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?