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.