What then do I say? that what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything?
The Corinthians had a slogan they were proud of: an idol is nothing, so meat offered to one cannot matter. Paul picks up their own logic and asks if he is contradicting himself. His answer shows what stands behind a lifeless image.
Paul had already dismissed idols as empty. His question does not take that back. It draws a line between the image and the power behind it.
Does this contradict the apostle's earlier reasoning, and that of the prophets of old, that the idol was a mere nothing? Not at all. These products of man's devising have no existence, and their images neither see nor hear. But demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears, and claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves.
If the idol is empty, why did it hold such a grip on people? Something more than wood and stone must have been at work.
He had already, along with all who have knowledge, treated both idols and their offerings with contempt. He does not now take back his words. But he will also let us know what sort of power animates and secretly sustains these empty vanities. Human souls and bodies were defiled by bowing down to something which was not God — something that in itself was nothing in the world. But "nothing" cannot move men's souls. There is a power at work, and it operates everywhere.
No pagan worshipper set out to honour demons. But what an act does is not settled by what the worshipper has in mind.
The idols and their sacrifices may be completely powerless. But demons hiding behind them shut the true God out of souls and take for themselves the honour due to Him alone. This is the effect of heathen worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They no more planned to revere demons — fallen and evil spirits — than the unconverted today mean to serve Satan. But they did, and they still do, all the same. The truth puts things in their real light, which man's reasoning, imagination, or indifference leaves in the shade.
The issue is not whether the food changes. It is what the act says in public about where a person stands.
One might say that an idol is nothing anyway, and so there is no significance in any outward identification with it. But this is not correct reasoning. True, the idol is nothing, and meat offered to idols is not actually changed by this. But behind the idol in every case is an evil spirit, and the Gentiles, in their idol worship, were sacrificing to demons. Can the believer have any part in this? It is not a question of whether his own conscience is defiled, or his own soul affected, but of his outwardly showing fellowship with an idol. He is outwardly compromising the honour of his Lord.
The wider passage lines up three fellowships, each entered by the same simple act. No one can hold two of them at once.
Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. They are centred, in that order, in the Table of the Lord, the altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one is expressed by the act of eating. In this passage Israel's altar is not the question. It comes in only as an illustration, and is left there. The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to share in both. "You cannot," says the apostle, twice over in verse 21.
Freedom is real. Careless use of it leaves a believer exposed.
Christian liberty is indeed always free; but let God's people beware. That wicked one will certainly touch them if they place themselves carelessly within his reach. To take part in an idol feast would be something morally incompatible with a true and intelligent share in the Lord's table.
- Nothing — Paul stands by his verdict that the idol is empty. The image sees nothing and hears nothing.
- Something — yet "nothing" cannot move men's souls. A real power stands behind the empty image: demons who claim the sacrifice for themselves.
- Unintended — no worshipper meant to honour demons, just as no unbeliever today means to serve Satan. The act still carried its meaning.
- Identification — eating joins you to the table you eat at. The question is not your own conscience. It is your Lord's honour in public.
- Exclusive — the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons stand opposed. Careless liberty walks straight into the enemy's reach.
But that what [the nations] sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God. Now I do not wish you to be in communion with demons.
The Corinthians had a clever argument. An idol is nothing at all, so eating at a pagan temple feast should be harmless. Paul agrees about the idol. Then he names who receives those sacrifices.
The apostle does not retreat from what he said earlier about idols being empty. He shifts the question from the statue to what stands behind it.
Does this contradict what the apostle said earlier, and the prophets before him — that the idol was nothing at all? Not at all. Even if the things man makes have no existence, and their images cannot see or hear, demons are very real. They take advantage of man's imagination or his fears. They claim the idol-sacrifices for themselves. So the emptiness of idols is no reason to eat meat sacrificed to them. For "what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God." (See Deuteronomy 32:17.)
So the demons are not idle spectators. They have a purpose in the whole business, and a prize they are after.
You forget that when they sacrifice to idols, they are really sacrificing to demons. The demons are the ones who stir up this idol worship. The idol may indeed be nothing at all. But the demons behind it were very real. In leading men to worship idols they were leading men to worship demons, and so seizing the homage due to God alone.
A Corinthian could protest that his heart was not in the ceremony. The verse leaves no room for that. Eating and drinking is itself a declaration.
In doing so they were identifying themselves and having fellowship with the demons who used the idol to seize God's place! They could not say, "our hearts are not in it, there is no spiritual connection with the idol." No! By the act of eating and drinking what had been offered to the idol, they expressed identification and fellowship with it and with the demon!
Pagan worshippers did not set out to honour demons. That changed nothing.
This is the effect of pagan worship, not the intention of the worshippers or of those who share in their sacrifices. They meant to honour demons no more than unconverted people today mean to serve Satan. But they did it, and they still do.
Israel made the golden calf as a picture of the Lord, not as a rival to Him. That did not make it safe.
Verse 5 shows that in some way the visible calf was to represent the unseen Lord — so they thought. Now it is a fact that among pagan peoples the visible idol does represent an unseen power, as 1 Corinthians 10:20 shows. The idol is nothing, but the power it represents is that of a demon. So if any power stood behind the golden calf, it was of a satanic kind and not of God.
Paul's stated wish — that they not be partners with demons — is not a mild preference. Fellowship with the Lord makes a second fellowship impossible.
Communion with demons, answers the apostle, is the result... But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons. If he tampers with demons, has he not in effect abandoned the Lord? ... If fellowship takes some in, it shuts others out... Love cannot help being jealous of wandering affections. It would not be love if it did not resent unfaithfulness. And is He so powerless that we can despise Him and get away with it?
This is not only an ancient problem. The same hand works at every level of culture, from the simple to the highly educated.
Satan is the real promoter of it all. He knows how to lead a poor, unthinking pagan to be satisfied with an imaginary charm. He leads the Greeks and Romans to enjoy their grand statues, and the Brahmins and Hindus to take pride in their superior and refined mysticism... Add to this another kind of idolatry that Christians are sometimes drawn into: letting anything but Christ have the first place in the heart. For God is revealed in Him. He "is the image of the invisible God" — "He is the true God." "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:21.
- Behind — the idol itself is empty, but a real being stands behind it. Paul's point is not that the statue has power. It is that someone else receives the offering.
- Behind, and hungry — demons drive idol worship. They take for themselves the homage that belongs to God alone.
- Behind, and binding — eating and drinking expresses fellowship. What the worshipper intends does not change what the act says.
- Behind, and excluding — fellowship with the Lord rules out fellowship with demons. His love is jealous, and it will not share.
