I Corinthians 10:23 · Bible study
1 Corinthians 10:23 Commentary: Liberty and Edification
Greek · 10 what the commentators say
Meaning in one sentence
Paul challenges unlimited freedom, showing Christian liberty must serve others' building up. How to balance rights and love?
Research Summary
- Meaning: Christian liberty is real but must be limited by love and the building up of others.
- Key words: πάντα (“all things”), συμφέρει (“is profitable”), οἰκοδομεῖ (“edifies,” literally “builds up”).
- Main debate: How to apply the principles of expediency and edification in specific situations, especially where consciences differ.
- Theological theme: Freedom in Christ is always ordered toward love; the good of the neighbor takes priority over personal rights.
- Best use: A guide for decisions in “indifferent matters”, not settling the letter of the law, but forming a heart that asks “What helps?”
Translation Comparison
BSB Berean Standard Bible 2020
“Everything is permissible,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible,” but not everything is edifying.
WEB World English Bible 2000
“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are profitable. “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things build up.
KJV King James Version 1769
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.
ASV American Standard Version 1901
All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.
YLT Young's Literal Translation 1898
All things to me are lawful, but all things are not profitable; all things to me are lawful, but all things do not build up;
Darby Darby Bible 1890
All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify.
Douay-Rheims Douay-Rheims Bible 1899
All things are lawful for me: but all things do not edify.
Translations in other languages (10 available)
Todo me es lícito, mas no todo conviene: todo me es lícito, mas no todo edifica.
Todas as coisas me são lícitas, mas nem todas as coisas convêm; todas as coisas me são licitas, mas nem todas as coisas edificam.
Tout est permis, mais tout n’ est pas utile; tout est permis, mais tout n’ édifie pas.
Ich habe zwar alles Macht; aber es frommt nicht alles. Ich habe es alles Macht; aber es bessert nicht alles.
Alle dingen zijn mij geoorloofd, maar alle dingen zijn niet oorbaar; alle dingen zijn mij geoorloofd, maar alle dingen stichten niet.
Ogni cosa è lecita ma non ogni cosa è utile; ogni cosa è lecita ma non ogni cosa edifica.
Wszystko mi wolno, ale nie wszystko pożyteczne; wszystko mi wolno, ale nie wszystko buduje.
Все мне позволительно, но не все полезно; все мне позволительно, но не все назидает.
凡事 都可行，但 不 都 有益處。凡事 都可行，但 不 都 造就人。
We are free to do all things, but there are things which it is not wise to do. We are free to do all things, but not all things are for the common good.
Verse in Context
Original Language (Koine Greek)
New Testament · Koine Greek · I Corinthians 10:23
Source: STEPBible TAGNT/TEHB (CC-BY 4.0). Click or tap a morphology code to see the full parsing.
Scholars' Consensus
Commentators across traditions agree that Paul is not denying Christian liberty but setting clear boundaries. Barnes, Calvin, and Gill all note that the phrase “All things are lawful for me” was a Corinthian slogan, likely drawn from Paul’s own teaching on freedom from the law. Paul repeats it from 1 Corinthians 6:12, but now applies it specifically to meat offered to idols. He concedes the point: yes, you are free to eat anything. But then he adds two tests: it must be profitable (συμφέρει) for others, and it must build up (οἰκοδομεῖ) the church. The Cambridge Bible observes that the repetition makes the limiting principle emphatic. Wesley’s summary is crisp: “Supposing this were lawful in itself, yet it is not expedient, it is not edifying to my neighbour.” The consensus is clear: Christian freedom exists, but love for the neighbor and the health of the congregation are the rules that govern its use.
How settled is the interpretation?
Interpretive difficulty: Low
What is clear: Paul asserts that even though believers have freedom in Christ, that freedom must be evaluated by whether it benefits others and strengthens the church.
