, though occurring in Ionic and Laconian and more frequent in the Latin. It occurs in Dio Cassius and Plutarch and in the papyri and inscriptions for “the provision market.” Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 276) says: “In the Macellum at Pompeii we can imagine to ourselves the poor Christians buying their modest pound of meat in the Corinthian Macellum (1Co 10:25), with the same life-like reality with which the Diocletian maximum tariff called up the picture of the Galilean woman purchasing her five sparrows.”
Asking no questions for conscience sake ( ). As to whether a particular piece of meat had been offered to idols before put in the market. Only a part was consumed in the sacrifices to heathen gods. The rest was sold in the market. Do not be over-scrupulous. Paul here champions liberty in the matter as he had done in 8:4.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The shambles [] . Only here in the New Testament. It is a Latin word, which is not strange in a Roman colony like Corinth. In sacrifices usually only a part of the victim was consumed. The rest was given to the priests or to the poor, or sold again in the market. Any buyer might therefore unknowingly purchase meat offered to idols.
Asking no question. As to whether the meat had been used in idol sacrifice. See on ch. 1Co 2:14.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) Whatsoever is sold in the shambles. (pan to en makello poloumenon) “Everything or anything being sold in a meat market.” Whatever was on sale, being sold in the shambles, open, public meat market had become food ordained for the general public, sanctioned of the Lord.
2) “That eat.” (estiete) “You all eat.” Or all of you do not hesitate to eat.
3) Asking no question for conscience sake. (meden anakrinontes dia ten suneidesen) “Not one thing questioning or raising inquiry because of conscience.” If the meat had been sacrificed to an idol god earlier in the day, but the seller had then carried it to the public market and crying it out or offering it for a sale for his livelihood, not your sanctioning his god or his worship, buy it, eat it, do not embarrass the man’s conscience. Paul was instructing spiritually the eating would not help or hinder a Christian’s life under such conditions, 1Co 8:8.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles He has spoken above of dissembling in connection with idolatry, or, at least, as to those actions which the Corinthians could not engage in, without professing themselves to be the associates of the wicked in their superstitions. He now requires them, not merely to abstain from all professions of idolatry, but also to avoid carefully all occasions of offense, which are wont to arise from the indiscriminate use of things indifferent. For, although there was but one kind of offense on the part of the Corinthians, (595) there were, at the same time different degrees of it. Now, as to the eating of food, he makes, in the first place, this general statement — that it is lawful to eat, with a safe conscience, any kind of food, because the Lord permits it. In the second place, he restricts this liberty as to the use of it — lest weak consciences should be injured. Thus this conclusion is divided into two parts the first relates to liberty and power as to things indifferent: the second to a limitation of it — that the use of it may be regulated in accordance with the rule of love.
Debating nothing (596) ᾿Ανακρίνεσθαι, the word that Paul makes use of, means to reason on both sides, (597) in such a way, that the person’s mind vacillates, inclining now to this side, and then to that. (598) Accordingly, in so far as concerns a distinction of meats, he frees our consciences from all scruple and hesitation; because it is proper that, when we are certain from the word of the Lord that he approves of what we do, we should have ease and tranquillity in our minds.
For conscience sake — that is to say, Before the judgment-seat of God — “In so far as you have to do with God, there is no occasion for your disputing with yourself, whether it be lawful or not. For I allow you to eat freely of all kinds of meat, because the Lord allows you everything without exception.”
(595) “ Car combien que les Corinthiens faissent en cela plusieurs fautes qui estoyent toutes comprises sous vne generalite;” — “For although the Corinthians in this case committed many faults which were all comprehended under one general description.”
(596) “ Sans en enquerir rien;” — “Without asking any question as to it.”
(597) “ Debatre en son entendement pour et contre, comme on dit;” — “To debate in one’s mind for and against, as they say.
