Lessons #351 and 352
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 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)
. .. 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.
The message of 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1 that we have been considering is that You should use your freedom in Christ in such a way to advance the spiritual needs 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. The first 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. The second 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. We indicated 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 we indicated is the positive aspect to the second responsibility. We also stated that 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, we indicated that the apostle did not immediately state this but set up in verse 27 the condition necessary to state when not to use the believer’s freedom in Christ. This condition is when a believer has accepted an invitation to a meal in the home of an unbeliever where there is no issue made of the source of the meat that is part of the meal served by the host. The apostle stated what should happen once the believer accepts the invitation as were read in verse 27 eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. It is with this instruction that we ended our last study, and we continue with it.
The expression “is put before” is translated from a Greek word (paratithēmi) that may mean “to set forth in teaching” and so may mean “to demonstrate, point out” although it is translated “proving” in the NIV in regard to the proclaiming of the gospel by Apostle Paul to the Jews in Thessalonica as recorded in Acts 17:3:
explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead. “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ,” he said.
The word may mean “to set food before someone” as in the instruction of the Lord to the seventy-two He sent out for mission work regarding how to conduct themselves regarding food as we read in Luke 10:8:
“When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you.
The word may mean “to entrust, be responsible” as the word is used when the Lord Jesus communicated the accountability of those who have been assigned a responsibility, according to Luke 12:48:
But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 10:27, it has the sense of “to set food before someone.” Therefore, the believer in an unbeliever’s home is instructed to eat the meat set before the person without any question regarding the source of meat as that is what is meant in the verbal phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:27 without raising questions of conscience. The apostle repeats the same phrase he used in 1 Corinthians 10:25. Here as we argued previously, it is the conscience of the host that is the concern of the question. In other words, a believer who raises a question would put the host in a position where the conscience may function in a manner that judges or condemns the unbeliever who serves meat that he probably knew that a believer will not eat. The point is that it is permissible for the believer to eat meat in the house of an unbeliever without probing to know the source of the meat that is being offered to such a believer. Thus, the condition in which a believer will eat any meat offered in the house of an unbeliever is if the believer asks no question regarding the source of the meat, that is, whether it has been offered to an idol or not.
We stated that the apostle affirmed the believer’s freedom to eat any meat set before the individual in an unbeliever’s home but there is a condition under which the believer should refuse eating meat set before the person in an unbeliever’s home. It is to set the contrast in expected action of eating meat set before a believer and refusing to eat it that the apostle began 1 Corinthians 10:28 with the word but.
It is not certain that an unbelieving host would make the statement in the condition stipulated in 1 Corinthians 10:28 But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice.” Our assertion of the uncertainty that the unbelieving host is the one that makes the assertion is because of the word anyone is subject to three possible interpretations. It could refer to a believer. This believer may be another believer probably weak believer in attendance in the dinner party or it could refer to a slave who is a Christian but is owned by the unbelieving host. In this situation, such a believer would have felt that he has the obligation to inform a fellow believer of the source of meat being served since he has a firsthand knowledge of the source of the meat. Another interpretation of the word anyone is that it refers to a fellow guest who is an unbeliever. Still another interpretation is that anyone refers to the host who is an unbeliever. Any of these could have made the statement. It is probably the case that the speaker is an unbeliever either the host or any other unbeliever that is present in the dinner party. The reason for this interpretation is that the apostle used a Greek word that we will get to later translated “offered in sacrifice” instead of the Greek word (eidōlothyton) that is perhaps derogatory that means “food offered to pagan idols” Nonetheless, it is not necessary to be certain of the one who made the statement since that does not change the principle of truth being communicated in the teaching of the apostle regarding attendance to a meal hosted by an unbeliever.
