Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 11
July 18, 2021
Humble, Texas
(134)
1769 KJV Translation:
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:
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 "Repetition" Of His "Kingdom" Principles.
- A. The aforementioned "chiastic" structure of Paul's words (see (127)) made the essence of The Kingdom of The God his major subject of interest.
- B. Now we are "into" a look at Paul's second half of his chiasm.
- 1. The "other side" of the essence of The Kingdom of The God is presented in the words of 14:18.
- 2. The "other side" of the prohibition of using a freedom so that blasphemy results is presented in the words of 14:19.
- 3. The "other side" of the prohibition against "destroying the work of God" simply to be able to eat what is tasty to one's tongue is presented in the words of 14:20a.
- a. "Not for the sake of food...".
- 1) This is "appetite" plus the "unloving arrogance of the privileged".
- 2) This "food" (elements of the dietary code, particularly regarding meat sacrificed to idols) is physical food for the physical body which, in multiple places, has been used as a metaphor for "life sustaining relational principles" in the relational world of "My meat is to do the will of Him Who sent Me".
- b. "Continue destroying the work of The God".
- 1) The present, active, imperative indicates an on-going, active practice of destruction. Paul's command is "Stop". However, this verb is in the second person singular just as the verbs in 14:15 ("walk" and "destroy"). There is a hint here of a "ringleader" because the verbs in the parallel passage in 16:17-19 are plural.
- 2) The word translated "tear down" in the NASB is "kataluo", a word used in 16 texts of the New Testament.
- a) Paul used this word in three texts of his letters: Romans 14:20; 2 Corinthians 5:1; and Galatians 2:18.
- b) Luke's record in Luke and Acts contains six texts with this word: Luke 9:12; 19:7; 21:6 and Acts 5:38, 39; and 6:14.
- c) Matthew uses it in 5:17; 24:2; 26:61; 27:40.
- d) Mark uses it in 13:2; 14:58; and 15:29.
- e) Summary: This word means something close to "dismantle". When used of a physical building, it means to remove the building stone by stone; when used of a theological concept, it means to take the supports away one by one. The fundamental foundation of "being built up" is a clear conscience and, thus, the bottom line of "dismantling" the work of God is creating a carelessness about the issues of "conscience".
- 3) There is a significant conundrum in Paul's command.
- a) How can Paul, on the one hand, declare that "God will make him/her (his household servant) stand" in the day of judgment (14:4), and then turn right around and posit the "dismantling" of His "work" as it regards the "brother" whose grasp of The Gospel is insufficient to withstand the onslaught of a combination of "lust" for approval and a loveless "superiority of understanding"?
- b) Paul's basic "theology" ...
- i. Is that God is a God of purpose and that He "calls" people into His individual purpose for each one of them (Romans 8:28)... [Carefully note Philippians 3:12-13].
- ii. Is that the "calling" (with purpose in mind) is "irrevocable" (Romans 11:29) and God, Himself, is "immutable" (as James says it in James 1:17 and the author of Hebrews says it in Hebrews 6:17 and 13:8)...
- iii. Is that the activities of men do impinge upon at least some of what God has set forth (Galatians 2:21 and 2 Timothy 2:20-21) and are "instructed" by the words of God so that they may be "thoroughly furnished"/"equipped" for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
- iv. Is that "standing" in the Day of Judgment is the outcome of being "in Christ" so that it is not the outcome of success in guarding one's "conscience"; but, rather, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:15, "...he himself will be saved...".
- v. Is that men are extended the promise that "...if anyone cleanses himself from these [things] he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work... [so] ... flee from youthful lusts and pursue righteousness, faith, love [and] peace, with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart" (2 Timothy 2:20-22).
- c) Actions do matter; but they cannot, ultimately, undo what God has "purposed". It is not for man to know many of the specific details; it is for man to accept his own part of the revealed process. Note well Mordecai's declaration to Esther in Esther 4:14; both the confidence and the consequence.
- i. Some men discount the reality of a divine "purpose" that will override what men have decided.
- ii. Others overdo the teaching of the divine "purposes" so that there is no room for men's choices and actions except as a mirror of God's absolute predestination of every particular.
- iii. The facts are that God's "purposes" are somewhat limited, not as to result, but as to means (Note how Jacob obtained the blessing of the birthright; not a godly "means"), and that men's choices are "corralled" by the ultimate purposes. There are "absolute fences" and there are "individual choices" in every pasture of sheep so that they may eat as they decide but they may not go beyond the fences. It is God's immeasurable wisdom that makes "possible" these distinct elements so that men who deny one or the other are simply ignorant of God's immeasurable wisdom. All of Scripture is turned to serve the development of man into "slaves" of The King, but Scripture is ineffective against false loves and confidence in lies. The "tension" is significant just as Paul teaches when he says, on the one hand, "...I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God 'together with' me..." (1 Corinthians 15:10), but on the other hand, "...lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (1 Corinthians 9:27). THUS: any "doctrine" which allows the violation of conscience with impunity is a violation of the "tension" and is "ERROR", and every "doctrine" which emphasizes the cruciality of a clear conscience is within the boundaries of "TRUTH".