(598) ᾿Ανακρίνω, properly means to examine narrowly It is stated by Bloomfield, that “the best recent Commentators consider the expression μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες, as put for μηδὲν κρέας (that is, κρέατος γένος) ἀνακρίνοντες, examining no kind of meat, to see whether it be idol-meat or not.” This interpretation is natural, and agrees particularly well with the expression, as repeated in the 27 th verse. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(25) Whatsoever is sold in the shambles.Here is the practical application of the principle laid down. When a Christian sees meat exposed for sale in the public market let him buy it and eat it; he need not ask any question to satisfy his conscience on the subject. Some of the meat which had been used for sacrificial purposes was afterwards sold in the markets. The weaker Christians feared lest if they unconsciously bought and ate some of that meat they would become thereby defiled. The Apostles view is that when once sent into the public market it becomes simply meat, and its previous use gives it no significance. You buy it as meat, and not as part of a sacrifice. Thus the advice here is not at variance with the previous argument in 1Co. 10:20-21. The act which is there condemned as a partaking of the table of devils is the eating of sacrificial meat at one of the feasts given in the court of the heathen temple, when the meat was avowedly and significantly a portion of the sacrifice. The words for conscience sake have been variously interpreted as meaning, (1) Enter into no inquiry, so that your conscience may not be troubled, as it would be if you learned that the meat had been used for sacrifice; or, (2) Ask no question, lest some weak persons conscience be defiled if they hear that it is sacrificial meat and yet see you eat it. This latter interpretation must be rejected, as the Apostle clearly points out in 1Co. 10:28 that he has been here speaking of the persons own conscience, and only there proceeds to speak of a brothers conscience.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
25. Whatsoever is sold The meats of idol sacrifices were often exposed to sale in the shambles, especially by the priests, when they had on hand a surplus above their own consumption. To the Christian this was intrinsically as lawful as any other meat.
Shambles Not markets, nor buildings; but meat stalls in the market. In view of this lawfulness, therefore, without any questions for conscience’ sake, even if well knowing that a pagan priest had just exposed it for sale, the believer might purchase and eat.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Whatever is sold in the shambles (meat market), eat, asking no question for conscience’ sake, for the earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness.’
But having forbidden the eating of sacrificial meat in temples he now turns to the question of meat sold externally by temples to the meat markets, some of which might also have been sacrificed to idols. Must this then also be avoided in case it had been sacrificed to idols? Pious Jews were in fact expected to ask whether such meat had been sacrificed to idols, and if it had not to eat it. After Paul’s previous words pious Christians might have felt that they should do the same. But Paul points out that for Christians whether Jew or non-Jew it is unnecessary. Meat itself does not become contaminated by religious use, it is known connection with such use that disqualifies it, because of the weaker consciences of others. Otherwise it can be eaten with alacrity.
The reference here is to meat bought in the meat market whose origin is unknown. In that case, he says, they may eat of it without asking questions, for being of unknown origin it is neither giving a false witness to others, nor is it in any way giving countenance to idols. For everything that is in the world is God’s for Him to dispose of as He will and idols and demons cannot affect meat. It is only when there is a conscious connection with idol worship that such meat has to be avoided, simply because of the bad effect such eating may have on some people. So what he has previously said does not mean that they must question the origin of every piece of meat they come across. Let them express their loyalty to the Creator by eating of it secure in the knowledge that it is His provision, part of what He has given man in creation, and that none other supposed creators matter.
‘For the earth is the Lord’s, and its fullness (what is in it).’ This phrase from Psa 24:1 was regularly used in grace at Jewish tables. Thus we may well see Paul as saying, ‘having given thanks for it you may certainly eat of it if no reason is given why you should not’. For it is all part of God’s provision.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rules of conduct:
v. 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles that eat, asking no question for conscience’ sake;
v. 26. for the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.
v. 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.
v. 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;
v. 29. conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other; for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?
v. 30. For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?
The application of the principles of Christian love to the situation at Corinth was not very difficult. Everything, all the meat that was offered for sale in the meat-market, they might eat. But in doing so, for the sake of their weak brothers, they should not ask questions as to where the meat came from, whether or not it had been sent down from the temple. In this way they would avoid embarrassment in case they, in turn, should be interrogated. This latitude of action Paul substantiates with a passage from Scriptures: For the Lord’s is the earth and its fullness, everything that is found in it, all it contains, Psa 24:1. Christians may therefore use all the gifts of God as found in the world without the slightest hesitation, provided that no hindrance exists such as is referred to here. The apostle intimates, also, that the anxious search for scruples of conscience which some people regard as the essence of Christianity is not founded upon the will of God.