Be that as it may, the clause But if anyone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice” states the situation when a believer should not exercise his/her freedom in Christ to eat anything because there is now a direct challenge to the believer’s faith. Anyway, this time, the word “if” is translated from a Greek conjunction (ean) that in our verse is used as a marker of condition in which the probability of the action associated with it has been reduced and so means “if.” The implication of the use of the word “if” here is that it is unlikely that someone will say what is stated but it is possible. The host or someone else may say to the believer that is a guest that the meat has been sacrificed to an idol in a temple since the verbal phrase has been offered in sacrifice is translated from a Greek adjective (hierothytos) that appears only here in the Greek NT that means “sacrificed to a deity.” The question is what would be in the mind of the host or an unbeliever that says this to the believer that is a guest in the individual’s home? It is probably that the host may be thinking that for full disclosure that it is necessary to inform the guest of the kind of meat of meat offered, knowing that the person is a believer in Christ. Hence, there is a sense that the host would be testing the believer to see how the individual would react to such disclosure. The situation may parallel a case where a believer today who lives in a culture where it is believed that Christians do not drink any alcoholic beverages. So, an unbeliever that invites a Christian to a meal in his house may pour a glass of wine and set it before the believer and say something like, “I have set this before you not to be rude but I know you Christians do not drink wine.” The host who does this would be reflecting the kind of mindset of the person in Corinth that tells a Christian that the meat was sacrificed to an idol or came from pagan temple.
Be that as it may, if the guest tells a believer that the meat is sacrificed to a god then the response of the believer is to refuse to eat the food as per the instruction given in 1 Corinthians 10:28 then do not eat it. The English translation does not fully capture what the picture is in the Greek text. The situation is that the meal has begun before the host informs the guest. When this happens, the instruction is for the believer to immediately stop eating whatever meat is before the person. This interpretation is because the Greek form translated do not eat is for a case where an action is in progress. Thus, no matter how appealing the meat may be, once a believer is informed that the meat has been sacrificed to an idol or that it came from meat used for sacrifice to a pagan god then the believer should immediately cease from eating the meat set before the person.
There are two related reasons a believer who has been informed that meat served was used in sacrifice to pagan idol should immediately stop eating it. The first is for clarity regarding the authenticity of the Christian faith. This, the believer does by making an impression on the host that the believer does not accept idol as worthy of worship and so would not want to have anything associated with an idol. It is this that is given in the clause of 1 Corinthians 10:28 both for the sake of the man who told you. The word “both” is not in the Greek text since literally the Greek reads for the sake of that (person) the (one) having informed (you). When the apostle said for the sake of the man that informed the believer of the source of the meat, he meant so that the man would know that the believer does not in any way or form accept idolatry. The believer should show to the man that he has made a clear break from idolatry and so can no longer participate in idolatry in any form. On the other hand, if the believer eats, he will probably send a wrong message to the informant who would wonder if Christians are true to what they believe. The second reason is related to the first in that it concerns the matter of conscience as given in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:28 and for conscience’ sake. We say that this phrase is related to the preceding sentence for the sake of the man who told you because of the conjunction and. It is translated from a Greek particle (kai) that although is often translated “and” in our English versions but here it is used in an explanatory sense so that it should be translated “that is.” This means that the phrase for conscience’ sake explains further what is meant when the apostle wrote for the sake of the man who told you.
There are two related questions we need to answer regarding the phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:28 for conscience’ sake. The first is, whose conscience is meant. The second is what the apostle meant in the clause. There are two possibilities to the answer to the question of whose conscience is meant. It could be the believer or the one who uttered the words of the sentence of verse 28 This has been offered in sacrifice. The context rules out the believer as we will note later in verse 29 and so it must be the conscience of the one who informs the believer, who is an invited guest to the home of the unbeliever, about the source of the meat that the apostle meant. By the way, as we have previously interpreted, the informant is most likely the unbelieving host and so it is his conscience that the apostle had in mind.