- Behind, still today — the same power fits itself to charms, grand statues, or refined mysticism. The last warning is about anything that takes Christ's place in the heart.
Ye cannot drink [the] Lord's cup, and [the] cup of demons ye cannot partake of [the] Lord's table, and of [the] table of demons.
Some Christians in Corinth still sat down at meals held in idol temples, sure that an idol was nothing. His answer is not advice but a flat impossibility: two cups and two tables cannot both be yours.
Their reasoning began with real truth and ended in the wrong place.
Some of the Corinthians knew that an idol was nothing in the world, and that there was no God but one. Yet they thought that if they saw that clearly, they could sit and eat in an idol's temple. In this they were wrong... Granted that the idol was nothing, yet behind it were demons, and by sitting at the idol's festival they would be having communion with demons.
Each table stands for a fellowship, and each fellowship makes a claim on the people who share it.
The cup is the fellowship of the blood of Christ. The bread is the fellowship of the body of Christ. Every believer is bound to be faithful to this fellowship. It marks off the whole company from everything He died to — from sin and from the world. In connection with sin and the world, the god of this world spreads his table.
Paul could have said this was unwise or forbidden. He chose a stronger word, and repeated it.
He does not say you ought not to "partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons," but "you cannot." The heart cannot take in the Lord's rich provision, and so be filled and moved by His love, and at the same time be ruled by some evil thing it wants for itself. That is quite impossible.
The wider passage sets three forms of worship side by side. This verse names the two that collide.
Verses 16 to 20 set before us three communions: the Christian, the Jewish, and the heathen. Each has its centre — the Table of the Lord, the Altar in the middle of Israel, and the idol sacrifices of paganism. Each one shows itself in the act of eating... The issue here lies between the communion of Christ's death and the communion of demons. These two are totally, fundamentally and continuously opposed. It is impossible to be a participator in both. "You cannot," says the Apostle, twice in verse 21.
Earlier in the chapter Paul speaks of the blood and body of Christ. Here he switches to the Lord — and the switch carries weight.
He does not say here "the blood" or the "body of the Lord." That comes in 1 Corinthians 11. Here it is Christ, because it becomes a question of grace. "The Lord" brings in the idea of authority... But he does not forget His authority. It is not simply the love of Christ, but His full authority as the Lord. The apostle sets two mighty powers against each other. On one side are demons, a power stronger than man, struggling with him here below. On the other is the Lord who shed His blood for them — the Lord of all, who will judge the living and the dead.
Some readers have turned the phrase "table of demons" into a weapon against other groups of believers.
To call the tables of national churches or sects tables of demons is a simple absurdity, in defiance of the plain language of Scripture. What "demons" means is clearly stated in Scripture: nothing but the gods of the heathen... The apostle speaks of communion with demons (in idol temples) and heathen sacrifices, and nothing else. To apply this to wrong church principles, where the Lord is owned as the only object, is trifling with Scripture and nonsense in itself.
The next verse asks whether we provoke the Lord to jealousy, and whether we are stronger than He. That question has teeth.
We have seen that this was something that some of the Corinthians were doing. But they could not do it without consequence. It was a provocation to the Lord... If they kept up such gross inconsistency, the Lord Himself would take up the matter.
- Behind — the idol itself was nothing, but demons stood behind it, so the meal was real communion with them.
- Between — a table joins you to everything it stands for; two tables mean two fellowships that clash at every point.
- Beyond — Paul says "cannot," not "should not"; His love and a hidden rival cannot rule the same heart.
- Belonging — the title "Lord" is deliberate: grace invites us to His table, authority keeps us there.
- Beware — "table of demons" means the heathen feast, not other Christian gatherings. Keep both tables, though, and the Lord Himself takes the matter up.
Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?
Paul has just said that no one can share both the Lord's table and the table of demons. Now he turns from statement to challenge. Instead of a threat, the verse asks two questions. One asks what a divided loyalty does to the Lord. The other asks what we think we can survive.
Verse 21 says no one can mix the two tables. Verse 22 asks what follows when someone does.
Suppose someone ignores this "cannot." He has eaten at the Lord's table, and he is bold enough to eat at the table of demons too. What then? Then he provokes the Lord to jealousy for the sake of His Name and glory. The Lord will not give His glory to another. The offender will come into sharp collision with the Lord Himself. He will taste the bitterness of the Lord's discipline, and it may even lead to death. Under that discipline he will soon discover that he is not stronger than the Lord. He will face the hard road of repentance, which is the only way that leads to recovery.
The word "jealousy" here is not petty temper. It is what love does when affection wanders elsewhere.
But no one can have fellowship with the Lord and with demons. If he meddles with demons, has he not in effect abandoned the Lord? Demons may be glad to seize and harm someone who claims the name of Christ. The Lord refuses His fellowship to anyone who worships idols. If fellowship takes some in, it must shut others out… Love cannot help being jealous when affection wanders. It would not be love if it did not resent unfaithfulness.
Israel's law pictured this in marriage.
The law of jealousy deals with a man who is jealous of his wife, because he doubts that she still loves him. We must remember that his jealousy concerns something he has a rightful claim to: his wife's affection. It was the same with Israel: their affection was to be towards God, but in this respect they had failed.
The offence was not the meat. It was the message the Corinthians sent by sitting in both places.
"Demons" refers to the idols' temples themselves, because they made their offerings to demons and not to God. It is monstrous to apply the word to any group that professes Christianity… Suppose someone tried to eat at the Lord's table and also at the table of demons. That would be saying, "I can eat with a demon, and I can eat with you." This would provoke the Lord to jealousy, as verse 22 says.
The second question exposes a hidden confidence. It is the idea that we can handle both tables and come out unharmed.
And they are asked a question that searches the conscience: "Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy?" Is He not right to be jealous when we give demons honour that belongs to Him? Or, "Are we stronger than He?" Do we think we are strong enough to mix the two without danger, when God Himself is completely separate from them?
Across the letter Paul's warnings grow heavier — from the harm we do to fellow believers to the Lord acting Himself.
In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul warns us not to wound the consciences of fellow believers, and so sin against Christ (verse 12). In 1 Corinthians 9 he warns us to keep the body under control, in case we preach to others and are ourselves rejected (verse 27). In 1 Corinthians 10 the warning is to take care that we do not provoke the Lord to jealousy (verse 22). It is a solemn thing to ignore the consciences of fellow believers. It may be a fatal thing to provoke the Lord to jealousy. Some at Corinth found this out. In 1 Corinthians 11 we read that the Lord, provoked to jealousy, acts for His own glory, and many died as a result.
Commentators differ on how far the "table of demons" reaches. Darby ties the words to pagan temples. Others hold that the principle still presses on believers who never go near an idol temple.
