Lessons #349 and 350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual delivery not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GW = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believer’s freedom in Christ (1 Cor 10:23-11.1)
... 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience’ sake— 29 the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? 31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32 Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33 even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. 11 1 Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Let me refresh your mind regarding the message of 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 that we have been considering. It is this: Use your freedom in Christ in such a way to advance the spiritual need of others. This message we asserted will be expounded by centering on three responsibilities you have as a believer pertaining to the concept of freedom you have in Christ, given in the passage we are studying. We have considered the first which is that You should understand that not everything you have right to do, helps others spiritually but you are required to seek the good of others. We also indicated that this responsibility involves two parts or elements. The first part is understanding that not everything you have the right to do, helps others spiritually. The second part or element is that you are required to seek the good of others. So, we continue with the second responsibility you have as a believer in Christ about your freedom in Him.
A second responsibility you have as a believer pertaining the concept of freedom you have in Christ is that You should understand that your use of your freedom is not absolute, so you need to adjust its application. This responsibility demands that you should know when to use your freedom in Christ and when not to use it. So, we consider first when to use your freedom in Christ in keeping with what the Holy Spirit gave through Apostle Paul in the passage of our study.
A first element of when to use a believer’s freedom in Christ involves a situation when what a person enjoys is not sinful in ordinary usage. This element is derived from the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything sold in the meat market. The command eat is given in the Greek in what is known as present tense. The implication here is probably that the apostle instructs the Corinthian believers to continue to eat meat from the meat market as they have been doing prior to their conversion. In other words, the Corinthians ate meat from the meat market and so the apostle implies there is no need to discontinue that practice in the command Eat anything sold in the meat market. We maintain that the instruction here is a generalized one to all Corinthian believers regardless of whether they are “the strong” or “the weak” spiritually. The basis of this generalization is that the Greek command translated Eat in the NIV is in the plural, something that we cannot easily determine from the English translation. The implication of the plural is that the apostle is addressing his command not to a few but to all believers who have freedom in Christ.
Meat market in Corinth at the time of writing of this epistle was a shop where meat and poultry including perhaps fish and other food items were sold. Apparently, the meat supplied to such shop would include those slaughtered in the shop or elsewhere and those slaughtered in idol temples by pagan priests. Ordinarily, there is nothing wrong with eating meat in its ordinary use. It is true that under the Levitical priesthood, the Israelites were restricted to the kind of meat they should eat but with the coming of Christ, such restriction was lifted as implied in the commentary recorded in Mark 7:19:
For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
The commentary of the Holy Spirit in this passage in Mark is given differently by the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul in Romans 14:14:
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
Thus, in ordinary use, if a believer walked into a meat shop and bought meat there would be nothing wrong with that. However, things are not always simple so there is a qualification to the meat that one purchased in the meat market in Corinth that we will get to shortly. Meanwhile, we insist that there is nothing wrong in ordinary usage of one buying meat in meat shop or a butcher’s shop and going home to cook and eat it since there is nothing sinful about eating meat sold in such a place. The example the apostle used to demonstrate the principle we are considering is meat sold in the market in Corinth and so we may wonder how this may apply to us. There are believers who live in other parts of the world that their situation would parallel what obtained in Corinth but for most believers there is nothing to be concerned about meat that is offered to the butcher’s shop or in the grocery stores. This being the case, one may wonder how this principle of the use of freedom applies to the person. So, let me use something that causes problem for some believers in this country. The example is that of wine that some believers enjoy without being drunk. A believer could use his/her freedom in Christ to purchase wine in liquor stores, for example, and nothing would be wrong with that since wine in its ordinary usage is not a sin. However, as we will note later, using the same example of purchasing wine to show that it could be wrong to do so under certain conditions. The point is really that a believer has the freedom in Christ to enjoy any of God’s provision for our living on this planet that in its normal use is not sinful. Hence, the first element of the principle of when a believer should use his/her freedom in Christ is when what a person enjoys is not sinful in ordinary usage. This brings us to the second element.
A second element of when to use believer’s freedom in Christ involves a situation when the believer’s testimony is not impacted by the exercise of such freedom. We mean when your action does not cause an unbeliever or even a fellow believer to question your claim of faith in Christ then it is appropriate to use your freedom in Christ. This element is derived from the verbal phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:25 without raising questions of conscience.