To the question of what the apostle meant in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:28 for conscience’ sake. He meant that the believer-guest should refuse to eat the meat offered to a pagan idol so that the host’s conscience would not bother him. It is because the conscience of the host bordered him in the first place for serving meat sacrificed to an idol to a believer in Christ that he would have made the full disclosure regarding the source of the meat. So, if the believer stops eating the meat the host’s conscience would give him rest in that his conscience would acquit him of doing something wrong that he corrected by the information he provided to his guest. On the other hand, if the believer goes ahead with the meat, the conscience of the host may ease in condemning him for idolatry. This would be similar to what we said previously. The host may be bothered that Christians could be right about futility of idolatry but if the believer eats the meat after being informed it was sacrificed to a pagan god, the host’s conscience may ease in its condemnation of him with the reasoning that his involvement in idolatry must not be wrong after all, since a Christian participated in meat offered to a pagan idol. If this happens the believer has done great damage to the gospel message by eating the meat sacrificed to a pagan idol. In this way, the believer has used freedom in Christ wrongly.
It is our interpretation that it is the conscience of the informant to the believer regarding the source of meat that is offered at the dinner table of the unbelieving host that the apostle meant in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 10:28 for conscience’ sake. This interpretation is supported by the first sentence of 1 Corinthians 10:29 the other man’s conscience, I mean, not yours. Literally, the Greek reads But conscience I say not one’s own but the of the other. We used the conjunction “but” twice in the literal translation but the two are from different Greek words. Nonetheless, the Greek sentence is intended to provide explanation or clarification of whose conscience is involved in verse 28. This, the apostle did, using two Greek words. The first is a Greek particle (de) not translated in the NIV and majority of our English versions. It used to connect one clause to another, either to express contrast or simple continuation. Although it is often translated “but” in the English when there is a perceived contrast between two clauses; however, it has other meanings such as “then” or “and” or “that is” when it is used to link segments of a narrative. In our verse, the apostle most certainly used it with the meaning “that is” to provide explanation. This interpretation is reflected in the TEV that begins verse 29 with the expression that is. It is this understanding that enables us to be certain of the meaning of the second Greek word used in the Greek sentence.
The second Greek word (legō) the apostle used that enables us to be certain that the first Greek sentence of verse 29 is intended to provide an explanation or to clarify the conscience of the person meant in verse 28 is one that means “to say, tell.” The word has a range of meanings. For example, the word may mean “means” when it is used to provide the meaning of a foreign word to the language of the reader who probably does not know the foreign language, as it is used to explain to a person who does not speak Aramaic what the word “rabbi” means as we read in John 1:38:
Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?”
The word may mean “to mean someone or something” as a way of explanation, as Apostle Paul used it to indicate that the Law did not invalidate God’s promise to Abraham as we read in Galatians 3:17:
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
It is in this sense of “to mean someone or something” that the word is used in 1 Corinthians 10:29. Hence, the apostle clarified that the “conscience” he meant in 1 Corinthians 10:28 is that of the one that informed a believer who is a dinner guest in an unbeliever’s home regarding the source of the meat that is served as part of the meal that is presented before such an individual. The point is that a believer who is confronted with the information about the source of the meat presented to the individual as being from the meat sacrificed to an idol that such person should abstain from eating the meat. This is, as we have stated, to give rest to the conscience of the informant to know that such a person is correct in informing the believer about the source of the meat.
