SERMON: “Freedom for the Sake of the Gospel” (1 Cor. 10:25–30)
“Freedom for the Sake of the Gospel” (1 Cor. 10:25–30)
Series: “1 Cor: Holiness from Messes” #38 Text: 1
Corinthians 10:25–30
By: Shaun Marksbury Date: Oct. 17, 2026
Venue: Living Water Baptist Church Occasion: AM Service
Introduction
If there’s one thing Baptists are known for, it’s food! From potlucks to in-home fellowship times, we
typically know how to prepare a meal. Now,
this is a skill that’s more important than you might think at first, for even
in the ancient world, true fellowship and community formed around the breaking
of bread. This could even lead to
opportunities to share the gospel with those who don’t know it.
The good news of the gospel transformed how these meals
could be enjoyed. For instance,
believing Jews could now eat with Gentiles because God tore down the dividing
wall. This is one reason why the Apostle
Peter was worthy of blame in when he stopped eating with the Gentiles when
other Jews came around — Paul said this was “not straightforward about the
truth of the gospel” (Gal. 2:14) and hypocrisy (v. 13). The gospel changes both the things we can eat
and the people we can eat with, granting a freedom for the glory of God that we
shouldn’t ignore. While the concern in
this text isn’t primarily Jewish dietary laws, the same freedom in eating
connects these issues.
Last time, we began talking about that freedom. Here in 1 Corinthians 10:23–24, we noted that
though all things are lawful. Yet, we
also noted that we should seek the good of others. That includes the weaker brother who doesn’t
quite understand our freedom in the gospel yet, and it also includes the
unbeliever we’re trying to reach. And,
as we noted last time, our understanding about our freedom should lead us to v.
31, how we might glorify God.
How does that look in the passage before us? Well, there are two sets of commands — one
set to eat freely in vv. 25–27, and a negative command to stop eating in vv.
28–30. Because the earth and everything
in it belong to the Lord, Christians have a blessed freedom in the Lord to
enjoy marketplace food or even food served in an unbeliever’s home. Nothing placed before us should prompt
spiritual anxiety, whether it’s shellfish or a slab of pork that might have
been used prior to our arrival in a religious ceremony. It is to the glory of God that we eat, trusting
Him when He said He made all foods clean (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:15; 11:9) and
trusting Him with the what-ifs of the past of food.
The text here says that our freedom is only limited when
someone explicitly identifies the food as having an idolatrous history. At that point, we stop. Love for the other person’s conscience and
for the gospel’s credibility requires our abstention from food that would have
ordinarily been available to us. The
same gospel that grants us our freedom should be the cause for which we
willingly limit ourselves.
We may face situations like this, so instead of using our
freedom as a license to get whatever we want, we must primarily be focused on
what glorifies God in the moment. So,
we’ll note two ways in which we can do that this morning. First, we will see that we should believe the
gospel grants freedom in ordinary settings (vv. 25–27). Second, we will see that we should limit our
freedom for the sake of the gospel (vv. 28–30).
Let’s consider our freedom and the gospel with the first point:
First, Believe the Gospel Grants Freedom in Ordinary Settings (vv. 25–27)
Eat anything that
is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake. For the earth is the Lord’s, as well as its
fullness. If one of the unbelievers invites
you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking
questions for conscience’ sake.
I’m taking a slight liberty with the text by bringing up the
gospel, but the ability to eat here is a gospel result in New Testament
theology. Again, we can see Galatians 2
as a parallel to this passage, illustrating that Christians (Jew or Gentile)
have a freedom to eat as a result of the finished work of Christ. We might understand on a human level why
Peter might have been a bit ashamed to openly eat with the Gentiles when a
delegation from James in Jerusalem was investigating this very question, but
Paul was correct to call him out publicly.
This conflict was part of the reason the Jerusalem Council
in Acts 15 was needed. Paul came to
Jerusalem with the report of the work they were doing among the Gentiles, and
everyone was happy until some Pharisees spoke to the assembly. In v. 5, we read that they said, “It is
necessary to circumcise them and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.” Of course, the elders and apostles came to a
different conclusion in that chapter, but Paul undoubtedly had the seeming
Pharisee converts in mind when he said, “false brothers secretly brought in,
who had sneaked in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, in
order to enslave us” (Gal. 2:4). The
freedom won by the gospel was at stake.
The Corinthian Christians seemed to have escaped much of the
Judaizing ways. The more mature among
them understood the freedom they had, though some of the weaker brethren did
not yet understand it. Paul might put up
some guardrails for the application of this freedom, but he never denies
it. In fact, he gives to applications in
these verses:
First, Christians Have Gospel Freedom in the Marketplace (vv. 25–26)
This returns us back to what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor
8:7. This is also where the Judaizing
Pharisees would have had an issue. They
knew a history we might miss: “After
sacrificing animals to their idols, pagans would eat some of the remaining meat
in the idols’ temples and sell the rest to vendors, who would then sell it in
the meat market.”[1] This would have been a violation of the law
in their minds.