The expression “raising questions” is translated from a Greek word (anakrinō) that may mean “to examine” in the sense of conducting a judicial hearing so means “to hear a case” as Pilate used it to describe his judicial investigation regarding accusations of the Jews against Jesus Christ as narrated in Luke 23:14:
and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him.
The word may mean to engage in careful study of a question hence “to examine, question” as it is used to describe the activities of the Bereans who examined the Scripture after Apostle Paul preached in their city, as recorded in Acts 17:11:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
The word may mean to examine with the view of finding fault and so means “to judge, call to account, discern” as it is used in 1 Corinthians 14:24:
But if an unbeliever or someone who does not understand comes in while everybody is prophesying, he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all,
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 10:25, the word means “to question or examine thoroughly and closely.” This being the case, the concern is that a believer who gets to a meat market would question closely the meat that is sold. In effect, the person who does such a thing would want to know the history behind the meat the individual wants to purchase. The person may want to know if the meat came from pagan temple so that it is meat used in sacrifice to the pagan idol. Such question would be similar to a question a Jew at that time would be engaged in, in that such a person may want to know if meat has been associated with a pagan worship or if the meat was ritually clean or butchered by a non-Jew. However, the apostle’s concern is that a Corinthian believer who goes to the market should not bother to examine the history of the meat that is to be purchased as in the phrase without raising questions of conscience. That aside, our concern is with what the apostle means in the verbal phrase without raising questions of conscience. To deal with this phrase, we need to review briefly what we studied in the past regarding the conscience.
Conscience is that inherent mental ability God has given everyone to discern the difference between right and wrong. Its nature is such that it encourages an individual to do that which the person recognizes to be right while restraining the individual from doing that which the person recognizes to be wrong. Thus, it can pass judgment of guilt or give reassurance in case of innocence. Because of the nature of the function of the conscience, it is worthwhile our effort to describe it in a little more detailed.
Understanding of the function of the conscience should be related to the type of action under consideration. The conscience may be sequent to an action (that is, after the action has taken place) or it may be antecedent (that is, before the action takes place). If the conscience acts in a sequent mode, its primary function is judicial which can result in acquittal or in punishment. As soon as an action takes place the conscience goes into action to render a judgment favorable or adverse, a sentence of guilty or not guilty. It is because of this that some have compared the conscience to a court of law, in which there are culprit, judge, witnesses, and jury; but only in this case the individual himself is all these. You are the one charged; you are the trial lawyer, the jury, and the judge. These play out inside of you where no one sees it. If you are innocent your conscience acquits you and you have a sense of satisfaction of approval from your conscience. But if you are guilty then the punishment phase sets in so that pain and suffering follow since the conscience is now an executioner. The terror of conscience is beyond description. The torture can go on for a long time without relief. This is the reason people confess hidden crimes after so long a time to try to free themselves from the pain inflicted on them by their conscience. It is true that some people seem to be able to hide the verdict from the conscience, but in general the satisfaction of a good conscience may stamp itself on the habitual serenity of one’s face, and the accusations of an evil conscience may impart a hunted and sinister expression to another. This means that facial expression can, most time, indicate one’s state on guilt or innocence. Anyway, a good illustration of the conscience at work given in the Scripture is with Joseph’s brothers when they first got to Egypt to purchase grain. They did not recognize Joseph as the one before them, who ordered them to be put in custody for three days. During this period, their conscience began to condemn them so that they associated their plight with their treatment of Joseph about 22 years from the time of their going to Egypt to purchase grain. It is because their consciences condemned them and or inflicted punishment on them that they declared what is recorded in Genesis 42:21:
They said to one another, “Surely we are being punished because of our brother. We saw how distressed he was when he pleaded with us for his life, but we would not listen; that’s why this distress has come upon us.”
It is true that the word “conscience” did not appear in this passage or in any other passage in the Hebrew Scripture, but Joseph’s brothers were punished by their consciences for the wrong they did to Joseph. By the way, we stated the word “conscience” does not appear in the Hebrew Scripture, that is, the OT and you may dispute this assertion because the English versions have the word “conscience” in certain OT passages but that is not really the case in the Hebrew text. A good example of this, is the use of the word “conscience” after David’s action regarding the cutting off a portion of Saul’s robe as described in 1 Samuel 24:5:
Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe.