Be that as it may, the instruction of the Holy Spirit, through Apostle Paul, to any Corinthian believer who has been invited to meal in the home of an unbeliever not to eat the meat served once the individual has been notified that the meat was sacrificed to an idol is the basis of our statement of when not to use one’s freedom in Christ. We have indicated that a believer should not use his/her freedom in Christ when there is a challenge to the Christian faith. The challenge to the believer in Corinth that faced the situation we have considered is simply to see if such a believer would do something that endorses idolatry by eating meat sacrificed to a pagan idol. As we have stated, there would be nothing wrong with eating any meat, because, despite the abuse of such meat by the pagan world, it is still from God who is sovereign over all His creation. But in the case a believer is informed of the source of the meat, the issue is that if the believer ate it, the unbeliever host would think there is no difference between him and the believer guest and so there is no difference between the Christian faith and involvement in idolatry. Therefore, to apply this principle of when not to use one’s freedom, the believer should be governed by the thought that he/she must strive to show that there is a difference between the believer and the unbeliever. So, let me return to the example I have been using in this study that involves drinking wine. It is true that there is nothing sinful about drinking wine but if an unbeliever offers it with the caveat that Christians do not drink wine then the believer who drinks wine should abstain from it under that circumstance. The reason being that if the believer drank the wine offered, the unbeliever, although misguided about Christians drinking wine, would see no difference between him/her and the believer. It is for this reason that the believer should refrain from drinking at that instant. Another example I can think about concerns the pagan practice known today as Christmas. Suppose a person gives you a gift in December period without any comment you probably would accept the gift but if the person says to you this is a Christmas gift, especially if they know that you consider the whole celebration pagan then you should not accept it. The point we are making is that we should avoid the use of our freedom in Christ to act in something that is not sinful but has the potential of causing an unbeliever not to see that there is difference between him/her and the believer that acts in a given situation that may create doubt in the mind of an unbeliever. Anything that would cause an unbeliever not to see us different is tantamount to a challenge to the Christian faith. Hence, we contend that we should not use our freedom in Christ to act in something that is not sinful when the act in view would cause an unbeliever to misread the Christian faith. In effect, we should do everything we can to put to rest the conscience of unbelievers to recognize that they are not wrong in evaluating us as different from them but that they are wrong in their rejection of the Christian faith.
In any case, the Holy Spirit knows us well as those who are more concerned about ourselves and our comfort than that of other people. I do not mean that we do not help others when we see them in need but that we first and foremost think about ourselves before others. Furthermore, those of us who live in so called free society do not want anyone to infringe on our right to act as we choose. In fact, quite often the concept of freedom becomes idolatry in that we put human freedom above God. You may protest this assertion and say that you do no such thing. In other words that you do not put the concept of human freedom above God. So, let me show you using two examples that prove that the concept of freedom can become idolatry. The Bible tells us that parents have the responsibility of raising their children by removing foolishness or lack of thought that is in them through discipline, as we read in Proverbs 22:15:
Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline will drive it far from him.
The sentence Folly is bound up in the heart of a child means that there is an innate foolishness or thoughtlessness that is in every child. I am sure that most of you who have raised children or are raising little ones have found yourself embarrassed by what your child says before others because children say whatever comes to mind without thinking. Quite often parents or others say that such and such is cute instead of recognizing that it is not and so to do something to correct the child. This passage of Proverbs indicates that discipline that involves corporal punishment should be used to teach a child not to be thoughtless. However, some parents accept what some social scientists say about the use of corporal punishment. They accept that such would be teaching children violence and wounding their self-esteem. Furthermore, they accept that such discipline discourages self-expression of a child. Some parents say that they do not want to limit the freedom of their child to do whatever the child wants. When a person takes that view that is idolatry because the person has placed the words of a human being or the instruction of a human being above that of God as we have in the Scripture. That, my friends is idolatry.