In case a Christian was invited by some unbeliever and thought it best to go, to accept the invitation, the same general rule should be applied. He should eat everything that was served, but again not ask any questions. The chances are that he would be narrowly watched not only by the non-Christian, who would probably use sacrificial meat, but also by any weak Christian that might be present at the same time. But if someone should then remark that sacrificial meat was being served, the Christian should no longer eat of it. Whether the information would be volunteered in a spirit of civility and by the desire to be of service to the Christian’s scruples or in a spirit of mockery, to embarrass him; whatever the occasion or motive, it changes the situation and causes the believer to decline the meat, not for the sake of his own conscience, but for the sake of his weak brother’s. Out of consideration for the scruples of his fellow-Christian the believer will abstain from eating meat under those circumstances. And if the objection is made that the decision concerning what is good and not good must rest with the individual Christian, the apostle would have him remember: For to what end is my liberty judged by another conscience; what advantage will I get out of it if I insist upon eating under these circumstances and then must expect the censure of another man’s scruples who simply cannot see that my course is altogether in accordance with the Word of God? Instead of receiving benefit from his inconsiderate use of his liberty, positive harm may result: If I with thanksgiving partake, why am I blasphemed and condemned on account of that for which I gave thanks? It will be regarded as an act of hypocrisy by the heathen and brothers that have not the right knowledge if a Christian, in such a situation, not only eats, but also offers thanks to God for the food. That is the reason why a Christian, out of deference to the conscience of the weaker brother, and in order to avoid giving offense, will decline to partake of sacrificial meat.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 10:25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles Herodotus informs us, that the Egyptians, when they had cut off the head of the victim, used to carry the carcase to market, and sell it to the Greeks, if they could find any to purchase; if not, they threw it into the river, judging it unlawful to eat it themselves. Though the Grecian priests had no such scruples, yet, as they had often more flesh of the sacrifices than they and their families could consume, it was natural for them to take this method of disposing of it to advantage; and at times of extraordinary sacrifice, it is probable the neighbouring markets might be chiefly supplied from their temples. See Doddridge and Raphelius.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 10:25 . On , shambles, slaughter-house (Varro, de ling. Lam 4Lam 4 , p. 35; Dio Cass. lxi. 18), see Kypke, II. p. 219. Comp Plut. Mor. 752 C: . It passed over into the Rabbinical writings also; see Drus. in loc [1702]
.] making no investigation (Vulg. interrogantes ; not: condemning , as Grotius, Ewald, and others take it, contrary to the meaning of the word), i.e. instituting no inquiry about any of the pieces of meat exposed for sale, as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not. The weaker Christians, that is to say, were afraid of the possibility (see on 1Co 8:7 ) of their buying sacrificial meat at the fleshmarket, because they had not yet risen to see that the flesh of the victims when brought to the public mart had lost its sacrificial character and had become ordinary meat. They would probably, therefore, often enough make anxious inquiries over their purchases whether this or that piece might have been offered at the altar or not. The stronger believers did not act in this way; and Paul approves their conduct, and enjoins all to do the same.
] may be taken as referring either (1) to as to the required mode of the : eat all without inquiry, in order that your conscience may not be troubled , which would be the case if you were told: This is meat offered to idols (so Erasmus, Rosenmller, Hofmann, and others, following Chrysostom); [1703] or (2) simply to : without making any inquiry on grounds of conscience . So Castalio, Calvin, Beza, al [1704] , including Billroth and Ewald (the latter, however, rendering: “ condemning nothing on account of conscience”). The second method of connection is preferable, both because it gives the simplest and most direct sense for . ., and also because of the . . [1705] that follows, words by which Paul designs to show that, as regards such questions about food, there is really no room for holding a court of conscience to decide upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of eating. He means then that his readers should partake freely of all flesh sold in the fleshmarket, without for conscience’ sake entering into an inquiry whether any of it had or had not been sacrificial flesh. The flesh offered for sale was to be flesh to them, and nothing more; conscience had no call whatever to make any inquiry in the matter; for the earth is the Lord’s, etc., 1Co 10:26 . Other interpreters understand the conscience of others to be meant: “No investigation should be made lest, if it turned out to be sacrificial flesh, the conscience of any one should be rendered uneasy, or be defiled by participation in the food;” so Rckert, and so in substance Vatablus, Bengel, Mosheim, and others, including Flatt, Pott, Heydenreich, de Wette, Osiander, Maier. Comp 1Co 8:7 ; 1Co 8:10 . But it could occur to none of the apostle’s readers to take . as referring to anything but their own individual conscience. It is otherwise in 1Co 10:28 , where . prepares us for the transition to the conscience of another person; while the in 1Co 10:29 shows that in 1Co 10:25 ; 1Co 10:27 it was just the reader’s own conscience that was meant.