Yet, Paul delivers a clear command, one that opens the door
for freedom: “Eat.” A Christian can go
to the marketplace and enjoy it as a bounty that the Lord has given. There is no need for any to be anxious of
heart, for it is a blessing from the Lord.
Now, he gives a stipulation here: “Eat… without asking
questions for conscience’ sake.” A
Christian might be tempted to interrogate the street vendor, asking for
information on the spiritual history of the meat, a self-serving question that
may come across as hostile to unbelievers.[2] My wife was telling me about a woman who was
pounding on the door to the meat department her store at five minutes before
closing, demanding they bring out more choices for her; Christians don’t want
to come across as such “Karens” for Christ in creating unnecessarily religious
tension.
Moreover, this stipulation will help your anxiety more than
you know. Sometimes, we ask questions
because we want to be “sure.” We want to
say we’ve done our due diligence, because we don’t want to be “fooled” into
doing something that others can bring against us later. Maybe we’re the weaker brethren, unsure of
conscience, so we want to do the “safe” thing by asking questions. Beloved, this is relying on ourselves and not
trusting in what God has said.
You might wonder if there is an equivalent application of
this today. I read once that someone
thought items we buy from the thrift store might carry demons into our
homes! You may laugh at that, but there
may be similar questions you have. We
can’t know everything, and while it’s true that we sometimes fall into
preventable errors because we don’t think enough ahead of time, there are
questions we don’t need answered.
If Scripture says an idol is nothing, and that all food is clean, then
why would a Christian needlessly trouble himself with wondering if the food has
been sacrificed to an idol? You will be
tempted by various “what-if” questions in your spiritual walk, but trust that
the word of the Lord above all by not seeking the answers to questions you
shouldn’t even be asking.
Look at where the confidence is in v. 26. We read, “For the earth is the Lord’s, and
all its fullness” (Ps 24:1). Paul quotes
from Psalm 24:1 here, which was what Jews traditionally prayed before eating.[3] To ask about the meat and then try to filter
all purchases through a grid of “potentially idolatrous” and “potentially
allowable” was to return to the Jewish scruples about “clean” and “unclean”
meat and to exercise a lack of faith in what the Lord provides. The Lord owns the whole earth, including the
food used in idolatry, and we should eat with thanksgiving rather than worry.
God is sovereign, and the market separates the meat from the
temple ritual. The pork or fish is just ordinary
food, as its previous religious history doesn’t contaminate it. Asking questions would shrink the available
food unnecessarily and risk denying God’s ownership of creation and His good gifts.
Christians need not live with constant
suspicion, then, about the religious or cultural history of ordinary goods when
that history is not made an issue.
Second, Christians Have Gospel Freedom at an Unbeliever’s Home (v. 27)
Now, I think we have the groundwork for understanding v.
27. This extends the same
principle. If it’s okay to buy meat at
the market for personal use, then it’s okay to eat meat at someone else’s home,
even if it’s the home of an unbeliever.
Moreover, if asking questions unnecessarily muddies the waters at the
marker, it will at an unbeliever’s home, as well.
This was important for the Corinthian Christians. They still needed to live, and that society
valued dinner invitations; a lack invitations meant social ostracization and
marginalization.[4] Moreover, Paul had already said he does not
want Christians to withdraw from ordinary social contact with unbelievers
(5:9–10), and Christians are required to be civil even to pagans.[5] So, ignoring these invitations on the basis
of some religious scruple would have been foolish for the Corinthians.
Again, this is a place where the Judaizers would have
objected to Paul. The Pharisees cited Exodus
34:15, which warned against cutting a covenant “with the inhabitants of the
land,” because they may “play the harlot with their gods and sacrifice to their
gods, and one of them invite you to
eat of his sacrifice.” They interpreted
that to mean it was always wrong to eat with Gentiles because their food might
be contaminated by idolatry.[6] Paul isn’t contradicting the Law, because he
also forbade idolatry in this chapter; however, clearly, a simple dinner
invitation did not necessitate idolatry.[7]
Paul’s advice isn’t different that what our Lord instructed
His disciples (Luke 10:8). This would
include food that might be considered “unclean” by the circumcision party, and
it might also include food sacrificed to idols.
Yet, as one writer notes, following
liberty over legalism is “using Christian liberty to the Lord’s glory.”[8] Accepting hospitality and sharing a meal is
an opportunity for relationship, not an occasion for scrupulous interrogation.
As such, this gospel freedom might even afford gospel
opportunities. Yet, those gospel
opportunities might impact the choices we make at dinner. That brings us to the next point:
Second, Limit Our Freedom for the Sake of the Gospel (vv. 28–30)
But if anyone says
to you, “This is meat consecrated to idols,” do not eat it, for the sake of the
one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake.
I do not mean your own conscience, but the other person’s. For why is my freedom judged by another’s
conscience? If I partake with
gratefulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?
This is where we come to the exception — v. 28 begins with
“but,” and Paul issues a negative command in relation to eating. It’s best to read this as a kind of
parenthesis in his discussion on freedom, but that doesn’t make it unrelated or
unimportant. We’ll note the caution in
this text, and then we’ll see how it may affect the cause of the gospel.
