1 Corinthians 10:23

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 another’s 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 another’s spiritual and eternal welfare.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

E. Concluding admonition to live in such matters so as to profit one another, and to glorify God

s 1Co_10:23—1Co_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] another’s wealth [om. wealth]. 25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles [meat-market], that eat, asking no questions for conscience’ sake: 26For the earth is the Lord’s, 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 Lord’s, and the fulness 29thereof [om. for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof]:13 Conscience, I, say, not thine own, but of the other:14 for why is my liberty judged of another man’s 30conscience? For [om. for] if I by grace be a partaker [if I partake with, thankfulness εἰ ἐγῶ χάριτι μετέχω], 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, ἐίτε τὶ ποιῖετε], do all to the glory of God. 32Give none offence, neither to the Jews,15 nor tothe Gentiles [Greeks, Ἕλλήσιν], 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, μιμηταἰ] 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 συμφέρει 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 one’s own’ denotes the selfish attempt to make one’s own enjoyment, one’s own liberty, one’s 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 μηδείς we obtain for the nominative in the positive clause an ἔκαστος—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 worship—even 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.—μακέλλῳ, a word taken from the Latin and=κρεωπωλίῳ. [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.—μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες, carefully searching nothing, i. e., as to whether it had been offered in sacrifice or not.—on account of conscience.—διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν. [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, Rückert]. 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 Apostle’s 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 Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.—The word πλήρωμα 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 τις, 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.—ἱερόθοτον. and not εἱδωλόθυτον, see critical notes. The former is a neutral word, and is used advisedly to represent what would be said at a heathen’s 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 καί, 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 Christians—obviously, 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,—τήν εαυτοῦ, i.e., of any one who may come into such circumstances (not=τὴν σεαυτοῦ).—for why is my liberty judged of another’s 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. Rückert 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.17—To 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 one’s own conscience I am not now speaking; for it is altogether improper for my liberty to be judged by another’s 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 another—some weak brother which ought to be spared, and not mine own.’ [This is Meyer’s explanation, who finds here the reason asserted why Paul did not mean the person’s 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 man’s own conscience, he says, did not need such consideration, for it is not affected by another’s 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 one’s own conscience; and this also is Bengel’s view].—The. ἵνα τι=ἱνα τί γένηται, 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’ (κρίνειν) here denotes a disapproving, condemning judgment, as is seen in the parallel verb, βλασφήμειν, in the next clause.—If I with grace do partake.—Here χάριτι corresponds to εὐχαριστῶ 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 places—“to 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?—βλασφήμειν, 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_10:31—1Co_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, εὑχαριστεῖν, 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 ποιεῖτε 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 τι, as equivalent to ὁτιοῦν, 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 God’s 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.—πάντα, 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,—[μὴ ζητ̣ῶν, 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 Christ’s 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 Christian’s inheritance in this earth, and the duties consequent upon it. “The earth is the Lord’s, 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;—Gotthold’s: “Four hundred occasional prayers;” Paul Gerhard’s: “Go forth, my heart, and seek my joy,” etc.; and much in J. Böhme, 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 another’s”—so, in fact, selfishness and avarice say, i. e., “take, rob, get by fraud what is another’s.” 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 God’s domain! What a rich Father we have if we are God’s 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 God’s 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 preëminent 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. Christ’s 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 another’s 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 Christian’s 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 interior—the 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 ἐστίν, is sometimes placed after κοινωνία, and sometimes after Χριστοῦ. The latter position has the best authority in its favor. [Tischendorf, in both questions of this verse, puts ἐστίν immediately after κοινωνία. 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 ἐστίν. In the second question, the Sahid. omits ἐστίν altogether, and B. agrees with those authorities which placed it after Χριστοῦ in the first, in putting it at the end of this sentence; and only A. Copt. Syr. Cyr. Aug. and Bede make it precede τοῦ σώματος—C. P. W.].

[3][1Co_10:17.—Before μετέχομεν, D. E. F. G., the Ital. and several copies of the Vulg. (not amiat.), Ambrst., Pelag. and Bede insert καὶ τοῦ ἑνὸς ποτήριου. D. and E., however, omit ἑνὸς.—C. P. W.].

