I
CORINTHIANS 10:29b
(Correctly Translated and the
Great Importance of
This Translation Explained)
Stephen M. Reynolds,
Ph.D.
The verse in the original
Greek is as follows:
sunei,dhsin
de. le,gw ouvci.( th.n e`autou/( avlla. th.n tou/ e`te,rou\ i[na ti, ga.r h`
evleuqeri,a mou kri,netai u`po. a;llhj suneidh,sewjÈ
This is properly to be
translated as in the American Revised Version of 1901: "conscience I
say, not thine own, but the other's; for why is my liberty judged by another
conscience."
The
words u`po. a;llhj suneidh,sewj
have been translated by most English translators as though they were u`po.
suneidh,sewj tou e`te,rou. Thus the King James Version renders these words "of
another man's conscience." Thus
the KJV translation recognizes that man's is
not in the original, but by supplying this word they show they did not
understand Paul's thought. Nevertheless they were honest in indicating what they
had done.
Other translators have not
been as honest as the King James scholars and those of the New King James
Version. They boldly but erroneously have it that Paul by these words was not
referring to another conscience (given to him by God, it must be understood) but
was referring back to the conscience of the other man mentioned in the first
part of this verse.
Two reasons may be suggested
for this mishandling of God's infallible word. One is a failure to take
seriously "the whole counsel of God" and apply the words of II Peter
3:15‑16: "and consider that the long‑suffering of our Lord is
salvation‑‑as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom
given to him has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them
of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and
unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the
Scriptures."
The words "hard to
understand" applied to the epistles of Paul are very important. It seems
that even well-educated people have misunderstood Paul and taken his writings to
be easy in their transitions from one idea to the next. It is easy to assume
that Paul is writing of the same conscience in both parts of I Corinthians
10:29. but Paul carefully distinguishes them‑ The first is the conscience tou
e`te,rou (of the
other) and the second is ; a;llhj suneidh,sewj (another conscience).
E`te,rou is a noun, a;llhj
is an adjective.
This may seem a
small distinction, but there may be a great difference in how a Christian is to
behave according to the way he understands this verse. Most understand this as a
rhetorical question demanding the answer, Why of course my liberty is not to be
judged by another man's conscience. But to understand the passage this way is to
miss the real meaning. If we understand it in this incorrect way we may think
that if our conduct is offensive to another person it is his problem and not
ours. We may take the true statement that Christ alone is Lord of the
Christian's conscience and not receive a new God‑given conscience when
God's word requires that we do so. Most Christians have heard other Christians
say that Christian liberty permits us to act in ways of self-indulgence that
others regard as offensive. Some of us, alas, have believed it. But the passage
in II Peter 3:15‑16 requires us to refuse to accept the easy way of
reading Paul's epistles. We must hold to the true word. And when we determine
what is the true word and true translation we must find the right
interpretation.
The broader context of the passage proves without a
shadow of a doubt that Paul was not saying that we may eat with a clear
conscience when this is offensive to one who observes us. Paul in verse 28 says
"eat not" in these circumstances, although he had previously said
there would be nothing wrong in his eating this food if he did not know someone
was offended by his doing so (verse 27).
Therefore Paul was not
speaking of the other man's conscience in the second part of verse 29 and asking
a rhetorical question expecting this answer: There is no reason my liberty
should be judged by another man's conscience. He was posing a straightforward,
soul‑searching question asking himself in view of what he had previously
said about self-denial, "Why should my liberty be judged by another
conscience (a;llhj
suneidh,sewj)?" The
answer, not given by Paul here, is to be derived from other parts of Scripture.
The answer is not easy because of our natural desire for self‑indulgence.
It is found in other parts of Scripture, especially in Paul's writings. Read
Colossians 3:23 "Do everything with love." Can we eat complacently if
we know this is troubling to the consciences of others? Not if we love them, we
can't, and we ought to love everyone, even our enemies. A Christian must, in
view of others, put off the old easy conscience and have a new, more sensitive
and more loving conscience. By so doing he puts on the mind of Christ, becomes a
better winner of souls and also becomes more fit to enter God's heaven.
Verse 30 is another
typically Pauline difficult verse. It is translated: "But if I partake with
thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?" Paul also leaves this question
unanswered, but the answer is not hard to find if we search the Scriptures. If
we are eating in an unloving manner food which under the circumstances we have
no right to eat. we are properly criticized because we are sinning. Paul is not
suggesting that all he has just written is now changed and if he gives thanks
for what he eats in the presence of people who are offended by his eating he
should not be denounced. Thanking God for a supposed permission from God to sin
only adds to our guilt.
