Patently Absurd (Rewind)
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient, 1 Corinthians 10:23 KJV
Are lawful – The Greek word (sunphero) is a combination word. It comes from sun (which means “together”) and phero (which means “to bring”). We get the English word “sum” – adding up things – from this Greek prefix (sun). The idea is bringing things together in one place. The objective is to profit by adding something. Paul is saying that some things just don’t add up. Some things don’t profit us when they are added to our lives.
Few people have any problem with this idea. We all know that some things just aren’t good additions to life. Paul’s statement seems to be plain common sense. But it isn’t! The problem is the opening of the verse. Paul starts this verse with “all things are lawful,” but obviously all things are not lawful. The Torah gives us clear instructions about those things which are not lawful. Our governments and society put restrictions on behavior. Even common sense tells us that some things are harmful. Paul’s opening claim seems to be patently absurd. How can Paul be so deluded?
The problem is our English translation and cultural understanding of the Greek panta exestin. The verb has three related meanings in New Testament Greek. The first is the power that decides. In opposition to an intrinsic ability (like the power to decide), exousia describes choice that causes change. Thus the word is used to describe the invisible power of God’s word, a declaration that makes things happen. Secondly, the word implies that “this power of decision is active in a legally-ordered whole, especially in the state and in all the authoritarian relationships supported by it.”[1] Finally, the word describes freedom allowed within a community. These last two definitions are crucial. Think about it. Paul chooses a word that has the idea of an ordered structure built into it. exestin is not freedom to do whatever I want to do. That would be license, not freedom, in the Pauline sense. Paul’s idea of freedom is the power to choose whatever is permitted within the structure of the community or granted under the community authority. In his choice of this Greek term, Paul is saying that he has the power that brings about whatever falls within the category of permitted actions. There are no inhibitions preventing Paul from acting in any way that his adopted authority allows. For Paul, this means that anything permitted under Torah is permissible for him.
We read this verse and think of freedom as the ability to do whatever we wish. In our culture, freedom does not imply a structured, pre-existing order that provides authority over the community. But in Paul’s world, that’s exactly what freedom means. Freedom is the opportunity to do what is expected based on accepted authority. For Paul and all of the observant Jews of the first century, this idea of freedom means being able to do what Torah allows and requires without hindrance.
But . . . even if it is permissible under the authority of Torah, Paul says he will still choose not to exercise this power that decides because of other constraints, namely, the constraints placed upon him by his love for his brothers in the Messiah. From the perspective of Torah, Paul is “free” to do whatever a Torah-observant life allows. But Paul recognizes that some of those actions are not profitable for his greater purpose – the proclamation of Yeshua HaMashiach. Paul will not do anything that would jeopardize his assignment even though there are no prohibitions against what he might do.
An example helps us see Paul’s argument. Suppose Paul wanted to observe the Sabbath but he was in a city that prohibited meetings on Friday. Paul would not be “free” to observe what Torah requires. But where there is no such prohibition, Paul is free. He is not free to do whatever he feels like on Friday evening. He is “free” to celebrate the Sabbath without restrictions.
When Paul says that all things are lawful, he means that in the ordered community of Torah, there are no obstacles which would keep him from observing all that is expected of him. He is free to obey. But there is an even greater obligation on his life, the obligation of faithfulness to his calling. Therefore, even though he has no obstacles before him that prevent his observance of Torah, he will still hold himself to a higher standard and he will not do anything that diminishes his mission.
We can see the application of this principle in the life of Yeshua. In the passage in John 8, Yeshua confronts a woman caught in adultery. Under Torah, He is permitted to sentence her (in fact, He is probably the only one who has this permission given the circumstances). So He is free to act according to Torah. But He doesn’t do so. Why not? Because there is a higher principle at work here, the principle of forgiveness and restoration. The Torah is not set aside. But grace overrides Torah permission. If Paul were in that audience, he would say, “All these things are lawful, but they do not all add up to the greater purpose.”
Topical Index: lawful, exestin, free, 1 Corinthians 10:23
[1] Foerster, “exestin, exousia, exousiazo, katexouisiazo” in TDNT, Vol. 2, p. 566.
