Sudsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:12 pm
Josh wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 10:23 am
This is a great thread and covers a passage I’ve never fully understood. I’m enjoying the focus on the specific passage.
What exactly is meant by “all things are lawful, but not all things are helpful?” Is the “all things are lawful” a saying or proverb?
It would seem that some Bible versions have added quotes around this as if it were a saying of some sort.
Yes, I think so. The UBS Translator's Notes say this:
Commentators agree that the clause All things are lawful to me was a slogan used in Corinth at that time. It is repeated in 10.23, where the Greek is the same except that the phrase for me is omitted. TEV adds the phrases “Someone will say” and “I could say” to show that these clauses in quotes are familiar to the Christians in Corinth. Translators in other languages may find it helpful to add these phrases too.
Are lawful for me: the Greek verb means “it is allowed” and therefore does not raise the question of who gives the permission. Clearly Paul is not thinking of the Old Testament Law. Probably the people who misused this saying thought that because the body did not matter, they could do anything they liked with it. All things are lawful for me may also be expressed as “It is permissible for me to do anything” or “There is no law against anything that I want to do.”
Exegetical Summaries addresses this quotation as follows - the format is "first possible interpretation [ commentaries that interpret it that way] second possible interpretation [ commentaries that interpret it that way]". Note that the quotation structure depends on how it is interpreted :
QUESTION—Is this another quotation that Paul is citing?
1. This is a quotation used by some of the Corinthians [EBC, He, HNTC, Ho, NIC2, Rb, TG, TH, TNTC; NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]: It is said, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food’. Apparently some were using the reasoning that since such physical activities as eating and digestion had nothing to do with Christian morals, so the physical activity of sex, whether moral or immoral, did not either [EBC, Ho, NIC2, Rb, TG].
1.1 The quotation stops before the words ‘and God will destroy’ [EBC, Ho, TH, TNTC; NAB, NIV, NRSV, REB, TEV, TNT]. It is best to follow the pattern of 6:12 where the quotation is given first and Paul’s comment on the quote follows the words ‘but’ or ‘and’ [TH].
1.2 The quotation continues through the words ‘God will destroy both one and the other’ [He, HNTC, NIC2]: it is said, ‘Food for the stomach and the stomach for food and God will destroy both one and the other’. The chiastic structure of the first half of the verse parallels that of the second better if the words ‘and God will destroy both one and the other’ are included as part of the quotation [NIC2].
2. This is simply another statement [ICC, Lns; KJV, NASB, NJB]: Food for the stomach and the stomach for food.
QUESTION—In what way will God destroy both the stomach and food?
This will occur after the Second Coming of Christ [EBC, Lns], and refers to the new status of the resurrection body where there will be no need for food or digestive processes [EBC, Lns]. The time of the end is intended [TG]. This will happen when earthly life ceases [HNTC, ICC] because food is broken down in the stomach and at death the stomach will be dissolved into its constituents [HNTC].
Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9 (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 238.
So there's more than one way to interpret this, including where to add quotation marks.
Sudsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:12 pm
I lean toward the view that Paul was referring to the laws of the worldly government we live under. Just because something is lawful does not make it right for a believer to participate in it. There are further spiritual considerations to be considered beyond what the laws of the land allow. A present day example could be the right to have an abortion. Is there a higher law that indicates this is wrong ? Is 'thou shalt not kill' the higher law ?
Part of what makes this confusing is that we aren't familiar with them. It's like listening to Roger Rabbit if you don't know the voices of Saturday morning cartoon characters, you just don't get it. ( I had this experience when I first saw the movie, in Germany, where the actors have completely different voices than they do here, where I grew up. )
I think there are sayings like these in our own country. Imagine sayings along these lines.
"It's a free country" - but we are enslaved to Jesus Christ.
"I can do whatever I want" - but some of the things I might want can destroy me.
Sudsy wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 4:12 pm
Some consider total abstaining from alcohol is a right application as it is not only something that can get control on us and/or may be a downfall to a weaker brother to indulge. Paul elsewhere in his writings says we are to look out for one a other in areas that could lead them into sin. Another scripture says that we are free from the control of sin and at the same time slaves to righteousness.
We are not to allow anything to control us, except the Holy Spirit. Seems the Corinthian church was having trouble understanding what freedoms in Christ was about and Paul had to feed them as baby Christians.
Very true.
And his solution was to start teaching them once again who they are in Christ and how to apply that to life.
To me, that rhymes with Hebrews 5:14:
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
But Paul is saying these Corinthians are more in the other camp:
You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child.
So let's become skilled in the word of righteousness, learning how to look deeply into it and apply it to our own lives.
Hot tip: Temple prostitutes? Nope.
Paul is trying to start them down the path with the very basics.
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?