We see that the word “conscience” is used in this passage, but the truth is there is no Hebrew word for conscience, but its function is assigned to the heart, so the sentence David was conscience-stricken is more literally the heart of David struck him. In the cases of Joseph’s brothers and that of David, the conscience pronounced a negative verdict of being guilty. But the conscience can also render a verdict that commends someone, as Apostle Paul indicated with respect to his conscience and that of his team about their conduct as they related to the Corinthian believers in 2 Corinthians 1:12:
Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace.
The apostle boasts that his conscience assures him that his life has been ruled by God’s grace, which is a good verdict of the conscience with respect to the past activities of the apostle. Anyway, on the one hand, if the conscience functions after an action then its function is that of rendering judgment either favorably or adversely, that is, it renders the subject as either guilty or not guilty.
On the other hand, if the action is still contemplated, the conscience functions in a different manner. It would still function in a judicial manner rendering decision on the right action or decision. But once it does that, another function kicks in. It becomes obligatory. In other words, when the will stands at the cross road of decisions or actions, seeing clearly before it the right course and the wrong, conscience commands to proceed in the one and forbids the other. And as one writer puts it “What conscience commands may be apparently against our interests, and it may be completely contrary to our inclinations; it may be opposed to the advice of friends or to the solicitations of companions; it may contradict the decrees of principalities and powers or the voices of the multitude; yet conscience in no way withdraws or modifies its claim. We may fail to obey, giving way to passion or being overborne by the allurements of temptation; but we know that we ought to obey; it is our duty; and this is a sublime and sacred word. The great crises of life arise when conscience is issuing one command and self-interest or passion or authority another, and the question has to be decided which of the two is to be obeyed.”[1] The implication is that one may have to set aside prejudice, denounce self-interest, or even disobey an authority that is in conflict with the truth from God and, of course, suffer the consequences of such disobedience of a human authority. Many martyrs in the past have done so. They have been given opportunities to live while denying that Jesus Christ is Lord, but their conscience would not permit them to do so; consequently, they suffered death.
Our discussion so far implies that we can use pain inflicted on us by our conscience to check the correctness of our actions, but we must always be cautious of our conscience. This is because conscience is not an infallible guide to the correct action to take since it is a function of the truth in the soul. Another reason that we must be wary of our conscience is because it can produce dead works as the writer of Hebrews informs us in Hebrews 9:14:
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
The clause acts that lead to death is literally from the Greek dead works that refers to works that cannot give eternal life or works that lead to death. The interpretation of the literal phrase dead works depends on whether it is concerned with believers or unbelievers. On the one hand, if unbelievers are in view then the phrase refers to those activities that the individual undertakes with the purpose of pleasing God or being in the right relationship with Him. On the other hand, if believers are in view then the phrase refers to those activities that a believer does when not under the control of the Spirit. Here in Hebrews 9:14 believers are in view because of the use of the personal pronoun “our” in this verse so the focus of the phrase is sin since sin is that which will cause problem for the conscience of a believer that will make it difficult to have fellowship with God. The implication is that conscience may not always be relied to keep a person from doing what is wrong although in the context of Hebrews 9:14, the concern is to state that the death of Christ on the cross has the effect of freeing our consciences from the condemnation we experience due to sin. Nonetheless, the truth is that our conscience may not keep us from doing what is wrong and so we should be careful with what our consciences allow.
With this review of conscience, we return to consider what the apostle meant in as in the verbal phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:25 without raising questions of conscience. The meaning and or function of the “conscience” as the apostle used it in our verbal phrase depends on the phrase of conscience that literally the Greek reads because of the conscience. The question is whose conscience does the apostle mean? There are two possibilities. It is either the conscience of the one who purchases the meat in the meat market or that of another. If the conscience is that of the one who purchases meat from the meat market, then the conscience may urge the person not to buy it if the individual has the knowledge that it is not proper to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. If, however, the person goes ahead to purchase the meat, the person’s conscience would condemn the individual. That notwithstanding, we believe the apostle was concerned not with the conscience of one who purchases meat from meat market but with that of another person either believer or unbeliever. There are three reasons for taking this view. The preceding immediate context requires one to be concerned about doing good to another. Doing good for another person would involve being concerned about the other person’s conscience that would be bothered when the individual sees a believer purchase meat. If the one that sells the meat is an unbeliever who knows that the buyer is a Christian who asked about the nature of the meat but buys it anyway, that may cause the one who sold the meat to question the faith of the Christian and so the unbeliever’s conscience is wounded in that there would be a battle in the person’s conscience whether Christianity is true or whether it is false since a Christian was not bothered by purchasing meat offered to a pagan idol. Another reason for our interpretation is that the subsequent context, especially verse 29 of our passage suggests that the apostle was concerned with the conscience of another. Still another reason is the use of a definite article “the” in the Greek to describe “conscience.” Such use of the definite article is probably to refer to what has been previously stated. The apostle had already written about the conscience of the weak believer that would be hurt by a believer with knowledge or mature believer eating meat offered to idols as we read in 1 Corinthians 8:10–12:
10 For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, won’t he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? 11 So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. 12 When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.