In the mercy of God, we are in little danger from "the fellowship of demons." But let us not dismiss this truth from our minds for that reason, because its principle applies much more widely. If we eat at the Lord's table, we must keep watch, in case we also share in things that do not fit with it and its holiness. If we share in the communion of the blood and body of Christ, we shall find it great enough to shut out every other communion.
- Claim — The Lord's jealousy rests on a real right: the affection of His people, just as a husband has a claim on his wife's love.
- Rival — What provokes Him is not food but a divided table, the silent boast "I can eat with a demon, and I can eat with you."
- Bluff — "Are we stronger than He?" calls the bluff of anyone who thinks he can mix the two and walk away undamaged.
- Escalation — The letter climbs from wounding a believer's conscience, to provoking the Lord, to the Lord acting Himself. Grieving fellow believers is serious. Provoking the Lord may cost life.
- Watch — Sharing in Christ's blood and body is large enough to shut out every rival. Keep watch that nothing inconsistent takes a place beside it.
All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify.
The verse closes Paul's long answer to a real question in Corinth. Could a Christian eat meat that came from a sacrifice to an idol? Paul grants the liberty twice. Then he sets two more questions beside it: does it profit? Does it build up?
The freedom Paul claims is not freedom from morality. One writer marks off which restrictions have fallen away. He also warns that permitted things can still harm us:
"All things are lawful to me" does not, for a moment, change eternal moral standards. It refers to restrictions that were only ceremonial... In those things there was the fullest and most complete freedom. Yet even here some things might not be profitable, and the apostle refuses to let lawful things gain power over him. This matters for our own guidance. What we loosely allow ourselves, inside the range of things entirely lawful, may still have a sorrowful effect on us.
The second half of the verse gives a standard that reaches far past food:
Paul makes the statement twice over: "All things are lawful." That is, he sets us in a place of liberty. Yet he reminds us that not everything is "expedient" (that is, "profitable") or "edifying". He also reminds us to weigh not only what is good for ourselves, but what is good for others. The two-fold test he mentions has a thousand uses... Again and again situations arise where we must ask not only, Is it lawful? but also, Is there profit in it? and, Does it build up? ... If we ordered our lives by that standard, we would cut out a good many doubtful and unprofitable things.
Paul said something similar earlier in the letter. This time he drops the words "to me," and one commentator treats that as deliberate:
As he began, so he closes... This enlarges the principle he laid down in chapter 6. It is not simply lawful "to me," and the question here is not about letting anything master us. There, indifference about meats exposed some to impurity; here, to idolatry. The apostle urges more than staying clear of evil; he urges positive edification. Love alone secures this, because it does not look at its own interests and seeks the good of others.
Another writer sets this verse beside the next one, and weighs what our conduct does to others:
The first of these verses makes a concession, the second states a rule... To think of others rather than ourselves is the true rule of conduct in the Church of God... In this sense our acts are never neutral; they must bring good or evil to others. If our walk does not build others up, it will surely damage our fellow believers.
The liberty is real, and it spares believers an exhausting search into where their food came from:
We may well thank God for the liberty this passage gives. It would have been an unbearable burden to the early Christians if they had to track down the history of every bit of meat they bought in the market, or ate in the house of someone they knew. For us today, life is very complicated and artificial, so it would be ten times worse.
The limit comes when someone else's conscience is at stake. One writer pictures a shared meal:
I do not mind what I eat... Now suppose we are sitting at a table with a person who has just come out of idolatry. He says, "That meat was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, so for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all ordinary meat.
The verse sounds permissive, so it is easy to twist into an excuse. One writer rejects two errors: rule-keeping, and self-pleasing dressed up as kindness:
Was it only a question of what was "lawful"? No legal attitude of "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle" is meant here at all, because that sort of thing is contrary to Christianity... Paul looked for the positive character of things — things that are profitable or fitting, and that could bring true edification, the building up of souls... And let us avoid the subtle idea that we are kind and unselfish when we mingle with others in wrong associations. This is neither faithfulness to God, nor real kindness to others.
- Lawful — the freedom is real. It covers ceremonial restrictions, not moral ones, and God's eternal moral standards never change.
- Profitable — the next question is "does it profit me?" A fully permitted thing can still have a sorrowful effect on the one who allows it.
- Edifying — the third question looks outward: does it build others up? Our acts are never neutral; a walk that does not build others up will damage them.
- Others — this is the advance on chapter 6. There the guard was against letting anything master us; here love seeks the good of the other.
- Balance — liberty spares us anxious checks on every meal. Love drops the right as soon as another's conscience is at stake.
Let no one seek his own [advantage], but that of the other.
Paul has just told the Corinthians that they are free to do anything, but not everything builds people up. This verse turns that principle into a rule for daily life. It raises a hard question. If something is truly allowed to me, why should another person's good decide whether I do it?
The two halves of verses 23 and 24 do different jobs. One grants freedom; the next governs how freedom is used.
"All things are lawful, but not all things are helpful." The first of these verses makes a concession, the second states a rule. Not all things build people up. But, as he goes on to say, to think of others rather than ourselves is the true rule of conduct in the Church of God. In this sense our acts are never neutral. Good or evil must come from them to others. If our way of life does not build others up, it will surely damage our fellow believers.
Older wordings say "another's wealth" — that is, another person's good or profit. Paul writes this into a dispute about food offered to idols, and he asks for more than staying clear of harm. One writer keeps the older, more literal form:
"Let no one seek his own [advantage], but his neighbour's [literally, that of the other]." ... In chapter 6, a careless attitude to food exposed some to impurity; here it exposes them to idolatry. Paul urges more than staying clear of evil; he urges positive building up. Love alone secures this, because it does not look at its own things but seeks the good of others.
The rule becomes a test for almost any decision.
Again and again situations arise where we have to ask not only, Is it lawful? but also, Is there profit in it? and, Does it build up? And further, we have to consider the profit and the building up of all. If we ordered our lives by that standard, we would cut out a good many doubtful and unprofitable things.
Both halves of the verse cut against what we want by nature.
"Let no one seek his own good" — the very thing we are so ready to seek. "But the good of his neighbor" — the very last thing we feel inclined to do.
This giving up is wider than opinions and tastes. It reaches to things I have a real right to.
God calls us to give up more than our rough edges, prejudices and preferences. He calls us to give up our personal rights too, for the profit of others. This is the Christian's daily business. As God enables him to do it, he walks in the footsteps of Jesus.
Christ lived this way completely. The opposite drives the world.
