Understanding 1 Corinthians 10:27

When I was first getting an understanding of Biblically clean eating and keeping other commandments in Scripture, 1 Corinthians 10:27 kept throwing a wrench in my understanding of the Bible.

This verse often gets translated like this:

"If any unbeliever invites you to a meal, and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience." -1 Corinthians 10:27 NIV

Isn't this giving permission for us to eat anything, including unclean animals? At least when someone serves it to us? And if I shouldn't raise questions of conscience, I guess that means I should disregard any concerns I have over the ethics and decisions of multi-national corporations that are largely in control of the food supply, and not worry about things like supporting local farmers, good growing practices, or fair trade.

While it's hard to understand the above passage as anything but a free pass to do whatever we want, that is incredibly confusing in light of so many other passages from Scripture about clean eating! Why does the Bible share the story of Daniel refusing to eat unclean meat? Why does Peter mention after his vision that he has never eaten anything unclean? Why were Adam and Eve kicked out of the garden because of eating something the Creator told them not to? Why does Leviticus succinctly enumerate which animals should not be eaten? What is the point of all this if we are ultimately allowed to eat anything?

We need to know that the ancient Greek did not have punctuation. It just had words. How you string them together will greatly impact the meaning of the words! Do you remember those illustrations from middle school English on the importance of commas? Words like, "I want to eat, Mother" can mean someone is telling their mom they want to have dinner. But if you remove the comma and are left with, "I want to eat Mother," then the same words take on a cannibalistic meaning! That's a silly example but it demonstrates how punctuation can dramatically change the meaning of a sentence.

When Scripture is translated into English, it's up to the translators to add the grammar and punctuation that make it a lot more readable for us. How could their personal beliefs and the religious tradition they are surrounded with not impact where they choose to put those punctuation marks? While I believe the word of YHWH is perfect, human translations of it are not.

The word for word Greek translation goes like this:

all - the - those being offered - to you - you eat - not any - thoroughly judging - through - the - knowledge

The first time I read this I stopped after, "All being offered to you you eat." But if you keep going you have, "All being offered to you you eat not any." What a difference! This gives us an entirely opposite meaning! In the Greek, there is no punctuation to indicate if the word for 'not any' should be paired with eating or with thoroughly judging. It's up to the reader to understand how these words fit with Scripture. We do that by looking at the context this statement is made in - what's going on in the rest of the chapter? what was being discussed before that? who is the audience? - and what the rest of the Bible says about this subject.

Which translation fits better with the context of this statement?

A few verses prior in 1 Corinthians 10:21, "You cannot drink from the cup of YHWH and the cup of demons." And just a few verses later, 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, "Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of YHWH," which illustrates that our decisions around food can glorify YHWH or not. From those verses it wouldn't make sense to say to not raise questions of conscience or use judgment when it comes to food matters.

Which translation fits better with the rest of the Bible?

We have instructions like, "you shall not eat what is unclean," lists explaining what can and cannot be eaten, examples of people like Daniel and Peter, and no indication whatsoever from the Messiah that they food instructions are no longer applicable. He even went out of his way to say, "I did not come to abolish the commandments." Translating the verse as, "Eat whatever is set before you without using your judgment," would be starkly opposed to other things the Bible says about eating.

There isn't anything in the context of this chapter or the rest of the Bible to support the common translation of, "Eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience." That translation is jarring and doesn't fit with the rest of Scripture. A few chapters prior Paul literally tells us not to eat something that would cause someone else to stumble, so it wouldn't make sense for him to say to eat anything now.

Are you a follower of church tradition or YHWH's word? If we call ourselves Bible believers, would it be more fitting to translate this verse in a way that lines up with the rest of Scripture or with church doctrine? For me, that's an easy choice.

I believe a better translation of this part of Scripture would be:

"Whatever is set before you eat nothing, ask questions for conscience's sake."

When we understand the verse this way it fits with the rest of Scripture, and the verse makes more sense itself. Otherwise, why would it throw the bit in there about the conscience or "thoroughly judging through knowledge"? Does that really sound like the Bible, "Go ahead and do whatever - don't worry about your conscience"? This book is filled with commandments on how to live and stories of examples we are to follow - including people literally dying to keep YHWH's instructions - and then suddenly, "Whatever situation you're in, don't worry about turning to Scripture to see what you're supposed to do." (Because 'the knowledge' would be knowledge of what the Bible says.) Not judging if something is acceptable according to Scripture or not would also be a direct contradiction from the Messiah's instruction in John 7:24 to judge righteously!

It's also interesting to look at why this might have been said. We know that many early believers who had been part of Judaism followed an unbiblical rule of not eating with unbelievers. This began to change following Peter's vision, so many former Jews were eating with people who were new to the faith, or unbelievers, for the very first time. Paul is giving practical advice on how you act when you are in that situation, since many people he knew hadn't experienced that before. Also happening at the time was a huge evangelism push, where believers travelled far and wide to share the good news of the Messiah. These people were intentionally going to the homes of unbelievers and needed to know how to conduct themselves in a godly way. Paul is reminding his audience that unbelievers or even new believers are typically not familiar with the Biblical instructions about food, so that they don't accidentally eat something the Bible says not to while dining in someone's home.

This verse is an admonishment to actively work to keep the Bible's instructions about what we eat. It is literally telling us to ask questions before diving into a meal that someone else has prepared. When we have dinner at a family reunion, brunch at a friend's, or go out for a meal it is appropriate to ask questions about the ingredients so that we can maintain a Biblically clean diet. Questions like, "What's in this salad?" or "Is the quiche vegetarian?" or "Is this sausage beef or pork?" are okay to ask so that you can be informed about the decisions you make! Since we are to glorify YHWH with what we eat, that effort is well worth it.

More on Biblically clean eating:
Understanding Peter's Vision
Understanding the Messiah Declaring All Foods Clean
Five Reasons Believers Should Keep the Bible's Dietary Commandments