All Things Are Lawful Unto Me

[marks]

So is eating things offered to idols right or wrong? When I read Acts, I thought the Apostles had settled the issue:

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Then along comes Paul who says no, it is okay as long as you're not offending someone.

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.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?

I find his criticism of people who obey the ruling of the Apostles unwarranted. Why accuse them of having a weak conscience?

If the life of faith teaches that we have full liberty, then it is the lack of faith to not fully believe that. And it is for freedom that Christ has made us free. And he who the Son sets free, is free indeed!

But that which lacks honor is be be given greater honor.

If you look a the full letter written by the council of the Apostles, they basically say, because the Jews living by you have been hearing Moses taught every week for all their lives, we want you to abstain from these things.

If we take the full understanding, it's to say that these are "in your face" to the Jews, so don't do them. It's a matter of love.

Notice, he didn't tell them to abstain from eating unclean animals. Or to be sure to wear blue tassels. Or to keep the Sabbath.

I'd also like to know how anyone could get food offered to idols unless he was at the temples of such idols. I wonder if he thought attending idolatrous services for free food would be considered "expedient" in his book.

Paul truly confounds me at times.

What I've been told is that they would sell meat that was offered to idols in the markets at reduced prices. So if you shopped from "that" meat counter, well, perhaps some of your Christian brothers may not want to eat with you. Or that you could get a cheap meal at the idol's temple.

Eating things offered to idols is fine, we all know the idol is nothing. They set a plate in front of a rock and mouth some words, it's all meaningless to us. It's just a rock, no matter what they think. Even in their minds offering food to a demon god, still, God made the porterhouse, the potato, the asparagus and mushrooms, the butter and parmesean and garlic, the triple fudge cake. So I don't care where they've been, it's my favorite meal, and I'm eating it!

But . . . if someone is there who believes we shouldn't, out of love for them, I'll pass. And then I'll go home and cry!

Much love!

 

[marks]

I already mentioned the fact that if no one wanted to steal, we wouldn't need laws about stealing, didn't I? It still applies equally to to everyone.

Do you want to steal?

If you don't want to, you don't need to be told not to. The new man does not want to steal. So if you want to steal, it just means you aren't trusting God, and rather than obey the "Do Not Steal" law, instead of that, simply return to trusting in God. Put off the old man, and put on the new man. Don't steal anymore, instead, work, make things, so you can give to those who are running out of options except to steal.

Trust God, and serve others. That's the only law we need.

Much love!

 

[amadeus]

I believe there has always been only one Law, the Eternal Law of Love. The guidelines in the Bible are just that, guidelines; and the laws given to Israel were given only after they said they did not want to hear the Voice of God. So they were given approximate rules, useful in that day in that cultural context. Those rules were useful for people who did not hear the Voice of God the way traffic laws are usually useful today. As people mature, they need to know where to break the rules. For example, there are laws about running red lights and speeding; but if you were driving someone with a medical emergency to the hospital, I hope you would break traffic laws as safely as you could. I hope you would steal my car if you needed to. Those laws were designed to save lives, not put them at risk.

You are speaking about the difference between the letter and the spirit of the law. I do agree with the need to understand this distinction. While I understand why men feel it is necessary to have written black and white laws, a good cop or judge will understand the need at times bend a little to apply the spirit of the law.

God is the very best of "cops" and "judges". His goal ultimately for us is that we become as He is. How close can we come? How much do we really want to be like Him rather than simply receive what we look at as His blessings?

Expedient? I don't like how Paul used the word. He makes "right and wrong" sound like a matter of convenience. Not all things are lawful because not every act is in line with the Golden Rule. If I am deliberately unloving towards my neighbors, I cannot claim to be on good terms with God, saying that I love God and that He approves of me, not when I am injuring His other children.

On the word, expedient, I must agree that it can confuse people. There should have been an clearer, simpler way to express his meaning. It reminds me of that other thread where some words written by Calvin given. Without communication what is the point of opening our mouth to speak or taking up a pen to write a sentence?

Why didn't Paul keep it simple and teach the Golden Rule? Even if he hadn't heard Jesus' quote, he would have known what Gamaliel's grandfather had said, "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; g0o and learn." Hillel the Elder was right. Jesus was right. Why did Paul make this so complicated?

I guess Paul understood himself and presumed he conveyed his own understanding to others. In a sense, he, like Jesus, spoke in parables. Who was intended [by God] to understand so very well all that the man wrote? The good thing is that God looks at our hearts always… rather than only at our understanding of all the little points complex or simple in the scriptures. God will use the scriptures, but we do need help to understand what all of the writers of scripture have written.

