Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 12
July 25, 2021
Humble, Texas
(136)
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.
- 4. The "other side" of the concept of "in the Lord Jesus nothing is unclean" is presented in the words of 14:20b.
- a. "At issue": how things that are clean are turned into "evil".
- 1) The major thesis: God does not deal with us according to what is "objectively" clean, but according to the "subjectivity" of our own hearts in respect to our understanding of what is offensive to Him.
- 2) The details... .
- a) "Indeed" all things [are] clean... . There is a strict limitation to this declaration. That limitation is in regard to the question of "essential" character. Everything that has its "essential character" as an outworking of the "essential character" of God is objectively "good" on the basis of its compatibility with the inner essence of God Himself. Alternatively, everything that has its "essential character" as a contradiction to the "essential character" of God is objectively "evil" on the basis of its incompatibility with the inner essence of God Himself.
- b) "...BUT it is evil to the man who is eating through 'stumbling'"... .
- i. With this statement, Paul zeroes in on the "eating" issue and, more or less, abandons the "observance of days" issue.
- ii. The word translated "evil" indicates any degradation of the experience of "Life" (as "Joy") which comes out of a harmonious relationship with God (in the largest sense of Himself, His words, and His actions and their repercussions). In a word, anything that imposes an absence of "Love" upon a person is "evil". Thus, "walking according to Love" becomes the standard by which all behavior is measured.
- iii. Paul's words raise a question: Is he addressing the fault of the person who subjects his brother to the pressure of violating his conscience; or is he addressing the fault of the person who is willing to violate his conscience in order to gain the approval of his brother?
- i) Clearly, the first part of this verse is addressed to the one who is active in the "tearing down of God's work in the life of a brother", for he demands the refusal to eat meat if it will "tear down" that work.
- ii) However, he goes on to say that "all things are indeed clean...". This seems to also be addressed to the brother who wishes to exercise his freedom to eat whatever he wishes to eat in the sense that "Indeed you are right about the freedom you have to eat whatever you wish...".
- iii) This he follows up with "BUT evil for the man who eats 'through' offense...". Though these words are equally true for both the man who "offends" his brother and the man who is willing to "offend" his conscience by yielding to the pressure to "be free" when he is not in his own heart/understanding, it is most likely that the "free" brother is yet being addressed as Paul strongly insists that if that brother's "freedom" influences his brother to violate his understanding, he has caused a great "evil" to come into play. Robertson refers to Romans 14:20 to illustrate the idea that the word in the genitive is an agent between the first "truth" and the following "truth so that the distinction between "clean" and "evil" is the intervening agent: "offense". It is an "evil" "to eat because of the intervention of offense" (i.e., "to eat because of the influence of the one who sets "eating" up as "clean" because one longs to be accepted -- this is the "great evil" -- rather than because one actually "believes" -- this is the bottom line -- that the eating is "ok with God").
- 3) Summary.
- a. Everything about "Life" is rooted in having an open and clear relationship with The God of The Living.
- b. Any time that a person violates his/her own perception of what God requires for that open and clear relationship is "evil" no matter whether that perception is objectively accurate or not.
- c. At root, God requires a proper attitude in those to whom He gives "Life". That "attitude" is the desire to be in an open and clear relationship with God. It is what Peter calls "an appeal to God for a good conscience" in 1 Peter 3:21.
- d. But, also at root is the fact that if a man uses his freedom carelessly in regard to his brother, he is as guilty as his brother before God's standard of "walking according to love".
- e. Thus, everyone needs to be clear on one underlying Truth: there is no participation in the Life of God if there is a violated conscience in play. This means that both of the people in this situation are at risk: the "free" brother is at risk of violating his conscience by exalting his "belly" over his brother and the "bound" brother is at risk of violating his conscience by exalting his brother's acceptance over God's.
- i. The author of Hebrews draws out this truth by four declarations regarding the significance of a clean conscience: 9:9 says that a worshipper cannot be given a perfect conscience by acts of worship; 9:14 says that the blood of Christ cleanses a person's conscience "from dead works to serve the living God"; 10:22 says our hearts can be "sprinkled from an evil conscience" if we are of a sincere heart in full assurance of faith in the blood of Jesus; and 13:8 says, "Pray for us for we are sure that we have a good conscience, desiring to conduct ourselves honorably in all things".
- ii. Thus, at issue in the "clean conscience" issue is a "full assurance that we have been received by God on the basis of the blood of Jesus". This is the particular problem that the one enslaved to dietary restrictions and memorial day demands has: he is still wrapped up in the notion that "works" have something to do with "acceptance by God". This is also the particular problem that the one who insists upon his/her "freedoms" has: he thinks that "faith in the blood of Jesus" has no significant links to "walking in Love" in spite of the clearest of all understanding that "being beloved" calls for "loving" as its most necessary moral obligation.