[4]1Co_10:19.—In the Rec. the words ἐίδωλόν and ἐίδωλόθυτόν 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 ἐίδώλον. In favor of putting ἐίδωλόθυτόν in the former, and ἐίδώλον in the latter question, we have B. C. (2d hand) D. Sinait. (1st hand), Vulg., Copt., Æth., Aug., Ambrst., Pelag., Bede. and this order is preferred by Tisch., Alford, Stanley and Wordsworth.—C. P. W.].

[5]1Co_10:20.—Rec. has θύει τὰ ἔθνῃ, δαιμονίαις θύει, but it is opposed by decisive authorities. The interpolation of τὰ ἔθνη made necessary the alteration of θύουσιν into θύει. Lachmann puts the second θύουσιν after θεῷ, in accordance with A. B. C., et al. [In favor of τα ἔθνη, we have A.C. K. L. (placing the words after ὅτι), Sinait., el at., Vulg., Goth., Copt., Sahid., Syr. Chrys., Theodt., Orig., Aug., Bede. In favor of θύουσιν (twice) we have A. B. C. D. E. F. G., Sinait. The text as given by Tisch. is: ὅτι ἃ θύουσιν δαιμονἰοις θύουσιν καὶ οὐ θεῷ. Alford and Stanley have the same text, only they place the second θεῷ.—C. P. W.].

[6][‘It is observable that two of the Evangelists, Matthew (Mat_26:26) and Mark (Mar_14:22), use the word εὐλογήσας, having blessed, in their description of Christ’s action at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, before the consecration of the bread; and Luke (Luk_22:19) and Paul (1Co_11:24) use the word εὐχαριστήσας, having given thanks; but in the benediction of the cup Matthew (Mat_26:27) and Mark (Mar_14:23) use the word εὐχαριστήσας, whereas Paul uses the word εὐλογία 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 Stanley’s 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, πάντες οὶ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια). 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 δαιμόνια. It is in fact a play on the word δαιμόνιον. 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 (δαιμόνιον); and that demons (δαιμόνια) being sons of gods (θεῶν παίδες), he must therefore be acknowledged to believe in the gods themselves”].

[8][We let our author’s 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 Christ’s, 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 Lord’s 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 μοι after πάντα 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 μοι (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 πάντα ἔξ., ἀλλ’ οὐ π. οἰκοδ.) 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 ἕκαστος after τοῦ ἑτέρου, 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 δὲ is wanting after εἰ 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 Œcum, 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 εἰς δεῖπνον after ἀπίστων.—C. P. W.].

[12]1Co_10:28.—The Rec. has εἰδωλόθυτον, but it is probably a gloss which has been substituted in the text for the more uncommon ἱερόθυτον. Neither word was common, but ἱερόθ. was of the classical, and εἰδολόθ. 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 συνείδ. has τοῦ γὰρ κυρίου ἡ γῆ καὶ τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς, 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., Œcum. and Theophyl.—C. P. W.].

[14]1Co_10:30.—The Rec. after εἰ inserts δὲ, but it is feebly sustained.

[15]1Co_10:32.—The Rec. has γίνεσθε καὶ ’Ιουδ., but καὶ ’Ιουδ. γίνεσθε, 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 συμφέρον, but σύμφορον 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 κρίνεται for κατακρίνεται, 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”].

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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?

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10:23–11:1 Paul closes the discussion begun in 8:1 with advice about when Christians may eat meat sacrificed to an idol, and when they should not (see study note on 8:1–11:1). His advice reflects the principle of giving up one’s rights out of love (see also 8:13–9:23).

10:23-24 You say: The NLT supplies these words—Paul is probably quoting a popular saying among the Corinthians and clarifying it. • “I am allowed to do anything”: Paul qualifies the assertion of a Christian’s freedom by emphasizing the importance of doing what is most beneficial for others (see 6:12; 10:32-33; Rom 14:13-15, 19-21; 15:1-2; cp. Phil 2:3-4).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 10:23. Συμφέρει, expedient) 1Co 10:33. The power, by which all things ἔξεστιν, are lawful, is given by God: συμφέρον, expediency, is a thing affecting myself: οἰκοδομὴ, edification, relates to another.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

οἰκοδομεῖ] 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 συμφέρει, see on 1Co_6:12.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 10:23 . On πάντα ἔξεστιν κ . τ . λ ., see notes to 1Co 6:12 . The form of that ver. seems to be purposely repeated here ( μοι 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 οἰκοδομεῖ (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.

