1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1

We are now at the final part of this section. I want to review briefly the main point here. The problem of this section is food that has been offered to idols. As I said before, this was a major problem for the church of the first century. The society around the church was largely built around polygamous idolatry. Often social events, like a wedding feast, would be held at an idol's temple and would involve a sacrifice to that idol. But often the meat eaten at social events elsewhere had also come from a sacrifice. Even public markets would often sell such meat. In light of all that, how was a Christian to navigate all this? Could a Christian eat any such meat without becoming complicit in idolatry?

In the first half of chapter 10, Paul laid down the clear danger of idolatry, a danger that was present even to established Christians. We should be aware of the spiritual dangers in the world around us and act accordingly. Mainly, Paul made it very clear that a Christian could take no part in active idolatry. One could not go to an idol's temple and partake in an idolatrous ceremony and still also partake of Christianity. That is one point clearly established. But what about the rest? What about meat that had been offered to idols but in cases where the eaters were not actively taking part in idolatry? This passage answers that question, drawing on the points Paul has established over the last several chapters.

In this passage, Paul repeats what he said in chapter 8. There is nothing really immoral or spiritually dangerous about food. Food is a right and proper part of the natural order, and see what the Bible says about the natural order: “The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” (Psalm 24:1-2) God created this world, and everything (and everyone) within it belongs to Him. Food that has been offered to an idol doesn't belong to the idol; it still belongs to God.

Paul lays out two scenarios. The first has to do meat bought at the meat market. (The KJV refers to this with the archaic word 'shambles.' This seems to come from a term for the sloped-legged tables used in meat markets and butcher houses. The term shamble referring to someone's awkward walking seems to come from that.) In such a case, it is fine to eat the meat. They were not taking any part in idolatry.

In another scenario, a Christian has been invited to a social event at the home of some non-Christian. And, again, whatever food is served, he is free to eat. Because, again, they were taking no part in idolatry.

This is the baseline, but Paul does not leave the issue there. Idolatry is sinful, and we were firmly told to flee that earlier in the chapter. With all of this—with issues of what food to eat—all things are lawful. But all things are not expedient, not edifying. Just because a thing was technically right didn't mean there were no more questions to ask.

Although, in this case, the better case was to not ask. When buying meat or dining out, there was no need to ask. There was no cause to demand to know the religious history of the food. If food had a spiritual quality, it would be necessary. But it doesn't, and therefore, there is just as well not to know. 

Because once you do know—if you were at dinner and someone told you that a certain dish contained meat from a sacrifice—at that point, it becomes a matter of conscience, a matter on which a decision must be made.

And here we return to what Paul talked about in chapters 8 and 9—the Principle of Renunciation. This principle states that just because a thing is allowable doesn't mean it is always a good idea. Often, it may be best to avoid something technically good for the sake of the greater good. Not everything that is lawful is expedient. And this is especially true when it comes to how our actions affect others. William Barclay writes: “There is nothing more real than Christian freedom; but Christian freedom must be used to help others and not to shock or hurt them. A man has a duty to himself but a still greater duty to others.” Paul lays out this principle clearly in verse 24—everyone should be concerned about the good of others and not just themselves.

In this case, when you have been told about the history of the meat, at that point, it becomes necessary to abstain from it. Remember what Paul said back in 1 Corinthians 8:7: “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.” For some Christians—probably, as I suggested before, those who were newly converted from idolatry—there was too much danger that the old associations would lead them back to idolatry if they knowingly ate such food. For other Christians—with stronger faith—it would be setting a bad example to weaker Christians to eat such food and it might also send a bad message to non-Christians. 

In verse 32, Paul tells them to give no offense to the Jews, to the Gentiles, or to the church. In modern English, the word 'offense' or 'offend' has been used to death and has little meaning. But the word in Greek has a more substantial meaning; it has the idea of attacking or tripping up. Robertson translates this phrase: “Give no occasion of stumbling.” This echoes Paul's advice earlier in 1 Corinthians; he also says something similar in Romans 14:15-16. “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of.”

Is that not a bit much to ask? To expect people to set aside a perfectly good meal just because it might have a bad effect on others? Well, they had a good example in doing that, for Paul himself had done that. He was their example. As we saw in chapter 9, Paul laid aside many of his own rights and inclinations so that he could reach the lost—even specifically, so he could reach the Corinthians. They had benefited from Paul's willingness to act in this way.

And in this, Paul was only following Christ. Look at what Paul told the Philippians: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:5-7) We have salvation at all solely because Jesus was willing to give up many of His own rights and prerogatives; He laid aside His own strength because of the weakness of others.

In verses 29-30, Paul states this: “Why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?” There is considerable disagreement about how to interpret that. But Adam Clarkes suggests that this is a counterbalance to Paul's other words. We talked back in chapter 8 about the stronger brother and the weaker brother—one who could eat this meat safely and the other to whom it would be a stumbling block. Throughout this passage, Paul writes as if he were speaking almost exclusively to the stronger brother. But of course, the congregation who would hear this epistle would contain both. And these verses, perhaps, are directly more at the weaker brothers, though still spoken as if to the stronger brother.

What I mean is this: it is better in many cases for us to avoid things that could lead others to stumble, which others around consider to be wrong even if we don't. But, conversely, we shouldn't be quick to judge other people if they do things (not explicitly sinful) which we think are wrong. Paul pictures a man eating with thanksgiving—that is, in a Christian and religious way—that is something we should not be quick to speak evil of. Clarke writes: “if a man... partake of any thing that God's bounty has sent, and which the Gospel has not forbidden, and give thanks to God for the blessing, no man has right or authority to condemn such a person. This seems to be the meaning of these two verses; and they read a lesson of caution to rash judges, and to those who are apt to take offence.”

And that leads us to the final point of this passage. Ultimately, everything we do must be for God. (This is verse 31.) Our actions as Christians must all be directed towards and done in the light of God and our duty to Him. To glorify God—to experience God's nature and express that to others—should be the chief end of our lives and should inform every decision we make. This ties back into the quotation from Psalm 24. Because God made and owns the earth, we can eat this meat. But because God made and owns the earth, our decision of whether or not to eat it should be made in the light of God and not the light of our own appetite.

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, and that purpose should inform every decision we make, even on comparatively trivial things like what food we eat.