1 Corinthians chapter 10
Chapter 10: Our Freedoms are Limited by God's Word
Paul has made clear that the believer has many freedoms and rights, and that we can choose to relinquish them for the sake of others. However, at the start of chapter ten, Paul makes equally clear that our freedoms and rights are limited by God's Word. Most assuredly, we do not have the right or freedom to participate in sin. Using Israel as an example, Paul reminds the Corinthians not to “desire evil as [the Israelites] did” (10:6). For example, we should not practice idolatry, engage in sexual immorality, test God, or grumble (10:7-10). Unlike Paul's personal examples in chapter nine where a believer can choose to participate or not participate in a certain activity (i.e. eating meat, taking a wife, receiving payment for preaching the gospel), we do not have the freedom to disobey God. We do not obey God simply for the sake of the weaker brother. We obey God because God asks us to and he is our king.
At this point in chapter ten, Paul returns to the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. Recall, in chapter eight Paul hypothetically, for the sake of argument, grants the Corinthians freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but tells them that even so, they should abstain for the sake of the weaker brother. Now, in chapter ten, Paul strongly states that the Corinthians are to have nothing to do with idol sacrifices.
In chapter 10:14-22, Paul's focus is not on the weaker brother, but rather on idolatry and obeying God's commandment that we worship him alone (Exodus 20:3-4). If we participate in idol feasts and sacrifices, we are then participants with demons (20). As Paul says,
Paul has made clear that the believer has many freedoms and rights, and that we can choose to relinquish them for the sake of others. However, at the start of chapter ten, Paul makes equally clear that our freedoms and rights are limited by God's Word. Most assuredly, we do not have the right or freedom to participate in sin. Using Israel as an example, Paul reminds the Corinthians not to “desire evil as [the Israelites] did” (10:6). For example, we should not practice idolatry, engage in sexual immorality, test God, or grumble (10:7-10). Unlike Paul's personal examples in chapter nine where a believer can choose to participate or not participate in a certain activity (i.e. eating meat, taking a wife, receiving payment for preaching the gospel), we do not have the freedom to disobey God. We do not obey God simply for the sake of the weaker brother. We obey God because God asks us to and he is our king.
At this point in chapter ten, Paul returns to the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. Recall, in chapter eight Paul hypothetically, for the sake of argument, grants the Corinthians freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but tells them that even so, they should abstain for the sake of the weaker brother. Now, in chapter ten, Paul strongly states that the Corinthians are to have nothing to do with idol sacrifices.
In chapter 10:14-22, Paul's focus is not on the weaker brother, but rather on idolatry and obeying God's commandment that we worship him alone (Exodus 20:3-4). If we participate in idol feasts and sacrifices, we are then participants with demons (20). As Paul says,
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he? (10:21-22)
Now we see that the “strong” Corinthians' knowledge was lacking, or as Fee said, partial. Yes, idols are really just stone and wood and are nothing, and yes, there is only one God. However, lurking behind idolatry is the strong influence of demons. This teaching is not original to Paul. We find the same teaching in Moses' song:
They stirred him to jealousy with strange gods; with abominations they provoked him to anger. They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded (Deuteronomy 32:16-17, emphasis ours).
Paul understands, just as Moses, that idolatry is the worship of and submission to demons, and we must have nothing to do with it.
In 10:23-30, Paul shifts to meat of questionable origin such as that sold in the marketplace or served at the home of an unbeliever. In such cases, the meat is not a part of an idolatrous practice, and Paul informs his readers that they do not need to investigate its origin. He states that believers can eat whatever meat is sold in the marketplace and eat meat served in the home of an unbeliever without questioning its origin. In such a case, the meat is simply meat, unassociated with idolatry, unattached to demonic strongholds. However, if someone informs them that it was part of an idol sacrifice, they are to refrain from eating it. Garland offers insight into this, saying,
In 10:23-30, Paul shifts to meat of questionable origin such as that sold in the marketplace or served at the home of an unbeliever. In such cases, the meat is not a part of an idolatrous practice, and Paul informs his readers that they do not need to investigate its origin. He states that believers can eat whatever meat is sold in the marketplace and eat meat served in the home of an unbeliever without questioning its origin. In such a case, the meat is simply meat, unassociated with idolatry, unattached to demonic strongholds. However, if someone informs them that it was part of an idol sacrifice, they are to refrain from eating it. Garland offers insight into this, saying,
Paul allows Christians to circulate in pagan society, but there are limits to what is permissible. They may not eat anything that is openly announced as having been “offered in sacrifice to the gods” … If anyone declares that the meal has the slightest religious significance, Christians must not partake. From Paul's perspective, it becomes idol food and forbidden when someone openly proclaims it to be so (493-494).