One thing struck me deeply when the Lord first opened my eyes. I never found Christ doing a single thing for Himself... An unbroken stream of blessed, perfect, unfailing love flowed from Him... and it was always others, not Himself, who were comforted. The world's whole principle is self, doing well for itself. What is the world's honour? Self. What its wealth? Self. What is advancement in the world? Self.
The rule has a limit. Seeking another's good is not the same as going along with whatever others do.
Paul urges a principle of great value here: "Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." If I truly seek the blessing of others, that will give me a truer view of my own conduct. But selfishness will always leave me open to Satan's influence. And let us refuse the subtle suggestion that we are kind and unselfish when we join others in wrong associations. That is neither faithfulness to God, nor real kindness to others.
Obeying this rule takes a bigger heart than we start with. Grace is what enlarges it.
As the heart grows in grace, it thinks more about others. The higher a man climbs a hill, the wider his view. His eye is not shut in by his own garden wall. The self-centred nature thinks of no one but itself. Grace lifts the soul, and the more grace a man has, the more it enables him to look away from himself to the condition of his fellow believers.
- Rule — verse 23 grants freedom; verse 24 governs it. Thinking of others before ourselves is the true rule of conduct.
- Reach — it goes past opinions and preferences. Give up even your own rights for another's profit.
- Test — before acting, ask three things: Is it lawful? Is there profit in it? Does it build up — and build up all?
- Limit — seeking another's good never means joining wrong associations. That is neither faithfulness to God, nor real kindness.
- Root — no act is neutral. Every act helps or harms someone. Grace enlarges the heart to see it, and shapes it after the One who never did a single thing for Himself.
Everything sold in the shambles eat, making no inquiry for conscience sake.
Most of the meat in Corinth's markets came from animals killed in pagan temple ceremonies. So a believer buying dinner could never be sure where his food had been. Paul's answer is short: buy, eat, and ask nothing. That freedom raises two questions — where it comes from, and where it ends.
This was not a rare problem. It touched ordinary shopping.
The pagan world was so full of idols that most of the meat sold in their markets came from animals killed at idol sacrifices and ceremonies. Suppose the Christian bought his food in the "shambles," or markets. Suppose he was eating in the house of someone who did not believe, and so had no feelings about these things. What was he to do?
Older translations call the market a "shambles". The word means "stalls on which meat was exposed for sale" (Morrish Bible Dictionary) — what we would call the butcher's counter.
The command is more than permission to eat. It warns against hunting for problems.
All who love God should love their brothers too, and so seek to remove every occasion of stumbling from their path. Even so, the Christian is to use the liberty of Christ freely in ordinary daily life. The Christian is not to go out of his way to find difficulties. He should ask no questions for conscience' sake. Let him take the world as he finds it. Let him use its things with thanks to Him whose they truly are, remembering and holding fast that the earth and its fullness are the Lord's. The evil ends to which men may turn His gifts cannot cancel His saints' right to freely enjoy whatever He has made.
The next line gives the reason: the earth belongs to the Lord. The food comes from the Creator, not from the idol. One writer traces this freedom through the whole story of God's dealings with man.
In Eden man was placed under restriction; outside it he suffered loss. But now, in connection with the altar, Noah received a larger grant than anyone had enjoyed before: "And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything." Not one single article of food is withheld... At Sinai, when Israel undertook to stand on their own responsibility before God, restrictions in food appear... But as soon as the great sacrifice had been offered up, we learn that all such restrictions fall away. We read the words — "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market"; "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself"; "everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer" (1 Cor. 10:25; Rom. 14:14; 1 Tim. 4:4). For when God deals with man on the ground of sacrifice, nothing that is good for man is withheld.
Read as a burden lifted, the verse reaches far past first-century butchers.
We may well thank God for the liberty which is ordained in this passage. It would have been an intolerable burden to the early Christians if they had been responsible to track down the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets, or ate in the house of some acquaintance. For us today, living in conditions that are highly complicated and artificial, it would be ten times worse. It is clearly God's will for His people that they accept the conditions in which their lot is cast, and pursue a simple path through, without inquisitively looking for sources of trouble, whether the question is meat or anything else.
The freedom holds while nobody raises the matter. Once someone points it out, another concern takes over.
In the markets, or at the feasts, we need ask no questions, since we can take food as the Lord's and His provision. If, however, someone points out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, then the Christian should refrain from eating. He holds back for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it. He also holds back to stop an unbeliever charging that believers eat food offered to the very idols they condemn.
Paul adds a caution. Liberty is only the first of three tests.
In this connection Paul makes the statement twice over, "All things are lawful." That is, he sets us in a place of liberty. Yet he reminds us that by no means everything is either "expedient" (that is, "profitable") or "edifying". He also reminds us to consider not only what is good for ourselves, but what is good for others... Again and again situations arise about which we have to ask not only, Is it lawful? but also, Is there profit in it? and, Does it build up?
- Ground. The earth is the Lord's, so food from a pagan market is still His gift — the idol never owned it.
- Gift. That fact gives real liberty: eat, and do not trace the history of what is set before you.
- Guard. The freedom is against asking questions, not against care for others — do not go looking for trouble, and do not create it.
- Give way. Once someone names the food as offered to an idol, you give up the freedom — for his conscience, not your own.
- Gauge. Lawful, profitable, edifying — three questions, and only the first is settled by verse 25.
For the earth [is] the Lord's and its fulness.
Paul has been dealing with meat that came from idol sacrifices, and now he turns to ordinary shopping and dinner invitations. His answer to a nervous question about food is not a rule about meat at all. It is a statement about who owns the world.
Most meat in a Corinthian market came from animals killed in pagan temple ceremonies. A buyer could not tell which piece had a clean history.
The pagan world was so full of idols that most of the animals sold for meat in their markets had been killed as part of idol sacrifices and ceremonies. Suppose a Christian bought his food in those markets. Suppose he was eating in the house of someone who did not believe, and so had no feelings about these things. What was he to do?
Paul's reply is that the meat's past is not the buyer's business.
He is talking about a common custom. An animal was offered in an idol's temple, and then its meat was sold for food in the usual way. To me it is all common meat.
This verse gives a reason to enjoy what God has made. What people have done with His gifts does not cancel the believer's right to them.
The Christian is free to use the liberty of Christ in ordinary daily life. He is not to go out of his way to find difficulties. He should ask no questions for conscience' sake. Let him take the world as he finds it, and use its things in thankfulness to Him whose they really are, remembering and holding to the truth that the earth and its fulness are the Lord's. And the evil uses people make of His gifts cannot cancel His people's right to freely enjoy whatever He has made.
This freedom is a mercy. Tracing the history of everything we eat would crush us.
We may well thank God for the freedom this passage gives. It would have been an unbearable burden to the early Christians to trace the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets, or ate in someone's house. Life today is far more complicated and artificial, so it would be ten times worse.