 

[Grailhunter]

1st Corinthians 10:23
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. NASB

All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. KJB

I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. NIV

We are allowed to do anything,” so they say. That is true, but not everything is good. “We are allowed to do anything”—but not everything is helpful. GNT

For that which is equitable, seems to be justice, and equity, goes beyond the written law. ~ ~ Aristotle

Paul is suggesting that Christianity is common sense applied. Wrong thinking versus right thinking. Christianity is not about lawfulness or lawlessness, because laws do not think or reason.

Christ says do not do this or that, not because He has a pet peeve about one thing or another, but rather because some things cause bad things. Christ’s general concepts of sin are not about us not enjoying life, it is about us not hurting ourselves or others. It is about us respecting ourselves and other people. It is about not bringing disgrace upon ourselves and others.

Aristotle’s quote was about the fact that an equitable mind is wiser than the written law. With all of Paul’s discussions and confrontations regarding the Law and that fact that Christians are not under the Law, so they do not obey the Law, they do not observe the Law, they do not look to the Law for righteousness, he probably felt the need for context. There is a right and wrong pertaining to common sense.

All things are not profitable….all things do not edify.
Edify---instruct or improve (someone) morally or intellectually.
Christians are lawless…..but not mindless.
Christians do not obey laws….but their morals exceed the law.
Life has too many possibilities for a written law to provide adequate guidance.
Actions governed by a mindful and heartfelt process of reasoning.

1st Corinthians 6:12
All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

 

[FHII]

Very significant concept there. That grace can become a license for sin. How can such a thing be?

Much love!

The Bible never used that phrase. I was more thinking of Peter's words when he said not to use our liberty for a cloke of maulitiousness.

 

[Hidden In Him]

First, going to prostitutes is not lawful, period. At least in many states, but I believe it's covered by gràce. The hurt that comes with it, like I expounded on, won't be covered by gràce.

Nonetheless, it was just an example. It never was my main point.

As for 1 Corinthians 6:12 talking about unclean meats... I don't think so. Paul repeats it in chapter 10. THERE I can see your case (though I don't agree, I can at least see it). But chapter 6 is not talking about unclean meats being lawful but not expedient.

Chapter one, we learn of divisions of loyalty. Chapter 3 we learn of strfe and divisions. Chapter 5 we learn of fornication, even suggestions of sins sleeping with their mothers. There is also Lamentations against railers, drunks, extortion and idolators.

Chapter 6 brings something else: suing brethren before unbelievers instead of bringing it before children of God.

Now my main verse was verse 12. That's where he says all things are lawful but not expedient. Verse 13 talks about eating meats, but they, like the belly will be destroyed. So in a small way, such a notion does have a connection. But only if you are ignorant and you really want it to be about dietary practices. Yet, verse 13 is the only time he talked about it up to that point and doesn't speak of it again till chapter 8.

So, up until 1 Cor 6:12, Paul is addressing divisions in the Church, extortion, sex with mother's, drunkards, taking brethren to court before unbelievers, idoltry and probably a few things I left out.

So, I don't think verse 6:12 is about eating a pork chop. And frankly, I don't think that's what he was getting at in chapter 10 either.

Ok, I backed up and took a look at 1 Corinthians 6 again, and learned a few things I hadn't seen before (which is why discussing the word can lead to good things when all the confrontational stuff is removed, praise God).

Here is what I see as the main points he was making. "All things are permissible" (this translation is better than "lawful," as a different word is used in the Greek) appears to have become a mantra the Corinthians had adopted, but while it applied well regarding some things such as eating unclean foods and meat sacrificed to idols, Paul was saying it did not apply where sexual immorality was concerned. They appear to have made the jump from "Meats for the belly and the belly for meats" to "means of sexual release are for the body, and the body is for sexual release," which in turn would have justified the use of prostitutes. This was applying the principle of "All things are permissible" way too far. Whereas eating meats sacrificed to idols may be permissible (according to the vision given to Peter), yet it was not always beneficial to the believer because it caused their brothers and sisters to stumble. But this principle did not apply to sexual immorality, and thus sexual immorality was not permissible.

About your dividing the points up that are made in the previous Chapters, I appreciate that. Not many break things down that well. And you are right that eating meats is really not the driving issue. But if you want my break down, Paul's driving issue from the beginning of Chapter 5 on is that they are A. allowing sexual immorality to be practiced among them, and B. failing to judge brothers who are sinning in this matter. All the way through the end of Chapter 7 he is STILL addressing this, in an attempt to fully teach them how to properly deal with their sexuality. Couched right in the middle of the teaching comes his clarification: That "All things are permissible" does not apply in the matter of sexual immorality, because it is a blasphemous act to unite the body of Christ with the body of a prostitute.