If believers knowingly eat food offered to idols, then they proclaim that idolatry is acceptable. Therefore, Paul gives firm direction not to eat meat if we find out that it was sacrificed to an idol, even if it is not directly a part of a temple feast. This directly applies to us today. We may find meat in our local grocery store that is labeled "halal," meaning it has been slaughtered unto Allah, the god of Islam. We should therefore refrain from eating it since it is meat that has been sacrificed to a false god.
Verses 29b-30 cause some confusion, especially following verse 28. Together they read as follows:
Verses 29b-30 cause some confusion, especially following verse 28. Together they read as follows:
But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience— I do not mean your conscience, but his. For why should my liberty be determined by someone else’s conscience? If I partake with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of that for which I give thanks? (10:28-30)
It seems as though Paul is now shifting his position, claiming that if we find out the meat was sacrificed to an idol, we should avoid it only for the sake of another's conscience, and not because of its significance as idol food. Then he seems even to negate the importance of the other's conscience, saying, “Why should my liberty be determined by someone else's conscience?” In other words, why should what someone else thinks determine what I can and cannot do? This is completely inconsistent with everything he has just said. In the first place, whether or not it is associated with an idol does matter, for we do not want to promote and therefore condone anything related to idolatry. Second, even if it was okay (such as the argument in chapter eight), we still must not partake for the sake of the one who may be harmed by such an act. So can Paul now be saying, “My freedom is not determined by another's conscience?” That is exactly what he has argued against, starting in chapter eight.
Garland offers a helpful explanation (499), in which verse 28-29a is a parenthetical comment, sandwiched between verses 27 and 29b-30. Verse 27 reads, “If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” Here Paul says we can go to an unbeliever's house and eat what they serve without worrying about its origin.
In verse 28, Paul inserts a parenthetical reminder: if you find out it was sacrificed to an idol, do not eat it, for the sake of the conscience of the informant. The word for conscience is a “slippery word” (Garland, 496) that does not have to mean a sense of ethical right and wrong; it can also refer to an “awareness” or “consciousness,” which would simply mean the informant knows the food is religiously significant (i.e. sacrificed to an idol) (ibid).
Then in verse 29, he returns to the thought left off in 27: we can eat whatever is served to us at the house of an unbeliever without raising questions on the basis of conscience (27), for we have liberty to partake with thankfulness (29b-30). Garland explains,
Garland offers a helpful explanation (499), in which verse 28-29a is a parenthetical comment, sandwiched between verses 27 and 29b-30. Verse 27 reads, “If one of the unbelievers invites you to dinner and you are disposed to go, eat whatever is set before you without raising any question on the ground of conscience.” Here Paul says we can go to an unbeliever's house and eat what they serve without worrying about its origin.
In verse 28, Paul inserts a parenthetical reminder: if you find out it was sacrificed to an idol, do not eat it, for the sake of the conscience of the informant. The word for conscience is a “slippery word” (Garland, 496) that does not have to mean a sense of ethical right and wrong; it can also refer to an “awareness” or “consciousness,” which would simply mean the informant knows the food is religiously significant (i.e. sacrificed to an idol) (ibid).
Then in verse 29, he returns to the thought left off in 27: we can eat whatever is served to us at the house of an unbeliever without raising questions on the basis of conscience (27), for we have liberty to partake with thankfulness (29b-30). Garland explains,
If one can partake with thankfulness to the one true God, how can one be denounced for eating that over which one has said a prayer of thanksgiving? When someone specifies that the food is sacrificial food, the situation is different: the Christian must not eat. In all other cases, the Christian may eat even if the food may have been sacrificed to an idol without the Christian knowing it (499).
This parenthetical understanding makes the most sense of the context of chapters eight through ten, as well as the wider New Testament (cf. Acts 15; Revelation 2).
Paul closes chapter ten with a summary statement of the last few chapters:
Paul closes chapter ten with a summary statement of the last few chapters:
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved (31-33).
This has been Paul's point through most of chapters eight, nine, and ten. He has become “all things to all people” (9:22), meaning that he willingly foregoes his rights and freedoms to bless others, allowing them to hear the gospel and grow in the Messiah.