God's claim does not rest on creation alone. A second title stands behind it: He bought it back, like Boaz, who won his bride and bought the inheritance too.
The Lord's claims on us rest on His rights and titles, and they reach out to "the whole earth and the fulness thereof." It is all the Lord's. He claims it not by creation right (though that is true too) but like Boaz, who not only won his Ruth but bought the inheritance as well. We believers own the Lord's title to it all by resurrection. He will make that title good in power when He comes a second time. Ever since Adam was driven out of Eden, man in his natural state is a trespasser in this creation, or at least an intruder, and is there only because God allows it. But we are redeemed. We own our risen Lord's right and title to the inheritance He bought, so we ask no one's leave to walk through the length and breadth of it.
Because the food is His, it comes to the table as a gift. Giving thanks admits whose it is.
Even animals the law counted unclean for Israel are fit for us to eat. They are sanctified by the word of God and by the prayer of thanks that the person eating offers. If a person does not thank God for his food, he has no proper right to eat at all. For every creature is the property of God, and in receiving it we ought to recognise His rights first of all.
Sometimes the same truth keeps a believer from eating. Both the eating and the refusing rest on one fact.
If my eating would give another the impression that I believed the food was a demon's, and not the Lord's, then I should not eat. So whether eating in the first case, or not eating in the other, the basis of truth for both is identical.
That yielding is love, not doubt. The believer holds his freedom and still lays it down.
In such a case it is good to deny yourself. Do not let your liberty be judged by another conscience, or be spoken against for the very thing you give thanks for. Love must respect what troubles the conscience of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the understanding and liberty of Christ.
- Ownership. The reason to eat freely is a claim of title. The earth and everything in it belongs to the Lord, both because He made it and because He bought it back.
- Freedom. Because it is His, no food carries an idol's stain. The believer takes the world as he finds it and does not hunt for difficulties.
- Thanksgiving. What belongs to God comes to us as a gift, and the prayer of thanks admits that His rights come first.
- Love. The same ownership that lifts the fork also lowers it. If eating would tell a watching conscience that the food belongs to a demon, I put it down.
- Inheritance. Redeemed people are not trespassers here. They walk the earth as their risen Lord's, and ask no one's permission.
But if any one of the unbelievers invite you, and ye are minded to go, all that is set before you eat, making no inquiry for conscience sake.
This chapter deals with meat offered to idols. Yet here a believer may accept an unbeliever's invitation and eat what is served — so how does that fit with the call to be separate?
The verse gives no rule. One writer explains why God leaves some questions open:
It clearly means this: God is pleased to leave many things in the church without any rule at all. He leaves believers to be tested and exercised by them. As they are exercised they grow, and become "of full age... their senses exercised to discern both good and evil" (Heb. 5:14). Should I eat, or should I not eat? Or again, that feast spoken of in 1 Cor. 10:27; should I go, or should I not go? How easy it would have been to give this command: "Never go to any feast where there is the smallest chance the host will serve you meat offered to idols." But God never gave that command.
The verse turns on a word of the will, not of duty. One writer traces the Greek verb behind "you are disposed":
For thelo see more fully John 6:67, "Do you want to go away as well?" — not simply the act, but the will to do it; "is it your will or disposition?" "Are you also disposed to go away?"... 1 Cor. 10:27, "and you are disposed to go."
Why can a believer eat without questioning the menu? The reason is not indifference but ownership: the earth belongs to the Lord.
The claims of the Lord upon us, founded on His rights and titles, reach out to "the whole earth and the fullness thereof."... Since Adam was driven out of Eden, natural man is a trespasser, or at least an intruder, in this creation. He is here only because God allows it. But we are redeemed. We own our risen Lord's right and title to the inheritance He bought back, so we ask no one's permission to walk through its whole length and breadth — even though in fact we do not own a foot of ground to stand on.
The same freedom covers both the market stall and the host's table:
The principle of God's creation holds good for everything on sale in the market. It holds good just as much for what might be on an unbeliever's table, if one should go there. In either case one may eat without special inquiry.
Permission is not safety. Going is a choice, and the motive decides the risk:
The Christian who wants to stay on friendly terms with his unbelieving neighbours has the fullest liberty to do so. But he is plainly warned that in going he exposes himself to danger by his own choice. A good motive or a bad one might lead him to accept an unbeliever's courtesies, and his motive is the measure of his risk. In such company he must still act as his calling requires. He is a Christian, and a saint of God, wherever he is found.
Some use this permission as an excuse:
Yet people take advantage of the word of God that says, "If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go." Take care how you go, and for what. If you go self-confident, you will only dishonour Christ. If you go to please yourself, this is poor ground. To please other people is little better.
One motive stands out. It also shows how this freedom fits with true separation:
True separation for the Christian does not mean keeping away from sinners, the way the Pharisees did. Like his Master, the Christian will be found in the company of sinners. He is not there to share his life with them, or to be defiled by joining their sinful pursuits. He is there to tell them the gospel of God and to try to win them to the Lord. If one of the unbelievers invites us to a feast, and we are disposed to go (1 Cor. 10:27), it will surely be with the aim of setting Christ and His things before the one who invited us. Only someone who is truly separate from sinners would have the moral power to speak of Christ in the presence of sinners.
Liberty is not the last word. Someone else's conscience can end the meal:
It is different, not just in an idol temple but even in a private home, where someone says, "This has been offered in sacrifice." He clearly has a conscience about it, though otherwise one might have perfect liberty. It is good in such a case to deny oneself, and not expose one's liberty to be judged by another... One must in love respect the scruples of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the intelligence and liberty of Christ.
- Free — God gave no command about the feast. He leaves some questions open so that believers grow by being exercised in them.
- Disposed — The verse turns on a verb of the will: you may go, but you are not told to go.
- Grounded — The freedom to eat without asking rests on the Lord's title to the whole earth. Redeemed people need no one's permission inside their Lord's inheritance.
- Exposed — Liberty carries risk, and motive is the measure of it. Self-confidence or self-pleasing dishonours Christ, and love gives the liberty up when someone else's conscience is at stake.
- Sent — The best reason to go is to set Christ before the host. Only the truly separate have the moral power to speak of Him there.
But if any one say to you, This is offered to holy purposes, do not eat, for his sake that pointed it out, and conscience sake;
Paul has just told the believers at Corinth they may buy market meat and eat at an unbeliever's table without asking questions. Then, in one sentence, he tells them to stop eating — because someone at the table calls the food sacrificial.
The command makes sense once you know how food reached a Corinthian table.