[1702] n loc. refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[1703] “Vitandum enim est offendiculum, si incidat, non accersendum,” Erasmus adds in his Paraphrase with fine exegetical discernment.
[1704] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
[1705] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
Ver. 25. Whatsoever is sold, &c. ] A portion of the consecrated flesh was usually sold by the priests, who make their markets of it, as Augustine upon the Romans testifieth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
25. ] The key to understanding this and the following verse is, to remember that is used in each case of the conscience of the person spoken of , i.e. in the two first cases, that of the reader , in the third, as explained by the Apostle, that of the weak brother : see there. Every thing which is being sold (offered for sale) in the flesh-market ( is adopted from the Latin. It was also used by the Rabbis, in the form . See Stanley, and examples in Wetst.), eat, making no enquiry (whether it is meat offered to idols or not), on account of your conscience (to be joined with . ., not with only, as is shewn by the parallel below, 1Co 10:28 , where the reason given is joined to ). The meaning being, ‘ eat without enquiry, that your conscience may not be offended ,’ If you made enquiry , and heard in reply, that the meat had been offered to idols, your conscience would be offended , and you would eat to yourselves . De Wette, al., understand ., all through , of the conscience of another , and apply to all the explanation of 1Co 10:29 . But as Meyer well observes, no reader could possibly refer . to any one but himself, no other person having been mentioned , until 1Co 10:28 , where is introduced, and is to be referred (but even then not without special explanation given ) to the new subject.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 10:25-26 . The above rule is now applied in the concrete, . . ., “Anything that is on sale in the meat-market eat, not asking any question of conscience”. is a term of late Gr [1547] , borrowed from Latin ( macellum ): possibly a local word, introduced by the colonia ; for the anarthrous ., cf. note on (1Co 9:24 ). might mean “for conscience’ sake (to avoid embarrassment of conscience) making no enquiry” (Cm [1548] , Er [1549] , Hf [1550] , El [1551] , Holsten), as though addressed to men of weak conscience Bg [1552] however, “propter conscientiam alienam” (referring to 1Co 10:29 ); or, “because of your ( sc . strong) conscience making no enquiry” since you are not troubled with scruples (Est., Mr [1553] , Ed [1554] ); or, “making no enquiry on the ground of conscience,” the adv [1555] phrase simply defining the kind of question deprecated (so Bz [1556] , Hn [1557] , Bt [1558] , Gd [1559] , Ev [1560] ): the last interpretation best suits the generality of the terms, and the connexion with 1Co 10:26 . For , see 1Co 2:14 , 1Co 4:3 , 1Co 9:3 , and notes; it signifies enquiry with a view to judgment at the bar of conscience. , acc [1561] of definition , as in Act 10:20 ; Act 11:12 ; Sm [1562] baldly renders it as transitive obj [1563] , “examining nothing” kein Fleischstck untersuchend ! For in ptpl [1564] clause, see Wr [1565] , p. 606. The citation from Psa 24:1 , recalling the argument of 1Co 8:4 ff., quiets the buyer’s conscience: consecration to an idol cannot deprive the Lord of anything that belongs to “the earth and its fulness,” and which His providence supplies for His servants’ need; cf. Rom 14:6 b , 14, 1Ti 4:4 . , in its primary sense, id quo res impletur ( cf. Lt [1566] , Colossians , pp. 257 ff.); “terra si arboribus, herbis, animalibus etc., careret, esset tanquam domus supellectile et omnibus instrumentis vacua” (Cv [1567] ).
[1547] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.
[1548]
[1549] Erasmus’ In N.T. Annotationes .
[1550] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).
[1551] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[1552] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.
[1553]
[1554] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[1555] adverb
[1556] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[1557] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[1558] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[1559] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[1560] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .
[1561] accusative case.
[1562] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).
[1563] grammatical object.
[1564]tpl. participial.
[1565] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).
[1566] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).