Take another example that involves adults in their relationship to governmental authority. The government tells us what to do, for most of us, our first instinct is to rebel against what they tell us that we do not like. Then we claim that they are infringing on our freedom. This is true of both believers and unbelievers in this country and many other countries that are free as we use the term. What is wrong with that? You may ask. First, we should remember that laws are necessary because of our sinful nature. If we were perfect, then law would be unnecessary as implied in what the Holy Spirit gave through Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1:9–11:
9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
This passage implies that if you are not a lawbreaker then whatever law that is passed by the government that is not in conflict with God’s word should not be perceived as curtailing your freedom. Second, the Scripture commands us to obey those in authority over us as the Holy Spirit states through Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 2:13–14:
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
If a believer does not submit to the authority of rulers when what they have commanded cannot be shown to be in conflict with the word of God, that is idolatry if the reason for disobedience is that it infringes on human freedom. Hence, you see that quite often the concept of human freedom is a form of idolatry that many believers get involved with, without recognizing it. I am not concerned with unbelievers because they are spiritually dead and so are in perpetual idolatry. Anyway, you see that it is our knowledge that enables us to react differently to a situation or event. In saying this, I am reminded of the different responses of Israelites who returned from exile when the foundation of the second temple was laid. Those who had no knowledge of the first temple rejoiced while those with the knowledge of the first cried because the second temple was not equal to the first as we read in Ezra 3:10–13:
10 When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments and with trumpets, and the Levites (the sons of Asaph) with cymbals, took their places to praise the LORD, as prescribed by David king of Israel. 11 With praise and thanksgiving they sang to the LORD: “He is good; his love to Israel endures forever.” And all the people gave a great shout of praise to the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid. 12 But many of the older priests and Levites and family heads, who had seen the former temple, wept aloud when they saw the foundation of this temple being laid, while many others shouted for joy. 13 No one could distinguish the sound of the shouts of joy from the sound of weeping, because the people made so much noise. And the sound was heard far away.
The point is that if people know very little about the Bible, they think they are doing well spiritually when that is not the case.
In any case, as we stated previously, the Holy Spirit knows us well as those who are more concerned about ourselves and our comfort than that of other people. This is true of us believers when we are not controlled by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the Holy Spirit directed Apostle Paul to present this fact in the form of two rhetorical questions in the remainder of verse 29 and in verse 30. These two rhetorical questions have been considered difficult to interpret and so several approaches have been adopted in an attempt to explain them. For example, some contend the apostle was defending his own practice of eating such meat. Another approach is that the apostle addressed the “weak” believer, urging a more wide-ranging view of the liberty believers have in Christ for the sake of the “strong.” The various approaches notwithstanding, it seems that the two rhetorical questions are the objections a person could raise because of the instruction the Holy Spirit gave through the apostle. Thus, the apostle generalized the objections by speaking in the first person singular “I” in both rhetorical questions. Such an approach is what experts tell us is a classical approach when an author wants to illustrate something universal. Of course, this approach makes it easier to see that what the apostle wrote beginning in verse 31 is in a sense a response to the objections a person could raise regarding the instruction of the apostle. We are saying that the two rhetorical questions are concerned with the kind of objections we could give regarding the instruction that we should not use our freedom in Christ when there is a challenge to our faith because of what we do that is not sinful but causes problem for another person, specifically with unbelievers. In the context of the passage we are studying, the issue is that of eating meat that a believer has been informed was sacrificed to an idol. The believer is instructed to abstain not because there is anything wrong in eating meat regardless of its source but because such believer should be concerned about the conscience of the one who informs the believer regarding the meat that has been sacrificed to an idol bought in a meat market, served in the home of an unbeliever who hosts the believer. The believer who knows that all food is from the Lord would wonder the reason an unbeliever determines the person’s use of the freedom in Christ. Therefore, the apostle gives the first rhetorical question that captures the thought of such a believer in the last part of 1 Corinthians 10:29 For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? The rhetorical question, according to the UBS handbook could be cast as a statement “For my liberty should not be determined by another person’s conscience.” Anyway, the use of the word “freedom” in the rhetorical questions is the first time the apostle used a Greek word that strictly means “freedom.”