The pagan world was so full of idols that most animals sold as meat in the markets had been killed in idol sacrifices and ceremonies. Suppose a Christian bought his food in those markets. Suppose he was eating in the house of someone who did not believe, and so had no feelings about these things. What was he to do?
This verse is the exception. The rule just before it frees the believer from anxious questions, and that freedom is a kindness.
We may well thank God for the liberty this passage gives. Think of the burden on the early Christians if they had to trace the history of every bit of meat they bought in the markets or ate in someone's house. It would have been unbearable. Our conditions today are far more complicated and artificial, so for us it would be ten times worse. God's will for His people is plain. They are to accept the conditions they live in and take a simple path through them, without prying for sources of trouble — whether the question is meat or anything else.
The believer asked no questions; someone else volunteered the information. His unease is the reason to put the food down.
Paul is talking about a common custom. People sold the meat as ordinary food after the animal had been offered in the idol's temple. But suppose we are sitting at a table with someone who has just left idol worship. He says, "That meat was offered to an idol." His conscience is not free, so for his sake I do not eat it. To me it is all common meat.
After that announcement, eating says something it did not say a moment before. The question is not the food but who gets the credit for it.
But suppose his host, or anyone at the table, tells him this food was sacrificed to an idol. At once a question arises: will he recognise the idol? The man who spoke certainly has this in view, so the believer is not to eat. This is proper care for that man's conscience. Scripture says again, "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." If my eating would make another think I believed the food belonged to a demon and not to the Lord, then I should not eat.
Commentators differ on who this speaker is. One writer reads him as the idolater, and the refusal as a witness aimed at his soul.
If anyone points out to him that the food is an idol offering, he is to refuse it, as a testimony to the truth. For the idol is a lie. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. In such a case the conscience that matters is not the believer's but the idolater's. The Christian is to disown that false worship openly. The hope is to convince the man of his true state before the God who made both him and the worthless things he worships.
Another writer keeps both readings side by side, since the same refusal serves each.
If, however, someone points out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, the Christian should not eat. He holds back for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it. He also holds back so that no unbeliever can charge Christians with eating meat offered to the very idols they condemn.
Refusing the food is not giving up freedom. It is a deliberate choice to go without.
In such a case it is good to deny yourself. Do not let another conscience judge your liberty, or leave people speaking evil of the very thing you give thanks for. In love we must respect the scruples of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the understanding and liberty of Christ.
Some older versions add "for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" here. Most modern versions, including the ESV, do not.
Q. In verse 23 both the "for me's" are left out; and "The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof," in verse 28? — A. Yes; it is of little consequence. Perhaps the connection runs clearer; you get it in verse 26.
- Free first. The believer need not trace the history of his food. God does not want His people hunting for trouble.
- A word alters everything. The meat does not change. What eating it would say changes.
- His conscience, not mine. The reason to abstain sits in the other person — the one who has a conscience about the idol.
- Refusal as witness. Commentators differ over who speaks — a weak believer or an idolater. Either way, refusing disowns the idol and clears Christians of eating what they condemn.
- Liberty kept, right waived. The Christian who abstains still holds the liberty of Christ. He will not let it be judged, and he respects the weakest conscience at the table.
but conscience, I mean, not thine own, but that of the other for why is my liberty judged by another conscience?
Paul has just told the Corinthians to eat what their host serves and ask no questions — unless someone says the food was offered to an idol. Verse 29 gives the reason: the conscience in view is not the believer's own, so why should his freedom be judged by another person's scruple?
Paul tells them to refuse the food. His own liberty is untouched; the reason to hold back lies elsewhere.
It is different when someone says, "This is offered to holy purposes" — and not only in an idol temple, but even in a private house. He plainly has a conscience about it, though otherwise one might have perfect liberty. In such a case it is good to deny oneself. Better that than to expose one's liberty to another's judgment, or to bring on evil speaking about the very thing for which I give thanks. In love one must respect the scruple of the weakest believer, while holding fast to the understanding and liberty of Christ.
Whose conscience is it? Commentators differ. Some point to a believer with a tender conscience, others to the unbelieving host who spoke up. One writer holds both together, and gives two reasons to put the fork down.
If, however, someone points out that the meat has been sacrificed to idols, the Christian should not eat it. He holds back for the sake of a believer who has a conscience about it. He also holds back so that no unbeliever can charge that believers eat meat offered to the very idols they condemn.
Nothing here makes the food itself a problem. The freedom Paul defends is a gift, and it spares believers a life of endless checking.
We may well thank God for the liberty He ordains in this passage. Think what a crushing burden it would have been for the early Christians to trace the history of every bit of meat they bought at the market, or ate in someone's house. Our own conditions are far more complicated and artificial, so for us it would be ten times worse. God's will for His people is plain. They are to accept the conditions their lot is cast in, and take a simple path through them, without prying about for sources of trouble — whether the question is meat or anything else.
Paul's question is not a complaint that others have no right to an opinion. It is an argument for handling freedom so that the question never arises.
If I have liberty, let me express it in such a way that the other man's conscience will not judge it. For if my eating would stumble him, then let me use my liberty not to eat, and his conscience will not judge my liberty. Suppose I eat with thanksgiving to God. Why should I do it in a way that gives another person cause to speak evil of me — and about the very thing for which I give thanks?
These words carry a second edge. A believer who sits down at such a table has already put himself where every choice costs something.
A believer should not put himself so easily in a place of danger. There he may dull his own conscience by taking part in evil — sharing with sinners on their own terms. Or he may cause offence, by acting in a way that cuts across the habits and prejudices of the people he has chosen to join. His unbelieving host will judge him either way: for inconsistency if he goes along with it, for stubborn bigotry if he refuses.
Verse 29 is a step toward a rule that reaches far past food. Read with the verses that follow, it gives the believer a practical test for any doubtful choice.
In all things we are to seek the glory of God, just as the next verse adds that we are to avoid giving offence to man. Taking this passage as a whole, we may note five valuable points. They guide us on whether any course is according to the will of God or not. What is according to His will (1) is lawful, (2) is useful or profitable, (3) builds up oneself or others, (4) is to the glory of God, (5) trips no one up. People often ask, "How may I get guidance?" Well, here is guidance of a very sure and definite sort. Are we always so willing to be guided when we get the guidance?
- Liberty is real. The believer may eat without digging into the history of his food.
- Liberty is not the issue. When someone says the food was offered to an idol, you hold back for his conscience, not for a scruple of your own.
- Liberty is love's servant. Respect the scruple of the weakest believer while still holding firmly to the freedom Christ gives.
- Liberty unjudged. Use your freedom so that no one else's conscience has cause to judge it.