Even if you still don't agree with me, thanks for bringing up the passage for discussion : )

 

[marks]

They were using Grace for the wrong reasons.

What would that be? And how is it that you can "use Grace for the wrong reason"? What would that look like?

Much love!

 

[marks]

(which is why discussing the word can lead to good things when all the confrontational stuff is removed, praise God).

Amen!!!

 

[Hidden In Him]

So, I will not go into a long commentary. But I will say that yes, all things are lawful and covered by gràce. (Again with the caveat that I believe it is fleshly allowance). But that by no means makes it right, good, or non harmful. Grace covers the sin, but not the consequences! Grace may cover me from seeking out prostitutes (something I DO NOT DO), but Grace isn't going to keep me from getting AIDS and it's not going to keep my marriage from being harmed. It also isn't going to glofify God in any way and it's going to bring reproach to the Church. As an extreme example....

And now to cover the primary argument that I think you were presenting in this thread; that such sins can be covered by grace but will nevertheless lead to earthly consequences:

Actually, I think 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 implies that they not only bring earthly consequences but can also bring loss of salvation if they are not repented of. The man who was practicing sexual immorality in these verses was to be excommunicated and handed over to Satan, "for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved on the Day of the Lord" (paraphrased). Now what that implies is that he was no longer to be considered a brother, and that unless he repented after seeing the error of his ways when judgement came upon his flesh, he would not make Heaven. Some might interpret it differently, but excommunication was paramount to saying that the sins he was practicing were sufficiently corrupt to place him outside the body of Christ, both now and (unless he repented) in eternity.

 

[Sabertooth]

Grace covers what the Law calls Sin (while God works in our hearts). It doesn't take away the consequences of really bad decisions, though. (Nor turn bad decisions into good ones.)

 

[Hidden In Him]

Greetings, @Sabertooth. Nice to see you at this forum.

 

[quietthinker]

Though our works have nothing to do with whether we live with God or not. Jesus' works do. Our works show the reality of our faith.

Much love!

When the scripture says:-
'he who overcomes will have a right to the tree of life' Rev:2:7
'he who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death' Rev:2:11
'to him who overcomes I will give of the hidden manna.......' Rev:2:17
'to him who overcomes and does my will to the end.....' Rev2:26
'he who overcomes will be dressed in white......' Rev:3:4
'him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple.....' Rev:3:12
'to him who overcomes I will give the right to sit with me on my throne' Rev:3:21

There is a lot of emphasis on overcoming. What do you suppose is to be overcome if our works have nothing to do whether we live with God or not?

 

[ScottA]

The Biblical text:

1 Corinthians 6:12 KJV
All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

1 Corinthians 10:23 KJV
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

These are some pretty profound verses which I wish many would consider. Some general observations:

1. We should take into context what Paul's problem was with the Church at Corinth. I do not believe it was their sins (though they were sinning and Paul wasn't happy about it) but rather they were mistreating others with their sins and letting unbelievers judge them.

2. Does this verse really mean "ALL" things? I believe it does, as it pertains to the flesh. It doesn't pertain to spiritual sin which is false worship. THAT could be a big discussion, of course, but it's not the direction I want to go.

The verses do say all things are lawful. That's part one. Part 2 is that: even though they are lawful, it doesn't make them expedient (practical, moral, necessary). It doesn't mean we should be controlled by them (even if we do engage in them from time to time). And it certainly doesn't mean they edify (give glory to) us or God.

In short, Just because we have liberty and Grace (through faith) doesn't mean we should or do act upon it.

So, I will not go into a long commentary. But I will say that yes, all things are lawful and covered by gràce. (Again with the caveat that I believe it is fleshly allowance). But that by no means makes it right, good, or non harmful. Grace covers the sin, but not the consequences! Grace may cover me from seeking out prostitutes (something I DO NOT DO), but Grace isn't going to keep me from getting AIDS and it's not going to keep my marriage from being harmed. It also isn't going to glofify God in any way and it's going to bring reproach to the Church. As an extreme example....

Whether you believe that Grace covers all things of the flesh (as I do), all things otherwise, or you don't believe it covers all things at all... It's an interesting verse to wrap your thoughts around.

Even us who believe it covers all things should consider that we have a responsibility to understand this verse. And those who don't believe all things are lawful, well... The Bible does say it, but such liberty does come with responsibility! And those who don't believe all things are lawful should at least understand that those who do understand these verses. In other words, just because we believe all things are lawful doesn't mean we are doing all things!