We assert that it is in 1 Corinthians 10:29 that the apostle strictly used the word “freedom” in his teaching about the freedom of the believer in Christ in this epistle to the Corinthians. A person may say the word “freedom” is used in the NIV of 1 Corinthians 8:9:
Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
The word “freedom” in this passage of 1 Corinthians 8:9 is translated from a Greek word (exousia) that may mean “right” as it is used to describe the liberty of a potter in Romans 9:21:
Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
The word may mean “authority” as in the explanation of a reason we should obey those who rule over us in Romans 13:2:
Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
So, the Greek word translated “freedom” in 1 Corinthians 8:9 allows other meanings. However, the word “freedom” in 1 Corinthians 10:29 is translated from a Greek word (eleutheria) that means “freedom, liberty.” The word is used of the freedom in Christ which stands in contrast to the constraint of the Mosaic law that is looked upon as slavery that a believers should resist as we read in Galatians 5:1:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Of course, the Holy Spirit warns regarding abusing the freedom we have in Christ through sin, as we read in Galatians 5:13:
You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.
It is not only through Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit warns against abuse of the freedom in Christ but also through Apostle Peter as recorded in 1 Peter 2:16:
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 10:29, the word may be translated with “freedom” or “liberty” in the sense of personal freedom to act as one chooses. Thus, the apostle was strictly concerned with freedom in Christ that is at the heart of the first rhetorical question of the verse. Our point is that the Greek word the apostle used in 1 Corinthians 10:29 is intended to convey that the apostle is concerned with the freedom in Christ. We say this because, it is the Greek word translated “freedom” in 1 Corinthians 10:29 that the apostle used in referencing the freedom believers have in Christ as in the passage we cited previously, that is, Galatians 5:1 and in Galatians 2:4:
This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.
Furthermore, when the apostle wanted to convey that true freedom is associated with the control of the Holy Spirit, it is our Greek word that he used in 2 Corinthians 3:17:
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.
Again, the point is that the apostle is concerned with the freedom we have in Christ in the rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 10:29 For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? As we indicated, the rhetorical question is an objection that indicates that a believer’s freedom should not be determined by another person’s conscience. Thus, for the Holy Spirit to tell a person through the apostle not to use his/her freedom in Christ to eat meat may imply that the apostle is contradicting himself in what he wrote about standing firm in the freedom we have in Christ. We say this because since a believer knows that idol means nothing, it would seem such a person would ignore the conscience of an unbeliever who makes an issue of meat offered to an idol and go ahead to eat it probably to convey that an idol is nothing. However, that is not the case. Instead, the apostle says that the believer should care about the conscience of the one that informed the guest of the source of meat served during the meal. The implied reason for such instruction is given beginning in verse 31 that we will consider at the appropriate time.
Anyway, the instruction of the apostle that would cause the believer to wonder the reason he/she should allow the host to determine the use of the individual’s freedom in Christ is, again, stated in the rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 10:29 For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
The word “judged” is translated from a Greek verb (krinō) that may mean “to judge, pass judgment upon, express an opinion about” as it is used in the Lord’s instruction concerning looking down on others in a condemning way in Luke 6:37:
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
The word may mean “to judge as guilty,” “to condemn” as the word is used to describe the states of those who believe in the Lord Jesus and those who do not in John 3:18:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
The word may mean “to punish” as in Stephen’s sermon as he referred to God’s promise to Abraham of punishing those who would enslave his descendants, according to Acts 7:7:
But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves,’ God said, ‘and afterward they will come out of that country and worship me in this place.’
The word may mean to make a judgment based on taking various factors into account, hence means “to consider,” as Lydia used the word to persuade Apostle Paul and his team to stay in her house if the apostle considered her a believer in Christ as we read in Acts 16:15:
When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
The word may mean “to prefer” as it is used to describe the preference of believers regarding day of worship although it is translated “considers” in the NIV of Romans 14:5:
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
The LEB used the word “prefers” instead of the word “considers” of the NIV. The word may mean “to convince” as in Apostle Paul’s certainty about the death of Christ for all human beings as stated in 2 Corinthians 5:14:
For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 10:29, the sense of the word is “to evaluate,” that is, “to be subject to the critical scrutiny of another” or “to be unfavorably judged.”