- Liberty tested. Five questions settle a doubtful course: is it lawful, is it profitable, does it build up, is it to God's glory, does it trip anyone up?
If *I* partake with thanksgiving, why am I spoken evil of for what *I* give thanks for?
Paul is finishing a long answer about meat offered to idols, and he ends it with a question rather than a rule. If he thanks God for his food, why should anyone criticise him for it — and when should he give up that freedom for someone else's sake?
Before the restraint comes the liberty. Paul had told them to buy in the market and eat at an unbeliever's table without cross-examining the food.
We may well thank God for the liberty that is set out in this passage. It would have been an unbearable burden to the early Christians if they had to trace the history of every piece of meat. That means every piece they bought in the markets, or ate in the house of someone they knew. For us today, life is far more complicated and artificial, so it would be ten times worse. God's will for His people is plain. They are to accept the conditions they are in, and take a simple path through them. They are not to go hunting for sources of trouble, whether the question is meat or anything else.
The verse does not say "if I eat" but "if I partake with thankfulness." Thanks, not a prayer for permission, is what sets ordinary food apart for a believer's use.
Scripture says that everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. The common idea is that we must pray over each meal before we can properly eat it. But the opposite is true: the Christian's new position makes it holy. "All things are yours… the world or life or death or the present or the future — all are yours." The action Scripture asks from us is not prayer but thanksgiving… So the Christian's meal-table becomes an altar of praise.
Paul's question is not a defence of his right to press on regardless. He has just said that he will not eat if someone points out that the food came from an idol sacrifice. The reason is the other person's conscience, not his own.
In such a case it is good to deny oneself. Better not to let another judge one's liberty, or to bring evil speaking on oneself for the thing for which I give thanks. In love, one must respect the conscience of the weakest believer, while holding on to the understanding and liberty of Christ.
Refusing the meat is not the collapse of freedom. It is freedom put to a different use. It aims to remove the very thing the verse calls being denounced — someone speaking evil of you.
If I have liberty, let me express it in such a way that the other man's conscience will not judge it. For if my eating would make him stumble, then let me use my liberty not to eat, and his conscience will not judge my liberty. If I partake with thanksgiving to God, why act in a way that gives another cause to speak evil of me? And that over the very thing for which I give thanks!
A believer who walks into such a setting has almost no safe move left.
A believer should not put himself carelessly in a place of danger. He may dull his own conscience by going along with evil — sharing with sinners on their own terms. Or he may cause offence, by acting against the habits and prejudices of the people he has chosen to join. His unbelieving host will judge him either way: for inconsistency if he goes along with it, for stubborn bigotry if he refuses.
Read as a whole, the passage supplies a set of tests far wider than food.
Taking this passage as a whole, we may notice five valuable points. They guide us as to whether any course is according to the will of God, or not. What is according to His will (1) is lawful, (2) is useful or profitable, (3) builds up oneself or others, (4) is to the glory of God, (5) gives no occasion of stumbling to anyone. People often ask, How may I get guidance? Well, here is guidance of a very sure and definite kind. Are we always so willing to be guided when we get the guidance?
- Free. God does not ask you to trace the history of every meal. That freedom is itself a reason to thank Him.
- Thankful. Scripture asks for thanks at the table. That turns an ordinary meal into an altar of praise.
- Limited. When another believer's conscience is troubled, it is good to go without, rather than let someone judge your freedom.
- Redirected. Refusing to eat does not lose your freedom. It uses it — so nobody can speak evil of what you thanked God for.
- Directed. Test any course by five marks: lawful, useful, building up, God's glory, and no stumbling for others.
Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatever ye do, do all things to God's glory.
Paul closes a long argument about food. He ends it with no list of allowed foods. Instead he gives one standard wide enough to cover eating, drinking, and everything else a person does.
Paul settles the food dispute by changing the question. He moves it off what a person is allowed to do.
The apostle then lays down the still larger and golden rule of Christian conduct: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." … If someone does everything for God's glory, he is not chasing his own pleasure. He gives it up. So he puts no stumbling block in front of anyone — Jews, Gentiles, or God's assembly. Love alone walks that way, seeking God's glory and man's good.
Eating and drinking are the plainest things a body does. That is why Paul names them.
Let us connect the most ordinary things with Christ's will and glory. Nothing is closer to mere animal life than eating and drinking. Yet the word of God would have us take up even these things for the highest purpose. And no way is so simple and sure as the faith that looks upward and receives them in His name.
Under the law, categories of clean and unclean decided what was holy to eat. The New Testament works differently, and this verse shows how.
In the letters, "You shall" and "You shall not" are strikingly absent. Instead of a list of clean and unclean foods, we find a general principle. The believer applies it to each case as it comes up. "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Cor 10:31). Because the Christian has the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16) and has received "not the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (2 Tim. 1:7), he can judge by the word whether a thing is for God's glory, and act on what he sees.
One writer sets the rule against two opposite mistakes about food.
"Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" checks two things at once. It checks heavy indulgence in luxuries. It also checks a monk-like refusal of "foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth."
The standard applies case by case. So it becomes a working test for anything a believer is unsure about.
The question the true believer has to ask about everything that comes before him is simply, "Can I do this to the glory of God? Can I connect the Name of Christ with it?" If not, he must not touch it.
The same writer tells a reader with a divided mind to wait instead of pushing ahead.
So do not do anything with a doubtful mind. "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." Look to the Lord for guidance in this. See whether you can do it to His glory, and if not, lay it aside.
Two people can do the identical thing. The verse reaches past the action to what drives it.
You may get two men doing exactly the same thing, only with different motives. With the Christian, Christ is his only motive, or ought to be. He may have a thousand things to do, the common duties of life. But he can serve Christ in them. There I get a motive strong enough. … The common things of life do not make a person unspiritual. I must attend to them, and do them well. But if my motive in doing them is Christ, it is a mistake to think they harm my spiritual life.
Darby links the power to obey this verse to staying close to Christ.
You will not have spiritual discernment or power of motive unless the heart is kept near to Christ.
- One rule. This is the golden rule of Christian conduct. A food dispute ends with a standard that covers every action.
- Wide reach. God's glory reaches eating and drinking, the things closest to mere animal life, and lifts them to the highest purpose.
- Real freedom. Instead of lists of clean and unclean, the believer gets one principle to apply case by case. It checks both self-indulgence and needless self-denial.
- A usable test. Ask of anything: can I do this to God's glory, can I connect Christ's name with it? If not, leave it; and never act with a divided mind.
- The motive decides. Two people may do the same act; what makes it glory to God is Christ as the motive — and that comes from a heart kept near to Him.
Give no occasion to stumbling, whether to Jews, or Greeks, or the assembly of God.
