All things are lawful for me

[John Hyperspace]

Many translators believe that there should be quotation marks here:

“All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything. (ESV)

“Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is helpful. “Everything is permissible for me,” but I will not be brought under the control of anything. (HCSB with footnote: The words in quotation marks are most likely slogans used by some Corinthian Christians and corrected by Paul)

I'd have to ask, which translators? The thing about modern punctuation is that it didn't exist in Greek. The only way to know to put quotations into the text is when the writer would say something like, "It is said by..." before making the statement. Any writer who does not add this clause is not properly using the language. Paul often quotes and makes it known, as any good and competent writer would: e.g. Titus 1:12

To put quotations around Paul's words are an arbitrary choice done only for the purpose of manipulating the text. No one reading Paul's words here would ever take them as anything but Paul's own thoughts and words. They would only ever take them as a "slogan" if Paul added the required "It has been said by you..." or some such qualifying clause.

 

[Radagast]

I'd have to ask, which translators?

I quoted two.

The thing about modern punctuation is that it didn't exist in Greek.

True.

To put quotations around Paul's words are an arbitrary choice done only for the purpose of manipulating the text. No one reading Paul's words here would ever take them as anything but Paul's own thoughts and words.

Every commentator I've read takes πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν as quoting what the Corinthians were saying. The structure of the sentence in Greek and the wordplay on ἔξεστιν / ἐξουσιασθήσομαι are consistent with that.

To quote the New international Greek Testament Commentary, for example, "There can be no question that the initial clause of v. 12 represents a quotation used as a maxim by some or by many at Corinth." To quote Calvin, "These words, All things are lawful for me, must be understood as spoken in name of the Corinthians."

 

[John Hyperspace]

I quoted two.

Apologies, I thought you were meaning, translators, and not, translations. I see now. Of course I agree that translations are able to put quotation marks in where they please; but it's not on authority, it's on, bias (I don't mean, a bias in negative connotation, but in bias of their understanding of doctrine)

Every commentator I've read takes πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν as quoting what the Corinthians were saying. The structure of the sentence in Greek and the wordplay on ἔξεστιν / ἐξουσιασθήσομαι are consistent with that.

Commentators are men, and like all men are prone to bias toward their "favored" doctrine; much as a great many scientists are biased toward their "favored" theory, and will manipulate data, and interpret the data in light of that doctrine they favor, in order to preserve; instead of the right, detached and objective interpretation of the information. As such, you'll find I have a very low regard of "commentaries" of men.

To quote the New international Greek Testament Commentary, for example, "There can be no question that the initial clause of v. 12 represents a quotation used as a maxim by some or by many at Corinth." To quote Calvin, "These words, All things are lawful for me, must be understood as spoken in name of the Corinthians."

Whenever you see "there can be no question" in regards to lingusitic structures, you can be sure that bias is at play. But, the fact is, there are no quotation marks. To properly express "quotes" in a language without quotation marks, you need to qualify the statement with "Some say..." or "You have said..." or "It is wrongly said among you..." as Paul always does because he is in fact a good and competent writer: Jesus, for example, always does this: Matthew 5:21-22, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27, Luke: Acts 17:28 and Paul himself: Titus 1:12

So there is abundant precedent of the right way to express the idea "This is what you've said/heard... but this is what I say..." without introduction of confusion. My question to you is, what biblical precedent can you offer aside from this "alleged" unqualified quote of Paul we are discussing? Can you provide another verse in which something is being said or written, without qualification, where the writer says something that he doesn't believe to be true, without clearly expressing "This... but not this..."? Or is this the one and only place in scripture where this phenomenon occurs?

 

[John Hyperspace]

To quote the New international Greek Testament Commentary, for example, "There can be no question that the initial clause of v. 12 represents a quotation used as a maxim by some or by many at Corinth." To quote Calvin, "These words, All things are lawful for me, must be understood as spoken in name of the Corinthians."

I wanted to add something already said, but thought it worth mentioning again. For sake of understanding, let's suppose that this "all things are lawful for me" is in fact "slogan" being said by the Corinthians, and Paul is quoting their slogan. Even if this is the case (and don't misunderstand, I'm still of the mind that it isn't and can't be) Paul is still not refuting the slogan; he is in fact, endorsing it by not condemning it as untrue. When he writes "but all things are not edifying" he isn't writing "but all things are not lawful" he's adding more information to "all things are lawful for me"

If I say "All foods are edible to me, but not all foods are tasty" I'm in no way refuting the first clause, I'm endorsing the truth of it and then adding a caveat concerning that true statement. To understand Paul as saying "all things are lawful for me, is a false saying" here just doesn't seem to me to work in any way. Moreover, I'll cite the following verses which contain the very same spirit as this passage:

Galatians 5:13 Here Paul is again talking about being called to "liberty", but not to misuse that liberty for an "ocassion to the flesh": Paul isn't saying "You're not set at liberty" he is affirming that truth and then adding a caveat to proper use of that liberty. Just as he's doing with "All things are lawful but not all things edify"

1 Peter 2:16 Peter here is using the same spirit, stating the idea that those in Christ are "free" but saying, to use that freedom as a cloak for "maliciousness" isn't indicative of a true love.

None of these are saying "all things are not lawful for me" or "you are not free" or "there is no liberty"; they all agree these things "all things are lawful", "you are free", "there is liberty" as true statements which ought not to be abused in a way not edifying to the brethren. It would be somewhat like a man who is a diplomat to another country having "diplomatic immunity": everything he does is "lawful" but that doesn't mean that this immunity to prosecution is a license to run around committing atrocities just because he wishes to do so without regret.