It is possible to translate
a;llhj suneidh,sewj
as another conscience and construe it
to mean the conscience of the other. G. G. Findlay does that in the Expositor's
Greek Testament.1 This does not justify translating it as
such. The King James Version, New American Standard Version. New Revised
Standard Version, King James II and others all translate this incorrectly, and
are subject to criticism for doing so. Jerome in the Latin Vulgate and Beza in
his Latin Version correctly translate a;llhj
as an adjective, as does Findlay (referred to above). But this later scholar
expounds the text as follows: "For to what purpose is my liberty judged by
another conscience?" i.e. "What good end will be served by exposing my
freedom to the censure of an unsympathetic conscience?"
This exegesis leaves the
Christian reader with the idea that it may be permissible to refuse to expose
his freedom to the censure of unsympathetic people, and it leaves the reader
free to understand the passage to mean that if he does not believe his
refraining from eating will serve a good purpose, his conscience may permit him
to eat that which offends. But Paul has already said, do not eat under these
circumstances. Findlay's exegesis leaves an obedient Christian with the option
of eating if he does not think his refraining serves any good purpose.
Rather the force of Paul's
argument is that the believer must not eat under the circumstances. Therefore it
is a matter of conscience, his own enlightened conscience, by which his liberty
must be judged. This is "another conscience" and differs from his
former conscience which permitted him to eat. The unsympathetic conscience of
the other (tou
e`te,rou) has no place in the latter part
of verse 29.
This passage may be thought
to have some bearing on Romans 14:1‑22 where Paul speaks of the weaker
brother, that is, of a Christian who eats only vegetables as a matter of
conscience. Verses 5 and 6 in this passage say that Christians may disagree
about whether to esteem one day more highly than another and that they should
not break off fellowship on this matter.
Romans 14 also makes it
certain that Christians should not deny fellowship or make severe judgments on
matters of what foods we may eat.
There are differences
between I Corinthians 10:23‑32 and Romans 14: 1‑22. One is that in
the Corinthians passage the person who criticizes may be an unbeliever (v. 27).
The Corinthians passage says, "Do not eat" (v. 28). The Romans passage
says something similar with the words in verse 15: "Do not destroy with
your food the one for whom Christ died."
The lesson may be learned
from the Corinthians passage and applied to that of Romans. If a true Christian
should acquire a new conscience because an unbeliever is present watching him
and seeking an occasion to call him a hypocrite and his religion false, he
should refrain from offending and acquire a new, more sensitive and loving
conscience when a `weak" brother is offended at something which he would
otherwise consider as a matter of indifference.
In the Corinthians passage
the believer is told to eat not. In the Romans passage he is told to destroy
not. This leaves the option open to him to persuade the "weak" brother
that it is a Christian liberty to eat the flesh of animals. The command 'Destroy
not" (mh... avpo,llue)
is a very strong expression. It appears to
mean that if a meat‑eater becomes harsh and unloving in his denunciation
of a vegetarian he would destroy the sense of fellowship that this
"weak" vegetarian brother ought to have with his brothers in Christ.
This whole matter under
discussion in I Corinthians 10:23‑32 and Romans 14:1‑22 has nothing
to do with the drinking of alcoholic beverages. The people of the Lorine L.
Reynolds Foundation have given adequate proof from Proverbs 23:31 that in
Christian ethics it is an absolute moral command that alcoholic beverages are
not to be looked at or drunk. This is especially clear when the verse is
properly translated; but in all known translations, the Bible teaches that the
drink it so vividly describes as to its effects on the one who drinks it (verses
32-35) must not be drunk nor even be looked at, either in moderation or excess.
People have failed to
understand this because they have not obeyed II Timothy 2:15. Because another
word with the same spelling and pronunciation used of another beverage is
praised as God's gift to make glad the heart of man they say this applies to the
beverage of Proverbs 23:31 and that the command in this verse need not be
obeyed.
In conclusion, the passage I
Corinthians 10:23-32 including verse 29b and all passages dealing with food and
drink should be subject to careful exegesis, which exegesis should be
accomplished with love, as Paul commands in Colossians 3:23, "Do everything
with love."
1. Edited by Robertson Nicoll, vol. 2, p. 869.