Because of the previous reference to the conscience of another person in the eighth chapter of this epistle of 1 Corinthians, we believe that the apostle had in mind the conscience of another person other than the believer that wants to know the history of the meat in the meat market when he wrote the verbal phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:25 without raising questions of conscience.
In any case, our interpretation that it is the conscience of another person that is involved in the verbal phrase without raising questions of conscience implies that the other person’s conscience would function in a way to condemn wrongly the one who purchased the meat in the meat market. Such a person would conclude that the one who bought the meat is not what the individual professes as Christian, so his conscience would bother him telling him he was wrong in thinking the one who purchase the meat is a Christian when it is true that the person is a Christ, but he would not know that because of the believer’s action. Furthermore, as we have stated previously, the individual may have a struggle in his mind regarding the truth of the Christian faith in comparison to pagan worship. Therefore, when such would be the case, the one who has freedom in Christ that knows that there is nothing to an idol would not use the individual’s freedom in Christ because of the damage to the Christian faith his action would cause. This declaration brings me back to the example of wine that we cited previously. Although there is no sin committed by the believer who buys wine in a liquor store, but if such would cause an unbeliever or even another believer to question the faith claim of the one who purchases it, then it would be wise not to use one’s freedom in Christ to purchase wine. This advice would be in keeping with the second element of when to use believer’s freedom in Christ that involves a situation when the believer’s testimony is not impacted by the exercise of such freedom. Thus, whenever a believer knows that his/her use of freedom in Christ would not have negative impact on others then it is right to exercise the freedom one has in Christ. This brings us to the third element.
A third element of when to use believer’s freedom in Christ involves recognition of the fact that all provisions of life that the believer enjoys is from the Lord. It is this element that is given in 1 Corinthians 10:26 for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it. The word “is,” is not in the Greek but implied since literally the Greek reads of the Lord the earth and its fullness. This sentence is concerned with reason for use of believer’s freedom in enjoyment of the provisions of life because it begins with the word for that is translated from a Greek conjunction (gar) that generally indicates a causal relation between two statements, whereby the second statement gives a reason for or explains the first and so it is often translated “for” in our English version as it is done in majority of English versions of the verse we are considering. The conjunction is then used to provide justification or to explain the reason a believer should eat meat purchased from the meat market without questioning how the meat came to be in the butcher’s store, so to say. Of course, the word “for” serves another function which is to indicate the apostle quotes from the OT Scripture as we will note later.
Apostle Paul understood and practiced what many of us Christians do not of do, which is that we should justify whatever position or action we take from the Scripture. I am saying that it is not enough to say that we are doing something because that is the way it has always been done. Instead, we should say that we are doing something or following a practice because the Scripture authorizes us to do so. It is difficult for us to justify our actions from the Scripture if we have very limited knowledge of the Scripture. Therefore, to be a biblical Christian requires we endeavor to study the Scripture as we are doing now. Anyway, the apostle justified the reason a believer should eat any meat purchased from meat market without questioning its source. His justification is based on the existing Scripture since what he wrote is also Scripture. Thus, the apostle quoted the first sentence in the Septuagint of Psalm 23:1 that in the English is Psalm 24:1:
The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;
The sentence of Psalm 24:1 or 1 Corinthians 10:26 The earth is the Lord’s conveys that the earth belongs to the Lord. In the original quotation the word Lord is translated from a Hebrew word (yhwh) that means Yahweh, the proper name of the God of Israel. Although the Apostle quoted from the OT Scripture, to him, the Lord would refer to Jesus Christ. That aside, there is more to the quotation from Psalm 24 than merely to say that the earth belongs to the Lord. The apostle wanted to convey that the Lord is sovereign over the earth and that He is the creator of the earth. In effect, the Lord possesses the earth because He created it. We are saying that His ownership of the earth is because He created it. He created it and so He is sovereign over everything thing He created. It is the recognition of this truth that the Jewish rabbis taught the importance for God’s people to offer thanks to God before one partakes of food, recognizing that God has graciously provided the food. In this teaching, they cited this psalm the apostle quoted. As a former rabbi, he knew the truth that God is the source of the meat in the meat market regardless of how the meat must have been understood by pagans who sold it in the meat market.