The meaning of the Greek words used imply that the rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 10:29 For why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience? as we have already indicated is tantamount to a protest that a believer puts up when it is required of the individual not to exercise his/her freedom in Christ because of another. The first protest is there is no reason to allow the scrutiny of another individual to limit one’s use of freedom in Christ.
The second protest is based on the fact that a believer has responded the right way to food set before the individual by offering thanks to God and so no one has the right to scrutinize the believer in the rhetorical question given 1 Corinthians 10:30. The rhetorical question is prefaced with a condition given in 1 Corinthians 10:30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness. The conditional clause is given in an emphatic manner. This is because in the Greek the apostle used an independent personal pronoun “I” that is not necessary since the form of the Greek verb indicates that the speaker speaks in the first person. The Greek form tells us if the person speaking is in first, second, or third person so to introduce an independent pronoun is a way to emphasize what is asserted.
That aside, the word “thankfulness” is translated from a Greek word (charis) that is often rendered “grace” in our English versions, but the word has various ranges of meaning. The word when used in relationship with a person may refer to that which is attractive or appealing in someone that draws favorable reaction from others, hence may mean “charming, pleasant, attractive” as the word is used by Apostle Paul in his instruction regarding believer’s speech or communication in Colossians 4:6:
Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.
The instruction let your conversation be always full of grace means that believer’s conversation should always be pleasant. The word may mean that beneficent disposition toward someone, that is, “favor, help or care, good will” shown or received by another as that which the early church experienced from the outsiders in Jerusalem as we read in Acts 2:47:
praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
The word may mean “gift” as that which Gentile believers sent to believers in Jerusalem as we read in 1 Corinthians 16:3:
Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem.
The word may mean a response to generosity or beneficence and so means “thankfulness, gratitude” as the word is used in what believers are encouraged to do in Colossians 3:16:
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 10:30, the sense of the word is “thanks,” that is, an acknowledgment of appreciation to God.
The appropriate response to food is to offer thanksgiving to God for it. When this happens then the believer is free to eat whatever the food is as the Holy Spirit has conveyed through Apostle Paul in his epistle to Timothy as we read in 1 Timothy 4:3–4:
3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
If a believer is not to reject any food once that food has been properly acknowledged by the believer through thanksgiving to God, then there is no reason not to eat the food. It is for this reason that the rhetorical question is then given in 1 Corinthians 10:30 why am I denounced because of something I thank God for? The rhetorical question could also, according to the UBS handbook, be cast into a statement “there is no reason why anyone should criticize me ….”
The word “denounce” of the NIV is translated from a Greek word (blasphēmeō) that means to speak in a disrespectful way in such a way as to harm or injure one’s reputation whether human or divine. Thus, on the one hand, when it is used with respect to humans the appropriate meaning is “to malign, to slander”, as it is used of conduct expected of believers in Titus 3:2:
to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
On the other hand, when the word is used with respect to God the most appropriate meaning is “to blaspheme”, as it is used in Romans 2:24:
As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 10:30, the sense of the word is “to be slandered,” that is, “to be or become maligned or denigrated with speech.” Thus, the rhetorical question implies that the one who asks the question assumes that some believers were probably talking behind the person’s back as they state that the believer who partakes in the food is wrong. The slander of such a person would be contrary to what the Holy Spirit had said through the apostle regarding not judging someone for what a person eats in Romans 14:6:
He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Thus, the complaint of the believer who is instructed to abstain from eating food that the host informs of the meat being sacrificed to an idol temple is legitimate since such a believer knows that an idol is nothing and that such a person could eat anything the individual so chooses so long as the person offers thanksgiving to the Lord for the food. Although, such believer has the freedom in Christ to do so, the Holy Spirit through the apostle indicates that there is another factor that governs a believer’s life, and it is with this factor that we will begin our next study. But let me remind you of the second responsibility you have towards the message of the passage we are studying which is that You should understand that your use of your freedom is not absolute, so you need to adjust its application.
10/01//21