What Scholars Agree and Debate
| Topic | Agreed | Debated |
|---|---|---|
| The principle of Christian liberty | Paul affirms that believers are free from ceremonial laws and may eat any food. | How far does this liberty extend? Some traditions limit practices that are not clearly sinful but may cause stumbling; others allow more freedom unless directly harmful. |
| The meaning of 'profitable' (sumpheri) | It refers to what benefits the neighbor, not just oneself. | Is expediency measured by immediate edification or also by long-term mission impact? Some see it as pragmatic; others as a moral obligation. |
| Role of the weaker brother | The conscience of a weaker believer should be respected and not violated. | When does accommodating the weak become enabling legalism? How much freedom must be surrendered? Different traditions have different thresholds. |
| Application to modern adiaphora | The principle applies to matters not explicitly commanded or forbidden (e.g., entertainment, dress). | Which contemporary issues qualify as 'indifferent matters'? Views differ on whether certain cultural practices are neutral or carry harmful associations. |
Historical & Cultural Context
The city of Corinth was saturated with pagan temples. Meat that had been sacrificed to idols often ended up in the public market or at private feasts. Some Corinthian believers, proud of their “knowledge” (1 Corinthians 8:1), argued they could eat this meat anywhere, even in an idol’s temple, because the idol was nothing. Paul disagreed. After warning that participation in idol feasts meant fellowship with demons (10:20-22), he now addresses the everyday situation: What about meat bought at the butcher shop or served at a nonbeliever’s dinner table? The issue was not the food itself, Paul affirms the earth is the Lord’s (v.26), but what eating it communicated to others. In a society where religious identity was tied to meals, a Christian eating in an idol temple could confuse weak believers or make them think idolatry was acceptable. The Corinthians’ slogan “All things are lawful” came from a culture that prized individual rights and status. Paul reframes the question: not “What am I allowed to do?” but “What will help my brother or sister grow in faith?” This historical backdrop makes the verse a practical guide, not an abstract principle.
Textual Notes
The earliest manuscripts (including Papyrus 46 and Codex Vaticanus) omit the pronoun “for me” (μοι) after the first and second occurrences of “All things are lawful.” This shorter reading is adopted by the ASV, YLT, and many modern critical texts. The variant likely arose from scribes adding “for me” to align with 1 Corinthians 6:12. The meaning is unchanged: Paul quotes the Corinthian slogan whether or not the words “for me” are present. The point remains that what is lawful must still be tested by profit and edification.
Reception History
Early church writers such as Augustine appealed to this verse when advising Christians about participation in pagan festivals: even if lawful, it should be avoided if it confused others. During the Reformation, Luther and Calvin used it to defend Christian freedom from human traditions while insisting that liberty must be limited by love for the weak. Puritan pastors developed elaborate casuistry around “things indifferent,” using 1 Corinthians 10:23 as a key text. In modern times, it has been applied to debates over alcohol, entertainment, and worship styles, reminding believers that the central question is not “Can I?” but “Does it build up?”
Preaching This Verse
Three-point outline
- The claim of liberty: “All things are lawful for me”, Paul accepts the truth of Christian freedom.
- The test of profit: “Not all things are profitable”, Freedom must benefit others, not just ourselves.
- The goal of edification: “Not all things build up”, The church’s growth is the ultimate measure.
Five-point outline
- Christian freedom is real and God-given.
- Freedom is not selfish license; it is for love.
- Expediency asks: Does this help or hinder my neighbor?
- Edification asks: Does this strengthen the church?
- Paul’s example (1 Cor 11:1): imitate Christ, who did not please himself.
Illustration hooks
- A church discussion about alcohol: it may be lawful, but how does it affect a new believer recovering from addiction?
- Social media use: free to post, but does it build others up or provoke arguments?
- Choosing music in worship: is the goal personal preference or congregational edification?
Questions your congregation is asking
- “How do I decide if something is truly ‘free’ for me when the Bible doesn’t say no?”
- “Am I supposed to give up my rights every time someone else has a problem with them?”
- “What if I try to build up others but they just want me to follow their extra rules?”
Leading a Discussion
This verse pushes us beyond asking “Is this allowed?” to asking “Does this help?” Paul writes to a church that saw freedom as a right. He shows that love is the higher law. As you read, think of a situation where you had to choose between what you could do and what was best for others.