One more pertinent verse, without comment (for now):

1 Peter 2:16-17 KJV
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. [17] Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

This is just one of many amazing realities of life for those who are "alive and remain" in the world. Paul had the more challenging task of ministering to both those who were brought up under Israel and the knowledge of all that was promised with the coming of Christ, but also to those of whom had not and had only looked on from the outside.

As such Paul's ministry (more than any of the other apostles) had to include the reality of the world, but also the kingdom: to some as in the world, to some as in the kingdom, and also to those who were subject to both. Thus, he preached that the word of truth must be "rightly divided", as to whom it actually pertained.

Paul walked a fine line.

In this particular instance Paul was saying that he himself was speaking as one under the terms of the kingdom where the law is fulfilled for all. But he did so with caution, because what he said also very often went out to those who had not yet entered into the kingdom. When these same words are spoke or read today, the same is true, and therefore he cautioned not to abuse all that has been attained by those who have attained, for the sake of those whom have not attained. He even appears to contradict himself, saying at different times that he had not yet attained what he confesses here to have actually attained, which he explained was to "be all things to all people, that I might save some."

The point is...Paul was expressing that the kingdom of heaven had indeed come upon men, just as Christ has announced. That one could, even now, and even in the world, walk free in Christ.

 

[marks]

When the scripture says:-
'he who overcomes will have a right to the tree of life' Rev:2:7
'he who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death' Rev:2:11
'to him who overcomes I will give of the hidden manna.......' Rev:2:17
'to him who overcomes and does my will to the end.....' Rev2:26
'he who overcomes will be dressed in white......' Rev:3:4
'him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple.....' Rev:3:12
'to him who overcomes I will give the right to sit with me on my throne' Rev:3:21

There is a lot of emphasis on overcoming. What do you suppose is to be overcome if our works have nothing to do whether we live with God or not?

Hi quietthinker,

How do we overcome? And what does it mean to overcome?

Much love!

 

[Helen]

In the contemporary, secular vernacular, it is the equivalent of saying,
"Just because you CAN do [something], doesn't mean that you SHOULD do [that thing]..."

 

[brakelite]

The law is given for the ungodly.

How often I wonder is that verse used by those who believe themselves godly presumptuously, and if they seriously looked at the law, would discover how ungodly they were and appreciate how noble is that law which leads them to Christ in repentance. Then think how foolish they were to think that the law wasnt for them, but the "ungodly".

 

[marks]

How often I wonder is that verse used by those who believe themselves godly presumptuously, and if they seriously looked at the law, would discover how ungodly they were and appreciate how noble is that law which leads them to Christ in repentance. Then think how foolish they were to think that the law wasnt for them, but the "ungodly".

Interesting thing to wonder.

Who is it, do you suppose, who presumptuously believes themself godly? But isn't? And is still then under Law?

This is the unbeliever, is it not?

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

Grace covers what the Law calls Sin (while God works in our hearts). It doesn't take away the consequences of really bad decisions, though. (Nor turn bad decisions into good ones.)

That is all true...but it is also something much greater.

Paul declared among those under the law (whether the law of Israel or of Caesar), that contrary to the ways of the world, he was not under the world, but under Christ whom had fulfilled the law...meaning he was above it, just as God is above the law.

So, we can view his declaration as counsel regarding our relationship with each other, or regarding our relationship with God and Christ. But in light of the whole counsel of God...it is both.

 

[quietthinker]

Hi quietthinker,

How do we overcome? And what does it mean to overcome?

Much love!

I'm surprised you do not know something as primary as this marks.

In John 16:33 Jesus tells his disciples to take heart because he has overcome the world and in Revelation 3:21 he will give the right to sit with him on his throne to those who overcome just as he overcame.
Temptation and sin of course......the allure to go back to our natural default position of dysfunction (because that's what sin is and more than that, it is rebellion disguised as piety. It is the desire to pull the wool over ones own eyes and well as God's, let alone the eyes of others.
My signature statement is its epitome : 'What men want is a method of forgetting God that shall pass as a method of remembering him' EGW

 

[FHII]

Even if you still don't agree with me, thanks for bringing up the passage for discussion : )

Well there are things I disagree with, but regardless, sexual immorality was happening along side mistreating each other and Paul was unhappy about them both. Whether we say it was unlawful or simply not expedient seems to be a silly thing to debate.

You brought up an interesting theory:. Paul told them all dietary things were lawful and they carried that principle over to other matters. The Bible doesn't say that happened, but it isn't too far out there a theory. I certainly do believe they were taught previously about all things being lawful... Whether it was only about meats or other issues. Some people may not realize this, but Paul had previously written to them (though we don't have that letter and know only what Paul said was written ... See ch 5:9)

Nonetheless, I do agree it (that all things were lawful) was something they were taught and mishandled.