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.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Under what Circumstances It Was Lawful to Eat Meat Offered to Idols 1Co_10:23-33

The apostle having, in the preceding paragraph, proved that eating of the sacrifices offered to idols under circumstances which gave a religious character to the act, was idolatry, comes to state the circumstances under which those sacrifices might be eaten without scruple. He begins by reverting to the general law of Christian liberty stated with the same limitations as in 1Co_6:12. The right to use things offered to idols, as well as other things in themselves indifferent, is limited by expediency. We should be governed in this matter by a regard to the good of others, and to our own edification, 1Co_10:23, 1Co_10:24. If the meat of sacrifices be sold in the market, 1Co_10:25, or found at private tables, it may be eaten without any hesitation, 1Co_10:27. But if any one at a private table, from scruples on the subject, should apprise us that a certain dish contained part of a sacrifice, for his sake, and not for our own, we ought to abstain, 1Co_10:28. We should not make such a use of our liberty as to cause our good to be evil spoken of, 1Co_10:29. The general rule of action, not only as to meats and drinks, but as to all other things is, first, to act with a regard to the glory of God, 1Co_10:31; and secondly, so as to avoid giving offense (i.e. occasion for sin) to any class of men, 1Co_10:32. In this matter Paul presents himself as an example to his fellow-believers, 1Co_10:33.

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.

The apostle had already, in 1Co_6:12, and in 1Co_8:1-13, conceded that eating of the sacrifices offered to idols, was, in itself, a matter of indifference. But the use of things indifferent is limited by two principles; first, a regard to the welfare of others; secondly, regard to our own welfare. The word (συμφέρει) is expedient expresses the one of these ideas, and (οἰκοδομεῖ) edifieth the other. All things are not expedient or useful to others; and all things are not edifying to ourselves. The latter phrase might indeed have reference to others as well as to ourselves but as contrasted with the former clause, it appears to be used here with this restricted application. In this view it agrees with the clause, I will not be brought under the power of any thing, in 1Co_6:12.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See 1 Cor. 6:13.

Coming to another kind of things offered to idols, he repeateth that general rule, that in the use of things indifferent we ought to have consideration not of ourselves only, but of our neighbors, and therefore these are many things which of themselves are lawful, which may be evil done of us, because of offense to our neighbor.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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 (Co1 10:26), 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, Ti1 4:4, Ti1 4:5. To the pure all things are pure, Tit 1:15. 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 (Co1 10:27), 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 et 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 14:16), 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 (Co1 10:31, Co1 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, Co1 10:32. 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, Co1 10:33. 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.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

All things are lawful for me, &c.--Recurring to the Corinthian plea (Co1 6:12), he repeats his qualification of it. The oldest manuscripts omit both times "for me."

edify not--tend not to build up the spiritual temple, the Church, in faith and love. Paul does not appeal to the apostolic decision (Acts 15:1-29), which seems to have been not so much regarded outside of Palestine, but rather to the broad principle of true Christian freedom, which does not allow us to be governed by external things, as though, because we can use them, we must use them (Co1 6:12). Their use or non-use is to be regulated by regard to edification.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 23. All things are lawful for me] I may lawfully eat all kinds of food, but all are not expedient; ου παντα συμφερει. 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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? 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

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 man’s life than would be exact positive statutes to regulate everything, even if such minute statutes were possible.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

All things are lawful. This is the same sentiment he has expressed in chap. vi. ver. 12. and in chap. viii. ver. 8. 9. wherein he teaches us, that on some occasions it is necessary to abstain even from things in themselves lawful, as in the case of meats consecrated to idols. (Calmet) --- Two excellent rules that can serve as guides on these occasions, are the edification of the Church, and the spiritual good of our neighbour. Without the aid of these guides, we go astray ourselves and decoy others, in doing what the letter of the law permits, but what the spirit of the law, charity, forbids.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 idol’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_11:1. Directions about eating idol offerings, founded on these principles.

All things are lawful for me. (see 1Co_6:12) The "for me is not found in a, A, B, C, D. St. Paul repeats the assertion and its limitations, because he has now proved their force. He has shown that Christian liberty must be modified by considerations of expediency and edification in accordance with the feelings of sympathy and charity.