Discussion questions
- Why does Paul repeat the phrase “All things are lawful for me” twice? What does it tell you about the Corinthians?
- What does “profitable” (συμφέρει) mean in this context? For whom should it be profitable?
- What does “edify” (οἰκοδομεῖ) literally mean? How does that picture shape your understanding of the church?
- Read 1 Corinthians 6:12 side-by-side with 10:23. How does Paul add a new dimension in chapter 10?
- Think of a “gray area” in your life. How would applying the test of edification change your decision?
- How do you handle it when another believer’s conscience is stricter than yours? Do you usually give in or defend your freedom?
- Paul’s goal is the salvation of others (10:33). How does that long-term aim help you evaluate daily choices?
Word Study
The key original-language words in this verse. Select any word for its full lexicon entry — meaning, every occurrence in Scripture, and related words.
Cross-References
Source: Treasury of Scripture Knowledge (TSK, public domain)
| Romans 14:15 | Yet if because of food your brother is grieved, you walk no longer in love. Don’t destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. |
| Romans 14:19 | So then, let’s follow after things which make for peace, and things by which we may build one another up. |
| Romans 14:20 | Don’t overthrow God’s work for food’s sake. All things indeed are clean, however it is evil for that man who creates a stumbling block by eating. |
| Romans 15:1 | Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of the weak, and not to please ourselves. |
| Romans 15:2 | Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good, to be building him up. |
| I Corinthians 6:12 | “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are expedient. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be brought under the power of anything. |
| I Corinthians 8:1 | Now concerning things sacrificed to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. |
| I Corinthians 8:9 | But be careful that by no means does this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to the weak. |
Interlinear and lexical data from STEPBible (CC BY 4.0). Cross-reference data from OpenBible.info (CC BY 4.0). Commentaries are public domain.
For personal reflection
Read the devotional page — prayer, application, and "for families"
What the Commentators Say
8 public-domain commentaries, condensed into plain language.
Adam Clarke's Commentary Methodist/Wesleyan 1826
Clarke highlights the Greek phrase meaning not all things are beneficial. For him, Christian freedom in food is real, but love limits it. Eating what is lawful becomes wrong when it offends or grieves a weak conscience.
Barnes' Notes on the Bible Protestant 1832
Barnes argues that even when an action is technically lawful, it may still be wrong if it does not build up the church or advance the gospel. A Christian’s overriding goal of saving souls becomes a better guide than any list of explicit rules, regulating dress, lifestyle, and conduct.
Calvin's Commentaries Reformed 1564
Calvin argues that Christian liberty remains intact even when one chooses not to exercise it. Paul does not deny that all things are lawful, but insists that what is lawful may not be profitable for building up a neighbor. Liberty itself is not surrendered; only its use is restricted for others' good.
Geneva Bible Notes Reformed 1599
The Geneva Notes draw a sharp line between what is permitted and what is actually good for others. They argue that Christian liberty must be limited by two tests: whether an action is expedient (helpful) and whether it builds up fellow believers.
Gill's Exposition of the Bible Baptist 1748
Gill argues that while all foods are lawful in themselves, Christian liberty does not mean every circumstance suits its use. Eating meat offered to idols becomes wrong when it dishonors God, offends a weak believer, or takes place in an idol's temple. What is lawful may still be inexpedient if it harms others, so believers should set aside their rights for the peace and edification of fellow Christians.
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary Protestant 1871
JFB notes that Paul does not appeal to the Jerusalem council's decree but to a broader principle: Christian freedom means not being governed by external things. Using something just because we are allowed to misses the point. The real question is whether it builds up others in faith and love.
Matthew Henry's Commentary Reformed/Presbyterian 1710
Henry cautions that Christian liberty is not simply about what is allowed, but about what builds others up. A thing may be lawful yet not helpful or edifying, so believers must look beyond personal freedom to what serves the good of others.
Wesley's Explanatory Notes Methodist/Wesleyan 1754
Wesley argues that even if an action is not inherently sinful, it still fails the Christian test if it does not benefit or build up a neighbor. Mere lawfulness is not enough; the higher standard is whether it helps others grow in faith.