Again, we must stress that Paul can only adapt himself in areas of freedom. He cannot adapt himself in areas of God's instruction. If God says, “Do not commit adultery,” Paul will uphold and obey this commandment instead of becoming an adulterer to win adulterers. He makes it his goal to give no offense to anyone (10:32), yet he will uphold a commandment, even if it offends his audience, because it is not within an area of freedom. God's commandments are not optional for the sake of preaching the gospel to a certain group. Garland agrees:
Again, we must stress that Paul can only adapt himself in areas of freedom. He cannot adapt himself in areas of God's instruction. If God says, “Do not commit adultery,” Paul will uphold and obey this commandment instead of becoming an adulterer to win adulterers. He makes it his goal to give no offense to anyone (10:32), yet he will uphold a commandment, even if it offends his audience, because it is not within an area of freedom. God's commandments are not optional for the sake of preaching the gospel to a certain group. Garland agrees:
Paul is flexible, but he is “not infinitely elastic.” He does not think that fundamental and distinctive Christian demands are negotiable, depending on the circumstances. He did not eat idol food in order to become “as one without the law to those without the law.” He did not tone down his assault on idolatry to avoid offending idolaters or to curry favor with them. His accommodation has nothing to do with watering down the gospel message, soft-pedaling its ethical demands, or compromising its absolute monotheism. Paul never modified the message of Christ crucified to make it less of a scandal to Jews or less foolish to Greeks. The preacher of the changeless gospel could adapt himself, however, to changing audiences in seeking their ultimate welfare, their salvation. Through his mediation of the gospel he seeks their transformation (435).
Returning in brief to the Acts passages mentioned at the beginning of this study, we recall that some have said Paul only obeyed the Torah to become “as a Jew.” In order to make this case, one must be able to show that obeying or disobeying the very commands of God is a freedom that Paul had. Was obeying the commandments optional for Paul? If in Acts Paul proves that he lives in complete observance of the law (Acts 21:20-24), how can he at times choose to put aside the law for the sake of the Gentiles? That would be inconsistency at best, and hypocrisy and deceit at worst. Paul himself said in Romans that he upholds the law (Romans 3:31). He says that God's law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). How can Paul uphold the law while at the same time be free from obeying its precepts? How can he claim freedom from that which is holy, righteous, and good?
The answer is that Paul does not have the freedom to disobey God's law. The context of First Corinthians 9:19-23 is not about obeying God's commandments to win the Jews and then discarding them to win the Gentiles. Neither the Sabbath, nor the biblical holy days, nor the food laws, nor any other aspect of God's commands for his people are cited as examples of freedom in First Corinthians nine. Rather, Paul gives examples such as taking a wife, eating meat, and accepting pay for ministry. A person will be hard pressed to make the case that Paul is referring to the Torah since Paul does not cite any part of it as an example of freedom.
In fact, Paul does discuss the law in First Corinthians nine, not as an area of freedom in which he can choose to participate, nor as an evangelism strategy, but rather, as a source of authority (9:8-14). The implication of this is severe. Paul believed in the authority of the entire Word of God. We cannot explain away Paul's obedience to the law as “becoming like a Jew” when he does not explain it as such. Rather, he obeys the Torah because he knows that God's law is authoritative. We simply cannot claim the freedom to set aside God's commands as we choose.
Disobeying God's law is not an option or freedom for Paul or any believer. Support for such an idea is usually based on misinterpretation of (mostly) Pauline passages about the law, taken out of context, as well as ignorance, whether accidental or deliberate, of what God says about the nature of his law. That is why we strive to examine Paul's passages here and elsewhere, to show their consistency with the entire Word of God.
The answer is that Paul does not have the freedom to disobey God's law. The context of First Corinthians 9:19-23 is not about obeying God's commandments to win the Jews and then discarding them to win the Gentiles. Neither the Sabbath, nor the biblical holy days, nor the food laws, nor any other aspect of God's commands for his people are cited as examples of freedom in First Corinthians nine. Rather, Paul gives examples such as taking a wife, eating meat, and accepting pay for ministry. A person will be hard pressed to make the case that Paul is referring to the Torah since Paul does not cite any part of it as an example of freedom.
In fact, Paul does discuss the law in First Corinthians nine, not as an area of freedom in which he can choose to participate, nor as an evangelism strategy, but rather, as a source of authority (9:8-14). The implication of this is severe. Paul believed in the authority of the entire Word of God. We cannot explain away Paul's obedience to the law as “becoming like a Jew” when he does not explain it as such. Rather, he obeys the Torah because he knows that God's law is authoritative. We simply cannot claim the freedom to set aside God's commands as we choose.
Disobeying God's law is not an option or freedom for Paul or any believer. Support for such an idea is usually based on misinterpretation of (mostly) Pauline passages about the law, taken out of context, as well as ignorance, whether accidental or deliberate, of what God says about the nature of his law. That is why we strive to examine Paul's passages here and elsewhere, to show their consistency with the entire Word of God.