Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 3
April 25, 2021
Humble, Texas
(118)
1769 KJV Translation:
14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [
there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [
it is] unclean.
15 But if thy brother be grieved with [
thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ [
is] acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed [
are] pure; but [
it is] evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 [
It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [
any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have [
it] to thyself before God. Happy [
is] he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [
he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [
is] not of faith is sin.
1901 ASV Translation:
14 I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself: save that to him who accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
15 For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.
16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
18 For he that herein serveth Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved of men.
19 So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another.
20 Overthrow not for meat's sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [to do anything] whereby thy brother stumbleth.
22 The faith which thou hast, have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth.
23 But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
- I. Paul's Declaration.
- A. I have known and have been persuaded...
- B. The content of the "persuasion".
- 1. "Nothing is 'common' through itself".
- a. This "nothing" has specific boundaries in the text/context: it applies only to the matter of "things eaten".
- b. The use of "common" is interesting because there is a "better" word, "unclean", when dealing with matters of an "acceptable/unacceptable" nature.
- 1) Because Paul is clearly addressing a matter that, because of an improperly schooled "conscience", can be extremely destructive, we must try to understand why he opted for a word that can easily be properly used to describe really "good" things, such as "our common salvation" (Jude 3), or our "common faith" (Titus 1:4), or our "common possessions" (Acts 2:44 and 4:32), but in this context is being used to describe something very dangerous.
- 2) It is instructive that the "better word" ("unclean") is actually used in conjunction with this word in Acts 10:14 and 15 and 10:28 when that "better word" is used without the "negating 'a'". [What I mean is that "unclean" is the word "clean" with a "negating 'a'" affixed to it as a prefix: this is like our words "necessary" and "unnecessary" where the "un" is a "negating" prefix, or, better, "theist" and "atheist" where the "a" is exactly like the Greek "negating 'a'" and turns "theist" into its exact opposite .]
- a) When Peter refused to eat the types of foods represented by the animals on the sheet let down from heaven (Acts 10:11-15), he used both of the words involved in this consideration: "common" and "unclean".
- i. Seriously important: Peter used these words in regard to "food sources" but God meant for him to "apply" the substance of the vision to Gentiles from the house of Cornelius. In other words, though Peter was, apparently, guiltless in respect to the "food" issues of the physical body, he was not "guiltless" in thinking of Gentiles as "lesser human beings" in the days when God had opened the gates of salvation to all, without regard for their national origins. The significance is this: what was going on in the church at Rome was the very thing that was going on in Peter, and God revealed to him that he should "not call any man unholy (i.e., "common") or unclean. What Peter practiced on the physical level was to be set aside in the relational Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.
- ii. At least one lexicographer attempted to make them "synonymous" because of this, but there is a different way to look at Peter's use of two words to reject the divine command ("Arise, and eat."). It is more than likely that Peter was giving two reasons for his rejection, rather than simply being redundant and saying the same thing in two ways.
- iii. Thus, we must attempt to see why Peter wished to characterize the presented food sources as prohibitive for two reasons. The most obvious reason was rooted in the fact that he had never eaten such foods so that his reluctance at this point was deeply rooted in his theology. Therefore, he chose both a "lesser" characterization of the food sources ("common") and a "greater" characterization ("unclean"). And, as to his theology, its details had served to create in "Jews" a strong sense of "superiority" in direct contradiction to Moses' apt description of them in Deuteronomy 9:6. In other words, the "pride of condescension and of judgment" was in full operating mode in Jewish theology and first century practice.
- b) In choosing to use the "lesser" characterization first, Peter gave the weaker reason first.
- i. This means that he recognized what Paul claimed when he said "the Lord Jesus had persuaded him" that "nothing of itself is common". What this most likely means is this: "common" means "not identified as having a special status" (as Luke's clear choice of this term signified in his effort to make us understand that people were releasing their possessions from their own ownership (this was the special "status" involved in this context) so that all could be "owners" in his record in Acts 2:44 and 4:32). Particular ownership means "sanctified" ("set apart") unto one owner so that he/she has complete control over the thing owned. [Note Peter's words to Ananias in Acts 5:4.] Non-particular ownership means "common" control by everyone involved.