I thought Yeshua did not condemn the woman, because there were no reliable witnesses who would condemn the woman. None of her accusers were innocent themselves. None were willing to throw the first stone. So he could not condemn her according to Torah, even though he knew she was guilty, when he said go and sin no more.
Skip,
1 Corinthians is Paul’s answer to their questions.
Suppose – just test it – that he is first quoting their argument and than gives HIS answer….
Try this:
1Cor.10:19 – what the Corinthians argue
1Cor.20-22 – Paul’s answer
1Cor.10:23 – what the Corinthians argue
1Cor.10:24-33 – Paul’s answer
This might solve quite some problems in the text.
I find this an acceptable way of reading this text.
What do you think?
Could even Yeshua condemn her without the presence of the man involved in the act?
Ingela, the man or men involved in the act were very likely her accusers, and what exactly did Yeshua write in that sand anyway that caused them to vanish? Was it the description of their actions? What else would have caused them to drop the suit? I like to believe they dropped the accusations when they realized that they would have to answer for their actions, too.
This idea of not going faster than the weakest lamb has been on my mind. I think it also involves not doing something that would offend nonbelievers unnecessarily, either. I have also been thinking about the perfection of formation: that 144,000 strong. I have been thinking that when we finally get it that no one leaves the island until we all build a boat big enough for everyone who wants to go, then the Kingdom has arrived. Don’t rush off without the children – and also be the invitation to those on the street. This is not exactly a secret society. We are supposed to conduct ourselves out in the open – a “spectacle to men and to angels”. That would include the inclusion of all those around us in the love equation. It may even include the notion that I can’t move any faster than what I can figure out how to include (love) my strongest opposition. After all, that opposition is there in a place where the glory of God is expected to be perfected through me.
Again, I get forgiven when I forgive. Forgiveness is the largest part of being able to include anybody else on this planet, for I guarantee that we are all participating in fracture from each other. To forgive that fracture IS the way I include you back in. A choice to love you, then, is not going to be expedient (um, work), seems to me, until I forgive you, and also to conduct myself in the humility towards you that communicates my half of the apology towards the fracture that exists between us. I may be free (unbound by sin) to walk off and leave, but because I have been returned to the freedom to LOVE, I may need to stick around; at least long enough to hang my half of reconnection out just in case someone wanted to respond.
The responsibilities of the Kingdom, like Skip points out, are going to be a good bit larger than just my personal freedom. They also include my responsibility towards the freedom of others.
I don’t really see how this is a response to my question/comment. I was thinking of the cultural and historical background. I have no problem with forgiveness and Yeshua showing mercy… In my understanding, the accusers couldn’t “bring her to court” without the man being present. It takes two to tango…
According to Torah and rabbinic law, you are correct. Both parties must be present and accused. This only means that in all likelihood the entire episode was a test, not an actual infraction that could be prosecuted.
El pasaje de Juan 8, no existe en los originales,fue agregado y creo yo con el propósito de que ya no estamos bajo la ley,tan es así que el Mesías no cumplió con ella y aplicó la “Gracia”
Skip you minister in places where whatever is set before you is often not food for us and refusing to eat it is often a HUGE cultural offence.
How does a person who is already a glaring offence simply because of who their family is gently defuse this situation?
There is a pending practical application for us in this question.
I am not sure how I can reply to this request because I probably don’t know the circumstances, but I do know that open conversation, sharing feelings and frustrations, willingness to actively listen and most of all to put yourself in the other person’s shoes is often the way to bridge gaps. Actions do speak, but sometimes we need words as well. I realize that this might not be a real answer, but maybe the real answer can’t be handled on a web blog. If you wish, we can talk.
“Because there is a higher principle at work here, the principle of forgiveness and restoration. The Torah is not set aside. But grace overrides Torah permission.” This is amazing grace.
Grace that extends to life than death. Not an issue of right or wrong, rather a pronouncement to choose life, Go and sin no more, “a higher principle at work” rather than judgmental condemnation that leads to death.
So much to learn….