Paul ends a long argument about food offered to idols with a rule that reaches far past the dinner table. He weighs a believer's freedom by its effect on others, and one of the three groups he names — the church of God — is new on the earth.
One writer traces Paul's word back to its root, and to the people it covers.
The Greek word first meant "to strike against." The picture is of walking: our foot might strike a stone or some other obstacle, and we stumble. The command here may mean either that we do not stumble ourselves, or that we do not make others stumble. I like to think it has both meanings... Here we are to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of any of these people, and they take in the whole world.
The command follows the call to do everything to God's glory. One commentator shows how the second grows out of the first.
If you do everything for God's glory, you are not trying to please self; you give self up. Then you put no stumbling block in front of people, whether Jews or Gentiles, and none in front of God's assembly. Love alone walks like this, seeking God's glory and man's good... This was the apostle's constant way. He was the most uncompromising of the apostles, yet no one matched him in giving way graciously, where he could do so consistently with Christ.
The verse sorts everyone alive into three groups, and the third is new. Where the ESV has "Greeks," older translations read "Gentiles" — the word the writers below use.
The Church of God is a completely new thing. When I say "new," I mean new compared with everything that came before it. Before Christ died and rose, and before the Holy Spirit came down, there were only two classes of people in the world — Jews and Gentiles. But since the Holy Spirit came down... we have three things existing together in the world.
The gap between the three is not equal. The sharpest line, one writer argues, is not the ancient one between Jew and Gentile.
Remember this threefold distinction, and act on it. By nature, the Jew is not as far from the Gentile as the Church of God is from both. The first two make up the sum total of mankind, considered as dwellers on earth. The last group holds only those who have passed through death into life, by faith in the crucified and risen Son of God.
Two of the three groups stand outside. The third is home, and a life out of step with it does its damage there.
If we behave in an unfitting way, we are giving offence to the assembly of God... If the Corinthians simply went on living as they always had, they would offend the assembly of God. Their lives would not match the position God had given them. So do not think we are to be on our best behaviour only when the assembly meets. We are always in the house of God, and right behaviour is always asked of us... Paul bases everything he says on this truth: they were the assembly, the called-out ones, of God, and he wants behaviour that matches the blessing.
Paul warns elsewhere against changing the message to please people. One writer shows how that fits with this verse: what may be given up, and what may not.
At first sight, what Paul says in the last verse of 1 Corinthians 10 might look like a contradiction of this. But read the whole chapter, and the chapter before it, and his point becomes clear. Christians should show the greatest possible care and consideration for their weaker brothers, and indeed for all people... Here, on the other hand, it is a question of the truth of the gospel. We must resist at all costs any tendency to change it, or water it down to please people. There cannot be a moment's compromise here.
Removing obstacles is not politeness for its own sake. It aims at the real good of the people around us.
All three groups are God's creatures, and my own comfort and pleasure matter less than the real good of their souls... He would not compromise the truth of God for anyone, but he would give up his own personal advantage for the sake of any, if it might bring them to God.
- Stone. "Offense" pictures a foot striking something in the path. The question is simple: am I leaving a stone where someone else has to walk?
- Glory. The rule grows out of the verse before it. Aim everything at God's glory, and self gets given up — so no stone is laid down at all.
- Three. Jews, Greeks, and the church of God cover everyone alive today. The third company did not exist before the Spirit came, and it stands further from the other two than they stand from each other.
- Home. A life out of step with what God has made us offends the assembly. Conduct outside the meeting counts as much as conduct inside it.
- Limit. Go any length in giving up personal advantage. Give not one inch in altering the gospel. The aim all along is to bring people to God.
Even as *I* also please all in all things; not seeking my own profit, but that of the many, that they may be saved.
Paul ends his long answer about meat offered to idols by pointing to himself: he gave up his own gain so that others might be saved. So how can he please everyone, and still refuse to seek human approval?
The word "please" here does not mean bending to what people want. One writer points to Galatians 1:10 and finds no contradiction:
Paul was the example in this self-sacrificing attitude of pleasing all men in all things. This does not mean pleasing men by submitting to their control, or by simply seeking human approval — Galatians 1:10 fully refutes that. It means seeking the purest good of their souls, so that they may be saved. He would not compromise the truth of God for anyone. But he would give up his own personal advantage for anyone, if it might bring them to God.
So how did he please them?
And how did he seek to "please all"? Not, we may be sure, by associating with their evils, but by following Christ in all His lowly grace.
The verse names what Paul refused to chase: his own profit. Giving up self is what links God's glory to the good of others.
So, if a person does everything for God's glory, he does not seek to gratify self but gives it up. In this way he puts no stumbling-block before people, whether Jews or Gentiles, and none before God's assembly. Love alone walks like this, seeking God's glory and man's good... This was the apostle's habit. He was the most uncompromising of all the apostles, yet no one matched him in gracious concession, wherever he could make it in a way consistent with Christ.
"Many" in this verse is not vague. The previous verse sorts the whole human race into three groups, and Paul keeps all three in mind at once:
Verse 32 classifies mankind under three heads. Notice how distinctly "the church of God" stands out from both Jew and Gentile. The Old Testament classified men under two heads, Israel and the Gentiles. The Church, a body called out from both Jews and Gentiles, only appears in the New Testament. We have been called out from the mass of mankind in this way. Even so, we are to consider people, seeking their highest good — even their salvation. This was Paul's way, just as it was the way of Christ. And we are to be imitators of Paul. Treat verse 1 of chapter 11 as the last verse of chapter 10.
Everything in the verse runs toward a single goal, and that goal decides what "profit" means:
The apostle used his freedom to seek not his own profit, but that of others, that "they may be saved" (v. 33). He pleased all in all things to that end. Salvation and not stumbling was his object.
How do you know if a course of action is God's will? One writer draws five tests out of this passage:
Taking this passage as a whole, we may notice five valuable points. They guide us as to whether a course of action is according to the will of God or not. What is according to His will (1) is lawful, (2) is expedient or profitable, (3) builds up oneself or others, (4) is to the glory of God, (5) gives no occasion of stumbling to any. People often ask, How can I get guidance? Well, here is guidance of a very sure and definite sort. Are we always so willing to be guided when we get the guidance?
- Motive — Paul seeks the purest good of people's souls. He never seeks their approval or bows to their control.
- Method — he pleases them not by joining their evils but by following Christ in His lowly grace.
- Cost — he gives up self instead of gratifying it. Personal advantage goes; the truth of God does not.
- Reach — Jew, Gentile and the church of God are all in view; no group falls outside this care.
- Result — the goal is salvation, not just avoiding friction. And the pattern passes to us: imitate Paul, whose way was the way of Christ.