To help us understand that the assertion of the earth belonging to the Lord should be interpreted to mean not only that supreme God of the universe is sovereign over the earth but that He created it, the Holy Spirit adds the phrase and everything in it of Psalm 24:1 or 1 Corinthians 10:26. The word “everything” in 1 Corinthians 10:26 is translated from a Greek word (plērōma) with several meanings. The word can mean “contents” as that which fills a space so that it is used to describe the baskets that were filled with broken pieces of bread and fish after the Lord Jesus had miraculously fed five thousand men as we read in Mark 6:43:
and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish.
The phrase up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces is literally broken pieces, twelve baskets full. The Greek word can mean that which is brought to fullness or completion, hence means “full number, fullness or sum total.” It is in the sense of “full number” that it is used to describe when the Lord’s hardening of Israel at the present time will come to an end, as stated in Romans 11:25:
I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
It is in the sense of fullness that the word is used in connection with Christ in Colossians 2:9:
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
Another meaning of the Greek word is act of fulfilling specifications and so means “fulfilling, fulfillment.” Thus, it is used for the fulfillment of the law in Romans 13:10:
Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Still another meaning of the word is the state of being full, hence means “fullness.” This meaning is used by Apostle Paul to describe the correct time for Jesus Christ to be born into this planet in Galatians 4:4:
But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law,
The clause when the time had fully come is more literally when the fullness of time came. In our passage, the word means “fullness,” that is, “everything that is included in a collection and that is held or included in something.” The focus of the apostle in the quotation from Psalm 24:1 in the word “everything” is every created thing on this planet other than humans. Specifically, the apostle is concerned with all the things the Lord had created for our enjoyment on this planet similar to what the apostle stated in 1 Timothy 6:17:
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment.
Everything created for our enjoyment includes meat that is sold in the meat market. The apostle had prior to this verse in sixth chapter of 1 Timothy indicated that believers could eat any meat they so desire contrary to what false teachers were advancing as we read in 1 Timothy 4:4:
For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
Thus, the apostle’s argument is that the reason he instructed believers in Corinth to continue to eat meat offered in the meat market without trying to determine the history of the meat in terms of where it was slaughtered is because the Lord is the creator and not an idol to whom the sacrifice of a given animal might have been made. Anyway, the principle that we have expounded so far is that you should use your freedom in Christ when enjoying God’s provisions that in ordinary use are not in and of themselves sinful and do not impact your testimony before unbelievers because you recognize that God created all things in this planet. This, of course, is positive aspect of the second responsibility you have as a believer pertaining the concept of freedom you have in Christ which is that You should understand that your use of your freedom is not absolute, so you need to adjust its application. This brings us to the negative aspect of this responsibility.
The negative aspect of the second responsibility that a believer has regarding the concept of freedom in Christ concerns when not to use it, which is, when your faith is directly challenged. However, the apostle did not immediately state this negative aspect of this responsibility but begins with affirming the freedom to eat meat not only the one that is offered in a meat market, but one offered to the believer by an unbeliever, without raising any question that would affect the conscience of the unbeliever. Thus, the apostle begins with a conditional clause in 1 Corinthians 10:27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go. The conditional statement indicates that the apostle was still thinking generally of believers in Corinth because the word you is in the plural in the Greek implying that the apostle meant the believers he had addressed in verse 25 or believers in general in Corinth. Those described as unbelievers are Gentiles who do not believe in Christ. It is almost certain that because of the subject matter of meat offered to idols that the apostle would not have included Jewish unbelievers who would certainly not eat or offer to someone meat that has been sacrificed to idols.