First, a Caution that Should Catch our Care (vv. 28–29a)
The identity of the speaker is a big question here. We could assume from the previous discussion in
8:7–13 that this is a weaker brother from your church that has been invited to
the same meal.[9] I thought that was what it meant when I first
read this, and perhaps that is still the case; this text would then imply that
we should value the feelings of the fellow Christian over those of unbelieving
host.[10] It is worth potentially offending those
outside the church if it means we have the opportunity to love people inside
the church. That implication is true, and
many commentators hold this to be the proper reading of the text, but there is
another interpretation to consider.
The person speaking up to the Christian might be the host himself
or even another unbelieving guest.[11] As one commentator notes, “Paul seems to
depict the informant as a pagan since they do not use the pejorative term for ‘idol
food’ used elsewhere by Paul and other early Jews and Christians, but the
neutral or positive term for ‘food offered to a god/divinity.’ ”[12] We might speculate here that this would be
someone who may know a Christian is in attendance and is curious about how the
Christian will respond to the knowledge that this food being offered to an idol,
but it does seem to be an unbeliever.
Now, the Corinthian Christian might be tempted to respond
with the same flippancy and self-serving focus that he would to the weaker
brother. He might say something like,
“It makes no difference to me, as long as the food tastes good!” The unbeliever would walk away with the wrong
idea, then, like Christians are not people of conviction or that Christians
have no real problem with pagan religion.[13]
Paul requires a different response. He says not to eat it. Often times in these settings, there would be
much more food to choose from, so this was not necessarily an offensive gesture
to the host.[14] As the Lord provides much bounty, there is no
need for the Christian to demand the one disputed food item.
Consider how Paul explains it. This is “for the sake of the one who informed
you, and for conscience’ sake.” The
“and” is explanatory here;[15]
the NLT renders this verse, “out of consideration for the conscience of the one
who told you.” This is a moment of
service for the good of another, and Christians should be willing to experience
a little hunger if it means the advancement of the gospel.
(Some of you are thinking about lunch right now and have an
opportunity for direct application!)
In case we thought Paul meant this is to make our own
consciences feel better, Paul clarifies in the next verse that it is not about
us. We might feel like we’re doing
nothing wrong, but once the idolatrous association has been named, the act is
no longer neutral. Eating can appear to
the unbeliever like hypocrisy, and that is enough cause for our concern.
This is about protecting the gospel’s credibility, bringing
us to the last point:
Second, the Cause of the Gospel Limits Our Freedom (vv. 29b–30)
Paul asks a couple of rhetorical questions here. He asks, “Why is my freedom judged by
another’s conscience? If I partake with
thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?” He doesn’t explain what he means, making this
a confusing section.
Some think Paul is giving voice to some Corinthian
objection, a valid understanding, but it is ultimately a guess that doesn’t
quite fit the context. Rather, these
questions explain the purpose for his exception to our freedom. Freedom and thankfulness are good Christian
truths, but they must never become excuses to invite an outsider to judge the
Christian as inconsistent or hypocritical.
The Christian can alter his behavior without altering his
core convictions.[16] As we’ve noted before, he may enjoy a freedom
in some contexts and abstain in those which may prove to be a stumbling block
to others. Here, Paul is saying it’s far
better to avoid causing others to judge and condemn us. And, when the soul of another is at stake,
then the Christian should be willing to forgo the steak.
Conclusion
Our freedom in Christ is real and biblical. Because the earth is the Lord’s, we may
receive ordinary food (and ordinary cultural goods) with thanksgiving. And that is glorifying to Him, so we don’t
need to walk around with troubled consciences.
Even so, we should gladly limit that freedom when exercising
it would give an unbeliever grounds to question the integrity of the Christian
or the gospel. Consider Christ Himself as
our model: He exercised perfect freedom yet became a servant so that many might
be saved. We should not be demanding
service; we should seek to serve.
Do all for the glory of God, trusting the good news of the
gospel of Christ while seeking to see it spread to those who don’t believe.
[1] Andrew David Naselli, Romans–Galatians, 2020, X, 307.
[2] F. Alan Tomlinson, CSB
Study Bible: Notes, 2017, 1826.
[3] Naselli.
[4] Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The
First Letter to the Corinthians,
The Pillar New Testament Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 491.
[5] Matthew Henry, Matthew
Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2263.
[6] Ciampa and Rosner, 490.
[7] Ibid.
[8] John F. MacArthur Jr., 1
Corinthians, MacArthur New
Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 246.
[9] J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, Eds., ESV
Global Study Bible, (Wheaton, IL:
Crossway, 2012), 1618.
[10] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The
MacArthur Study Bible, electronic
ed., (Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 1997), 1744.
[11] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael
S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R.
Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife
Study Bible, (Bellingham, WA:
Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Co 10:28.
[12] Ciampa and Rosner, 492.
[13] Ibid., 493.
[14] Ibid., 491–492.
[15] Ronald Trail, An
Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 10–16, 2nd ed., (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 48–49.
[16] David K. Lowery, The
Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 528.