[1567] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Whatsoever = All which.
shambles. Greek. makellon. Only here.
asking no question = questioning nothing (Greek. medeis).
asking. App-122.
for . . . sake = on account of. App-104. 1Co 10:2.
conscience. Greek. suneidesis. Compare 1Co 8:7.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
25.] The key to understanding this and the following verse is, to remember that is used in each case of the conscience of the person spoken of, i.e. in the two first cases, that of the reader,-in the third, as explained by the Apostle, that of the weak brother: see there. Every thing which is being sold (offered for sale) in the flesh-market ( is adopted from the Latin. It was also used by the Rabbis, in the form . See Stanley, and examples in Wetst.), eat, making no enquiry (whether it is meat offered to idols or not), on account of your conscience (to be joined with . ., not with only,-as is shewn by the parallel below, 1Co 10:28,-where the reason given is joined to ). The meaning being,-eat without enquiry, that your conscience may not be offended, If you made enquiry, and heard in reply, that the meat had been offered to idols, your conscience would be offended, and you would eat to yourselves. De Wette, al., understand ., all through, of the conscience of another, and apply to all the explanation of 1Co 10:29. But as Meyer well observes, no reader could possibly refer . to any one but himself, no other person having been mentioned, until 1Co 10:28, where is introduced, and is to be referred (but even then not without special explanation given) to the new subject.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 10:25. [89] , asking no questions) whether it has been offered to an idol or not. Curiosity is often more injurious, than simplicity.- , for the sake of the conscience) of another, 1Co 10:29, whose benefit is consulted by keeping silence, lest he should be disturbed.
[89] , all) As far as concerns the difference of meats, ver. 26.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 10:25
1Co 10:25
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles,-[In the public meat market.] Of the sacrifices made to idols, the part given to the officiating priest was sometimes sold in the meat market; the devotees bought this meat. Sometimes an animal was consecrated to a certain god when slaughtered that it might be sold to the devotees of that god. Certain stalls in the market place were consecrated to a certain god, and its devotees patronized that stall. [But with the Christian it was different. If he merely bought his meat in the open market, no one could suspect him of meaning thereby to connive at or show favor to idolatry. It would, therefore, be needless for him to entertain fantastic scruples about matters purely indifferent; for when thus sold it was wholly disassociated from the rites of idolatrous sacrifice, and one so using it could not be suspected of doing so as an act of worship.]
eat, asking no question for conscience sake;-[He was not to trouble his conscience by scruples arising from needless investigation about the food.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sold: Rom 14:14, 1Ti 4:4, Tit 1:15
for: 1Co 10:27-29, 1Co 8:7, Rom 13:5
Reciprocal: Gen 9:3 – even Mar 7:15 – nothing Act 10:15 – What Rom 14:2 – that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 10:25. The shambles was a market where they sold meat and other provisions of food. Meat that had been offered in service to idols was taken to these markets for sale. Paul means they need not have any conscientious scruples about partaking of food that might have been purchased at these markets.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 10:25. Whatsoever is sold in the shamblesthe flesh-marketeat, asking no question for conscience sakenot anothers conscience, as in 1Co 10:29. Bengel, De Wette, and others so take it; but that would yield no proper sense here. The meaning is, for your own conscience sake. If ye go to market, and there see flesh exposed for sale, inquire not whence it came; for should it turn out to have been sacrificed to an idol, your conscience would be defiled by purchasing it; but buy it simply as food, which you can do with a good conscience. (So Neander, Meyer, Alford.)
What follows confirms this sense.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here the apostle resolves the case, whether it were lawful to buy that meat in the market which had been offered to an idol in the temple.
He determines, 1. That it was; if it be sold in the shambles, it is to be looked upon as common food, and they may freely buy it without any scruple of conscience.
But how came meat to be sold in the shambles, which was offered and sacrificed in the temples of the Gentiles?
Answer, It is probable that the priests, who had a share in the beasts that were offered unto idols, or the people, who had also a share returned them out of their own offerings, did bring such meat to be sold in the market: in this case, says the apostle, ask no questions about it.
