Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 18
October 17, 2021
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)
(147)
Thesis: The general thesis that "everything that does not arise out of faith is sin" is declared by Paul to give us a basic standard by which to guide our choices and actions.
Introduction: In our last study I attempted to make the argument that the translation of the word katakrino in
14:23 as "condemned" is too severe because we have come to consider "condemnation" a matter of eternal Death. But this is not the essential meaning of the word. In the Gospels, Jesus used this word to refer to "wiping out all excuses in the face of one's behavior" so that what is deserved is executed upon the one whose excuses have failed to provide him/her with the ability to escape the consequences. This is
the point in
Matthew 12:41-42 and
Luke 11:31-32. Thus, the point is not the nature of the judgment in view, but, rather, the fact that whatever that judgment is will be imposed because all of the excuses have been eliminated. That the deserved judgment is
sometimes "eternal Death" does not make "eternal Death" the
only deserved judgment.
In Romans 2:1, the self-condemnation is the self-elimination of any excuses for evil behavior. And in 8:3 Paul used the same word to describe what Jesus did to eliminate the imposition of the consequences of sin so that he could then, in 8:33-39 declare that any/every attempt to bring one of God's elect under those consequences would fail. He called what Jesus did "condemning sin". What he meant was Jesus made "sin's" normal impact impossible. When we see this, we can say that "katakrino" means "being subjected to the consequences sin seeks to impose". With this definition in mind, we can see why Paul said that the one who "eats" with a compromised conscience "has already been made subject to the consequences of acting without a clear conscience" [the verb in 14:23 is in the Perfect Tense, and means that "the consequences are now unavoidable"].
Now, we are ready to consider Paul's rationale for saying that the one who violates his/her conscience by eating when he/she has no conviction of freedom within is going to be subjected to the consequences of that violation (without remedy). Paul says that those consequences are going to come because the behavior did not have its root in "faith" and every such action will yield those consequences.
- I. What Are The Consequences Of A Believer's Sins?
- A. 1 Corinthians 11:32 says that one of the consequences is "discipline by the Lord".
- B. Galatians 6:7-8 says that another of the consequences is "reaping what has been sown".
- C. 1 Corinthians 3:15 says that another of the consequences is "suffering loss" in the Day of Christ's judgment of His Church.
- II. What Is The Reason For The Refusal Of God To Eliminate These Consequences In Romans 14:23?
- A. On the face of it, the reason is "operating without faith".
- B. But, what is the specific issue of "faith" in this context?
- 1. At first blush, it seems to be a lack of "faith" in respect to whether a person is really free to "eat" foods that have been forbidden by the Law of Moses.
- 2. But that is not the real reason.
- a. In the text/context, the person who "eats" is a person who "believes" he/she should not eat.
- b. Thus, the question arises: Why would a person "eat" if he/she believes he/she should not?
- c. The answer to this question reveals why God refuses to eliminate the consequences of "eating" when "eating" is not, itself, a "sin".
- 1) The only reason for a person to "eat" when he/she thinks he/she should not do so, is "pressure" from some source that is not God.
- a) It could be "hedonism" -- indulging in physical pleasures without permission from God to do so.
- b) It, however, is more likely that the reason is the pressure of the opinions of those who "eat whatever they please" so that the one who "gives in to the pressure" is doing so to keep from being looked down upon by those Paul calls "strong" in The Faith.
- 2) This is why the person who "eats" has already been subjected to the consequences of unbelieving behavior.
- a) In "The Faith" the only Person Whose "opinion" is supposed to "matter" is God.
- b) When a person "believes" that the good opinions of others "matter", he/she is "diseased in The Faith" because he/she has allowed the opinions of others to override God's opinion.
- c) This "override" is idolatry in that it posits the possibility of "Life" from those who do not have the ability to provide it.
- 3. So, what is the specific issue of "faith" in this text/context?
- a. We get a pretty clear declaration in 14:5 where Paul insists that "each person must be fully convinced in his own mind".
- b. But "fully convinced" about what?
- 1) This question is answered in 14:15 where Paul exalts "Love" over "Faith" in terms of the specific issue of whether "eating" is permitted or not.
- 2) This exaltation of "Love" over "Faith" in this setting is actually a substitution of a different matter of "Faith": Is my brother's best interest more important than my freedom to eat as I please?
- 3) Thus, the bottom line issue is not "to eat or not to eat", but, rather, who benefits?
- 4) And, the Kingdom reality of 'righteousness, peace, and joy' is established because the real issue of "The Faith" and "The Love" is the brother's benefit, not the freedom we have in Christ.
