Chapter # 14 Paragraph # 2 Study # 17
October 10, 2021
Humble, Texas
(146)
1769 KJV Translation:
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:
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. We have looked at both parts of Paul's chiasm.
- II. Paul's Summation: 14:21-23.
- A. Regarding the "on the ground issue" of "eating and drinking" in the light of the conflict because of "baggage" brought into "The Faith" by those who believe the Gospel but are too ignorant and selfish to grasp its roots.
- B. Regarding the exercise of "faith" in view of "freedom" given in Christ.
- 1. The one who "has faith" [those who disregard the dietary and liturgical requirements placed upon Israel, the nation; thus, disregarding "Law" because of "Grace"].
- 2. The one who "does not have faith".
- a. This "condition" of "faithlessness" is rooted in what the NASB translates as "doubts" (a verb, not a plural noun).
- 1) This word ("diakrinomenos") is only used in Romans in two texts/contexts: 4:20 and 14:23.
- 2) Since we have been in concentrated studies of the text/context of 14:23, we shall leave it briefly to look into 4:20.
- a) Interestingly, this text/context is all about the very same issue as exists in chapter 14: being "diseased in The Faith" (specific use of the definite article before the word "faith"): 4:19.
- b) At issue, in the possibility of "being diseased", is the contemplation of "the facts on the ground" (Abraham's and Sarah's "deadness" of their bodies' capacities) in contrast to "the promise of God" Who "gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist" (4:17).
- c) The meaning of "diakrino" is illustrated by its tie to "unbelief" in 4:20 and its setting in the contrast between the promise and the facts on the ground. What it means is that Abraham did not allow the process of "thinking through" (the etymology of dia plus krino) the contrast to set aside the critical issue: the promise of God. The rationale is given in 4:21: "being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able to perform". This is not like the leper in Mark 1:40 who "believed" that Jesus "can make me clean" because the leper had no promise from God that He "would" make him clean. Abraham's "faith" was rooted in both the omnipotence that makes "You can" so obvious that it bears no mention and the commitment of a promise given regarding what He intends. What God "can" do and what He "will" do are two hugely different things. This means that "diakrino" means, in the texts/contexts of Paul's thinking in Romans, allowing the "facts on the ground" to overrule the words of God, given in promise mode.
- d) Thus, what Paul is addressing is the reality of those "diseased in The Faith" making their decision based upon "traditional facts on the ground" rather than later revelation suited to the times, and then contradicting their decision by acting upon the later revelation but believing in the traditions of earlier and temporary revelation. In other words, violating their consciences.
- b. The outcome for the one who is willing to violate his/her conscience.
- 1) This outcome is couched in the same base-word (krino) that Paul used in 14:22, with an intensifying prefix (kata) and that he used in 14:23 in its description of the one who "doubts" with a different intensifying prefix (dia).
- 2) The significance of this intensified form of "decision making" in regard to the ethics of a given choice/action is revealed by Paul's use of this word in Romans.
- a) In 2:1 he says that the act of doing something that he/she has judged to be wrong when others do it will bring "inescapable judgment" upon himself/herself. This type of overt hypocrisy, revealing as it does the "rules for thee but not for me" mentality, is not going to be ignored by God. It is the very height of the arrogance that God heatedly despises (Proverbs 6:17 compared with Psalm 101:5).
- b) In 8:3 he says that Jesus' offering of Himself for the sins of others actually made "sin in the flesh" subject to "inescapable judgment". His meaning is that He actually destroyed "sin's" strength and ability to reproduce itself in those who trust in the efficacy of Jesus' act. His conclusion, in 8:4, is that those who walk in the Spirit now have the ability to live out the Law's morality, thus demolishing the power of "sin". This "demolishing of the power" is the essence of katakrino.
- c) In 8:34 he raises the question of who can "katakrino" the one who enjoys the fruits of Jesus' death for him/her. The answer is: No One. Jesus' death was effective to that degree. No one who possesses the Spirit of Christ because of His death can be "inescapably judged".
- d) Thus, in 14:23, Paul is saying that the one who forsakes his/her conscience, not only is under inescapable judgment, but has been there for some time: the verb is a Perfect Tense, indicating that something went dreadfully wrong sometime before he/she ever faced the critical decision to choose "unbelief" rather than "faith". In this context, the issue in choosing "unbelief" is the issue of grasping the opinions of men as the root of "Life" and releasing the glory which God gives as that root. This is not a "contradiction" of 8:34 because the issue of 8:34 is "inescapable judicial judgment" relating to the "righteousness of God through faith, whereas the "inescapable judgment" of 14:23 is the determination of God that the "one who doubts" is due the "family discipline" of the believer who operates in unbelief. The 8:34 context is "justification"; the 14:23 context is "the divine involvement of parental discipline of children within the family".
- c. The rationale for Paul's declaration of "inescapable judgment": the choice/action is not out of faith.
- 1) "Faith" is the non-negotiable with God: Hebrews 11:6.
- a) He is pleased by the exercise of "faith".
- b) He is displeased by the refusal to exercise "faith".
- 2) Any/every thing that any man does is rooted in either "faith" or "unbelief", and when "unbelief is the choice, God is significantly displeased unto hot anger. Alternatively, when "faith" is the choice, God is inordinately pleased unto "blessedness": Everything not of faith is Sin.
- 3) As mentioned above, this "inescapable judgment" is God's determination that the one deciding to operate outside the boundaries of faith in the promise(s) of God is due some "disciplinary retaliation", not "eternal destruction away from His presence".
- a) There are three words with roots in "judgment" in our text/context:
- i. krino -- 14:3, 4, 5, 10, 13, and 22
- ii. diakrino -- 14:1 and 23
- iii. katakrino -- 14:23
- b) The "at issue" consideration in the light of these three words.
- i. In respect to krino, the "at issue consideration" is "acceptance" (14:1 and, with greater significance, 14:3 with the follow-up of 14:4's "...he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand").
- ii. In respect to diakrino, the issue is "examination of details" (14:1 and, more significantly, 14:23 because the "examination" results in a faulty conclusion).
- iii. In respect to katakrino, the issue is "subjection to the consequences of unbelief" (14:23).