The apostle states something that would happen to any believer in Corinth so that it is not so much a case of “if” but “when.” This is because people generally expect their neighbors or friends to invite them to eat a meal in their homes or even to invite them to go out to eat dinner in a restaurant that is often incorporated into the precincts of some idol temples. Thus, it is not something that is far-fetched to be invited to a dinner in a person’s home. Anyway, the apostle introduced the condition that must be fulfilled before the command he issued would take place. We say this because the word “if” is translated from a Greek particle (ei) that may be used as a marker of a condition, real, hypothetical, actual, or contrary to fact. Here the apostle used it to present a real situation that would happen to a believer in Corinth. So, he states what may be reasonably expected of an unbeliever regarding a believer in Corinth. An unbeliever may request the presence of a believer to a meal in his/her home as that is what is meant in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 10:27 some unbeliever invites you to a meal although literally the Greek reads If anyone of the unbelievers invites you without any mention of “meal” but that is implied since the context indicates that food is involved. Anyhow, the apostle states a reality that is expected. A believer who is a neighbor to an unbeliever or works with an unbeliever is going to be invited to a social gathering such as meal served in an unbeliever’s house or even meal served in a restaurant as we have stated. However, the situation is not that of food that is served in a restaurant but in the home of the unbeliever that sends the invitation to the believer.
The situation the apostle referenced requires a response from a believer who is invited to a meal in a person’s house. The believer could reject or accept the invitation and there would be nothing sinful about his response in either way. It is to convey this that the apostle states in 1 Corinthians 10:27 and you want to go. The apostle with this statement implies that there is nothing sinful about going to eat in an unbeliever’s house. This is contrary to the situation where a fellow believer that is not living according to truth invites another believer to eat in the person’s home. The apostle had already indicated that a believer should not eat with another believer that is known to be sexual immoral or guilty of sinss mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:9–11:
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
Thus, a believer who honors an invitation to meal in the house of an unbeliever has not done anything sinful. Christians who are not well-informed may complain against a believer who does this but that is nothing new since that is how the religious individuals in the time of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ criticized Him for honoring invitation to meal in the houses of those they describe as “sinners” as we read, for example, when Jesus Christ went to the house of Zacchaeus as we read in Luke 19:5–7:
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a ‘sinner.’”
Furthermore, the idea that a believer would go to the house of an unbeliever for meal does not contradict the instruction given in Exodus 34:15:
“Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
It is believed that this passage is behind the Jewish practice of avoiding eating with Gentiles as indicated in the OT pseudepigraph, specifically Jubilees 22:16:
And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words, and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable.
This aside the invitation to a meal by an unbeliever to a believer does not in principle violate Exodus 34:15 since the believer knows very well that idols are nothing and so should not be worshipped. Besides, the kind of thing that is forbidden in Exodus is the situation of joining in worship and partnership with pagans that would expose believers to pagan worship. Also, since the context indicates that a believer should not eat meat offered to idols there is no danger that a believer who accepts dinner invitation from an unbeliever would become involved in idolatry. The point is that there is nothing wrong with accepting an invitation from an unbeliever in the individual’s home. We should be careful to recognize that the Scripture does not tell us to run away or avoid unbelievers, only that they should not be our friends to the point that they can influence us or be in business partnership with them. If we run away from having contact with unbelievers, something that is impossible, we would lose the opportunity of giving the gospel to them. Thus, it is important that we interact with unbelievers but not allow them to influence our conduct as believers. Anyway, the apostle recognized that a believer could deny or accept an invitation to a meal as that is the believer’s prerogative, hence the sentence and you want to go. Of course, as we will note later, the apostle proceeds with the assumption that a believer would accept such an invitation to share a meal in the home of an unbeliever.
The apostle then dealt with the conduct of a believer regarding the meal served to the individual who accepts invitation to eat a meal in an unbeliever’s home. The believer should be respectful of the unbeliever and so should not be rude in questioning the source of the meat that is set before the individual as in the instruction of 1 Corinthians 10:27 eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. We are out of time so we will continue with this expression in our next study but let me end by reminding you of the second responsibility we are considering which is that You should understand that your use of your freedom is not absolute, so you need to adjust its application.
09/24//21
[1] Stalker, J. (1915). Conscience. In J. Orr, J. L. Nuelsen, E. Y. Mullins, & M. O. Evans (Eds.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Vol. 1–5, p. 702). Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company.