Observe, 2. He assigns the reason for it: because the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof. That is, those things that are sold for food in the market, are to be looked upon as the creatures of God, made for, and sanctified to, the use of man; and therefore you may eat of any creature which the Lord provideth for your food, without scruple of conscience, when others are not scandalized at it. 1Ti 4:4. Every creature of God is good, if received with thanksgiving.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 10:25-26. The apostle now applies this principle to the point in question; and on the ground of it, gives the following rules concerning meats. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles Though it were offered to idols before, yet being now set openly to sale, the idol is no more honoured therewith, and it is common meat; that you may buy, and eat it in private, either in a friends house or your own, asking no question Whether it has been offered in sacrifice to an idol or not; for conscience sake With a view to satisfy your conscience respecting the lawfulness of eating it. Or the expression, for conscience sake, may mean, lest any needless scruple should arise, either in your own or your brothers conscience, so that you could not eat of it freely, without doubting in yourself, or giving offence to your brother. For the earth is the Lords, as the psalmist has expressed it, Psa 24:1, and the fulness thereof All creatures therein, which were made for mans use, and are given us freely to enjoy in Christ, 1Ti 4:4; 1Ti 6:17. And no demon hath any power or dominion over them. By this argument the apostle showed the Corinthians that their knowledge and faith, as Christians, ought to prevent them from asking any questions concerning their food, which might lead the heathen to think that they acknowledged the power of their deities, either to give or to withhold any part of the fulness of the earth from the worshippers of the true God.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 25, 26. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience sake: 26. for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.
A Christian whose conscience is free from every scruple as to the eating of offered meats, sends and buys meat at the shambles; he has not to ask whether it is or is not sacrificial meat; it is pure in itself, like everything God has created. The term , shambles, is connected with the Latin macellum, and with the old French word mazel. The proper Greek word would have been . The last words, , for conscience sake, are naturally connected with . Edwards also explains it in this way, applying it, however, to a strong conscience: an enlightened and firm conscience is a reason for abstaining from all inquiry. Holsten, on the contrary, alleges that the conscience here, as in the rest of the passage, can only be that of the weak Christian, of which the strong Christian needs not take account when he is eating alone at his own house. But, in these two senses, Paul would have added, as in 1Co 10:29, some qualification or other to indicate of which conscience he meant to speak. The simplest view is to hold that he is thinking of conscience, absolutely speaking, as in our expression: for conscience sake. The falsest interpretation is that of Chrysostom, Erasmus, etc.: Making no inquiry, and that in order that, if you come to learn that it is meat which has been offered to idols, you may not have the burden of it on your conscience. This meaning would suppose that the direction is addressed to the weak.
Vv. 26. This is a quotation from Psa 24:1, a passage which, by proclaiming that all that fills the world comes from God and belongs to Him, saps the prejudice of the weak at Corinth at the root. By quoting this saying from the Old Testament, Paul wished to raise the weak to the height of the strong. Heinrici makes the interesting remark that these words of the Psalmist are used among the Jews as a thanksgiving at table.
The second case, that of an invitation to the house of a heathen: 1Co 10:27-30. Again, two alternatives must be distinguished; in the first place, the case of a feast at which no observation is made by any of the guests regarding the meats which are presented.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat, asking no question for conscience’ sake;
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
25. Eat everything sold in market, asking no questions for conscience sake. Certainly we have broad liberties amid the clear light of the Pentecostal dispensation. We need not Judaize on swine nor anything else. Yet we must live hygienically, pursuant to our constant duty to our own body, mind and spirit; and we must live prudently, not only on the questions of eating and drinking, but of all others, for the sake of our neighbors.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 25
In the shambles; in the market. The meaning is, It is not necessary for you to inquire whether the meat which you purchase has been offered to idols. You purchase it simply as food which God has provided.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
10:25 {7} Whatsoever is sold in the {u} shambles, [that] eat, asking no question for conscience sake:
(7) An applying of the rule to the present matter: whatever is sold in the market, you may indifferently buy it as if it were from the Lord’s hand, and eat it either at home with the faithful, or being called home to the unfaithful, that is, in a private banquet. But yet with this exception, unless any man is present who is weak, whose conscience may be offended by setting meats offered to idols before them: for then you ought to have a consideration of their weakness.
(u) The flesh that was sacrificed used to be sold in the markets, and the price returned to the priests.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
It was not wrong to eat meat that pagans had offered in sacrifice to an idol. Any food for which one thanks God thereby becomes acceptable for human consumption, assuming it is wholesome (1Co 10:30; cf. 1Ti 4:3-5). This was a very un-Jewish viewpoint coming from a Jew. As earlier in this epistle and elsewhere in his writings, Paul appealed to Scripture for a supporting summary statement (Psa 24:1; Psa 50:12).
Remember Paul was talking about distinctions based on spiritual issues. In Christianity there is no distinction between kosher (fit) and non-kosher (unfit) food (Mar 7:19; Act 10:15). Paul was not talking about distinctions in food based on physical factors such as fat content, calories, and nutritional value. The issue was whether certain foods commend us to or condemn us before God. They do not.