Vers. 23-33.

Gospel casuistry.

things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient," etc. These verses teach us the following lessons:

I A GOOD MAN MAY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT WHICH MAY NOT ALWAYS BE EXPEDIENT FOR THE SAKE OF OTHERS. "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not." What has not a good man a right to? He has a right to go wherever he pleases, to eat whatever he pleases, to dress as he pleases, for a good man will be actuated evermore from a good motive. But for him to use his full right would manifestly be often inexpedient and even pernicious to others. "Things lawful" for him would not always be things that would "edify," build up, souls in reverent faith and true worship. Therefore, it is not always right to stand upon our rights, it is right to conciliate and yield for the sake of others.

II SMALL SCRUPLES ON MINOR MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGED.

1. If you are over scrupulous about what you eat, it will interfere with your participation in the provisions which nature has made for you. "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake." Some of the meat which had been used for sacrificial purposes in heathen temples was afterwards exposed in the markets for sale. If it is good meat, it is not the worse for human food because used in sacrifice. Your nature is exhausted, it requires replenishment; you are hungry, there is the food hung up for sale; buy it, do not let superstitious feelings interfere with the claims of nature. How wretched and wan some of our co-religionists look, because their scruples keep them from food!

2. If you are over scrupulous about the beliefs of men, you will be deprived of social enjoyments. "If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, cat, asking no question for conscience sake." Free, genial, hearty social intercourse is one of the greatest blessings of this life. Our Saviour came "eating and drinking," but if you are over scrupulous about the credenda of your host and his provisions, you sacrifice all this and injure your nature. Remember always that the world was given for your enjoyment. "The earth hath he given to the children of men." "All things are yours.

III A DEFERENCE TO THE CONSCIENCES OF OTHERS SHOULD ALWAYS BE RENDERED. "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," etc. When at the table with meats spread before you which have been sacrificed to idols, and a fellow guest conscientiously abstains from touching them, and he reminds you of the fact, then, out of deference to his weak conscience, do not you touch them. However delicious they may appear, however fragrant in aroma, however hungry you may be, out of regard to that weak brother"s conscience deny yourself. The most sacred thing under these heavens is the conscience. The weakest conscience should be respected; to wound the conscience is to wound the man. What are meats and drinks in comparison with a human conscience?

IV SUPREME REGARD FOR THE GLORY OF GOD SHOULD RULE US IN ALL. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." "These words embrace all life. The definite acts of eating and drinking are mentioned expressly, as they are the subject immediately under consideration. They are, however, to be regulated by the same principle which guides all true life. The modern idea of some acts being religious and some secular is neither here nor elsewhere recognized by St. Paul. No act of life is in itself either religious or secular. The quality of each act depends on the spirit which guides it and the motives from which it springs. The commonest thing may be done in a highly Christian spirit; the greatest deed may spring from a low and selfish motive. A religious act done in a secular spirit is secular; a secular thing done in a religious spirit is religious. This is the first great principle of Christian life.

V THE GOOD OF OTHERS, AND NOT THE GRATIFICATION OF SELF, SHOULD BE OUR CONSTANT AIM. "Let no man seek his own, but every man another"s wealth." "Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God: even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

Expedience and edification.

Like a true rhetorician, as (in the best sense) Paul was, he took up the positions of his opponents, and turned them to good account for his own cause. Those of the Corinthians who adopted the laxer view and practice with reference to association with idolatry, put forward the natural and unquestionable plea All things indifferent in themselves are lawful for a Christian. "True," answered Paul, "it is so none has more than myself insisted upon this principle: you learned it from my lips. Yet it does not follow that, because an action is lawful, it is also expedient or edifying; and in all his conduct the Christian has to consider this." Judged by this standard, conduct may be disapproved which by the other standard might be vindicated.

I THE LARGE LIMITS OF CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. The Christian religion is not one which lays down exact and minute laws for the regulation and guidance of human life. It provides principles, and leaves their application to the individual. There is thus large scope for the exercise of Christian wisdom. This arrangement is an incidental proof of the Divine origin of Christianity; and it is also in harmony with the universality of its intended diffusion. There are no local or temporary elements in this religion, which is the religion of God, the religion of humanity.

II CONDUCT THAT APPROACHES THE EXTREME LIMITS OF WHAT IS LAWFUL MAY BE INJURIOUS TO THE INDIVIDUAL AGENT HIMSELF.