- ii. Thus, because God had never "sanctified" certain food sources, those "common" sources were considered "of lesser value for food". It is not that they were not effective sources as "food" to sustain the body; it is that they were not the best food sources as "food" to sustain the body.
- iii. What Peter was, then, saying is that he had never considered eating things that God had never "sanctified" for Israel's "best" experience as His special people. After all, if Israel was God's particularly "beloved" people, He would only want the best for them in all things, including "what to eat".
- c) In choosing to use the "greater" characterization second, Peter gave the stronger reason last.
- i. This means that he recognized that God had, by His dietary commands, given Israel particular ownership of "sanctified" food sources and made the rest "worse than 'common'"; He made them positively "unclean" to Israel.
- ii. Because God had made certain types of "foods" "unclean", Peter was doubly reluctant to eat what he had never before eaten.
- d) Thus, Peter was making his "food" choices based on the fact that not only had God not given Israel a kind of particular ownership over certain food types, He had positively forbidden that to them. "Nothing common or unclean", then, means "nothing not specified for food, and nothing declared to be unclean as a food source".
- i. It is instructive that, for Israel's benefit, certain "food sources" were not merely "common" but actively "unclean".
- ii. The biblical concept of "unclean" related to many things, but it is instructive that it was the term applied to demonic spirits who exist to oppose God's "best" in the lives of His beloved people. These "unclean spirits" are so called because they are to be seen as, not neutral in the issue of man's loyalties, but extremely antagonistic, and, thus, ultimately total failures in that they cannot effectively undercut God's "successful best". The essence of "unclean" is "ineffective as adversaries, but adversaries nonetheless".
- 2. "But to the one reckoning something a food source to be outside of God's parameters" by reason of His desire to provide only the best for His special people, to that one, an actual "notcommon" (as to its essence when applied to 'moral' issues and not 'food' issues) thing becomes a "common" thing.
- a) The adjective, "common", is rooted in the concept of "the natural state of a thing" (such as dirty hands because they have not been washed after having been used in tasks that made them dirty: Mark 7:2).
- b) The "problem" here is that the Jews had taken something in the "natural", physical, realm and exalted it to the "moral", relational, realm. What God had intended in providing the "best" in nature for the sustaining of the body in health was used by Israel to exalt itself as "the best" in the realm of the "moral" things that Israel used to consider itself "more moral" than those who had not had "the best of foods" designated for them; i.e., God has provided "us" with "the best" because we are morally superior to all others so that He favors us because of our greater moral character.
- c) Thus, Paul declared that, because of the persuasion of The Lord Jesus, he now knew that the provision, which was for "the best", was NOT caused by their "moral superiority", just as Moses declared (Deuteronomy 9:6).
- d) The "proof" of the distortion by the uncircumcised of heart, who turned the "natural" realm into a 'proof' of the "relational" realm, is that they had taken "food" that cannot even begin to touch the "heart" because its path is "into the mouth and out through the privy" (Matthew 15:17) so that it totally bypasses the "heart" from which all matters of "clean/unclean" are addressed (Mark 7:18-19).
- 3. "Except for the one considering for himself something common to be, for that one [it is] common."
- a. At this point, Paul extends the issue of "considering something common" to men.
- 1) They do not actually determine a thing to be "common"; for that is something only God can actually do.
- 2) But they actually do "reckon" that God has made a thing "common" so that they must accept His action as governing them.
- b. For such a person, the "thing" is "common".
- 1) The "belief" that God has made a thing "common" is at the root of the man's thinking.
- 2) And, since God deals with men according to their "T"heology, whether correct or incorrect, it is critical for the man to adhere to his own "considerations". The danger in this is on two levels: when one makes his practice of observing abstinence from "common foods" to signal his superiority over those who do not so observe, he/she is participating in an unwarranted pride and opposing God by it; and when one violates his genuine sense that God has forbidden something to him and takes part in the "common", he/she has made himself/herself a rebel against God.