1. It may promote a selfish disposition and habit of mind. He who says, "I am enlightened; I am not bound by rules; I can neglect such and such usual observances; I can indulge in such and such practices;" and all because he is living under a dispensation of liberty, and all things are lawful to him, will probably confirm the natural selfishness which he should aim at repressing.

2. Such conduct may also gradually deteriorate the religious character. There are those who need the assistance and the restraint of rules; and although these may not be laid down by inspired authority, they may be very expedient, and their neglect may be very prejudicial to the spiritual life.

III THE TOO FREE USE OF LIBERTY MAY BE UNEDIFYING AND HURTFUL TO CHRISTIAN SOCIETY.

1. It restricts the range and the operation of sympathy. If Christians are members one of another, then, if one member suffers, all suffer with it. But where the only question is, "What may I do?" and, "What must I do?" instead of, "How may I act for my brother"s welfare?" there an element of discord is introduced into society, for "all seek their own.

2. It encourages some to conduct which their conscience condemns, and so indirectly leads them into sin. So it was at Corinth, where the freedom with which some Christians partook of things offered to idols emboldened the scrupulous to partake when their conscience condemned them, and brethren were thus led into sin by the inconsiderateness of those who deemed themselves the strong. Well is it to ask, concerning any proposed conduct of a doubtful character, not only, "Is it lawful?" but, "Will it tend to the edification of those for whom Christ died? T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Supposing this were lawful in itself, yet it is not expedient, it is not edifying to my neighbour.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 God’s Spirit, Word and Providence would have us deny. In Paul’s 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 brother’s keeper?” Certainly you are your brother’s keeper.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify . [See comment on 1Co_6:12 ]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23–26. All things are lawful for me. All meats are especially referred to. See note on chapter 6:12, and chapter 8. But things that are lawful, i. e., not sinful in themselves, are often not expedient.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul again reminds them of the law of liberty and doing everything for the benefit of others.

Everything is lawful

Possible meanings are 1) Paul is answering what some Corinthians might be thinking, "Some say, 'I can do anything'" or 2) Paul is actually saying what he thinks is true, "God allows me to do anything." This should be translated as in 1 Corinthians 6:12.

not everything is beneficial

"some things are not beneficial"

not everything builds people up

Building people up represents helping them become mature and strong in their faith. See how you translated "builds up" in 1 Corinthians 8:1. AT: "not everything strengthens people" or "some things do not strengthen people" (See: Metaphor)

translationWords

lawful

neighbor

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

23. [μοι] is inserted after πάντα in each case by rec. with Vulg. Peshito. It is no doubt imported from ch. 1Co 6:12. μοι is omitted in each case by אABCDE, Vetus Lat. and some early copies of the Vulg.

23–CH. 1Co 11:1. PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF MEATS OFFERED IN SACRIFICE

23. πάντα ἔξεστιν. See Critical Note, and ch. 1Co 6:12, note. 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.

οἰκοδομεῖ. See note on ch. 1Co 8:1.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

23.] He recurs to the plea of ch. 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.

οἰκοδομεῖ] viz. the Christian body: tend to build up the whole, or the individual parts, of that spiritual temple, God’s οἰκοδομή.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. Πάντα ἔξεστιν. A return, without special personal reference, to the principle stated (or perhaps quoted) in 6:12; where see notes. Of course he means all things indifferent, with regard to which a Christian has freedom. He repeats this principle, with its limitation, before dealing finally with the question of idol-meats. See Moffatt, Lit. of N.T., p. 112.

οὐ πάντα οἰκοδομεῖ. This explains οὐ πάντα συμφέρει. There are some things which do not build up either the character of the individual, or the faith which he professes, or the society to which he belongs. A liberty which harms others is not likely to benefit oneself, and a liberty which harms oneself is not likely to benefit others. Cf. 14:26; Rom 14:19.

Before ἔξεστιν, in both clauses, א 3 H K L, Syrr. AV. insert μοι from 6:12: א* A B C* D E, Am. Copt. omit. Through homoeoteleuton, πάντα to πάντα, F G omit the first cause and 17 omits the second.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 μοι, 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 συμφέρει, is expedient, and οἰκοδομεῖ, 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.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.