Mat 15:11, Act 10:28, Rom 14:14, 1Cor 10:25, 1Ti 4:4 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 11. Not that which goeth into the mouth , The disciples were charged with being sinners for transgressing the tradition of the elders, in eating with unwashed hands. Christ replies, that what they should eat could not render them sinners. The man , the moral agent, the soul, could not be polluted by anything that was eaten. What proceeds from the man himself, from his heart , would defile him. Defileth . To pollute, corrupt, to render sinful. (h) "Not that"

Matthew 15:11

Verse 11. Not that which goeth into the mouth, The disciples were charged with being sinners for transgressing the tradition of the elders, in eating with unwashed hands. Christ replies, that what they should eat could not render them sinners. The man, the moral agent, the soul, could not be polluted by anything that was eaten. What proceeds from the man himself, from his heart, would defile him.

Defileth. To pollute, corrupt, to render sinful.

Mt 15:10

(h) "Not that" Acts 10:15, Rom 14:14,20, 1Timm 4:4, Tit 1:15

Acts 10:28

Verse 28. It is an unlawful thing. This was not explicitly enjoined by Moses, but it seemed to be implied in his institutions, and was at any rate the common understanding of the Jews. The design was to keep them a separate people. To do this, Moses forbade alliances by contract, or marriage, with the surrounding nations, which were idolatrous. See Lev 18:24-30, De 7:3-12; comp. Ezr 9:11,12. This command the Jews perverted; and explained as referring to intercourse of an kinds, even to the exercise of friendly offices and commercial transactions. Comp. Jn 4:9.

Of another nation. Greek, Another tribe. It refers here to all who were not Jews.

God hath shewed me. Comp. Acts 15:8,9. He had showed him by the vision, Acts 10:11,12.

Any man common or unclean. Acts 10:14. That no man was to be regarded as excluded from the opportunity of salvation; or be despised and abhorred. The gospel was to be preached to all; the barrier between Jews and Gentiles to be broken down; and all were to be regarded as capable of being saved.

(e) "unlawful thing" Jn 4:9 (f) "God hath shewed me" Jn 15:8,9, Eph 3:6

Romans 14:14

Verse 14. I know. This is an admission made to the Gentile convert, who believed that it was lawful to partake of food of every kind. This the apostle concedes; and says he is fully apprized of this. But though he knew this, yet he goes on to say, (Rom 14:15) that it would be well to regard the conscientious scruples of others on the subject. It may be remarked here, that the apostle Paul had formerly quite as many scruples as any of his brethren had then. But his views had been changed.

And am persuaded. Am convinced.

By the Lord Jesus. This does not mean by any personal instruction received from the Lord Jesus; but by all the knowledge which he had received, by inspiration, of the nature of the Christian religion. The gospel of Jesus had taught him that the rites of the Mosaic economy had been abolished, and among those rites were the rules respecting clean and unclean beasts, etc.

There is nothing unclean. Greek, common. This word was used by the Jews to denote that which was unclean, because, in their apprehension, whatever was partaken by the multitude, or all men, must be impure. Hence the words common and impure are often used as expressing the same thing. It denotes that which was forbidden by the laws of Moses.

To him that esteemeth, etc. He makes it a matter of conscience. He regards certain meats as forbidden by God; and while he so regards them, it would be wrong for him to partake of them. Man may be in error, but it would not be proper for him to act in violation of what he supposes God requires.

(1) "common" or, "unclean"

1 Corinthians 10:25

Verse 25. Whatsoever is sold in the shambles. In the market. The meat of animals offered in sacrifice would be exposed there to sale as well as other meat. The apostle says that it might be purchased, since the mere fact that it had been offered in sacrifice could not change its quality, or render it unfit for use. They were to abstain from attending on the feasts of the idols in the temple, from partaking of meat that had been offered them, and from celebrations observed expressly in honour of idols; but lest they should become too scrupulous, the apostle tells them that if the meat was offered indiscriminately in the market with other meat, they were not to hesitate to purchase it, or eat it.

Asking no question for conscience sake. Not hesitating or doubting as if it might possibly have been offered in sacrifice. Not being scrupulous, as if it were possible that the conscience should be defiled. This is a good rule still, and may be applied to a great many things. But,

(1.) that which is purchased should be in itself lawful and right. It would not be proper for a man to use ardent spirits or any other intoxicating drinks because they were offered for sale, any more than it would be to commit suicide because men offered pistols, and bowie-knives, and halters to sell.

(2.) There are many things now concerning which similar questions may be asked; as, e.g., is it right to use the productions of slave-labour, the sugar, cotton, etc., that are the price of blood? Is it right to use that which is known to be made on the Sabbath; or that which it is known a man has made by a life of dishonesty sad crime? The consciences of many persons are tender on all such questions; and the questions are not of easy solution. Some rules may perhaps be suggested arising from the case before us.

(a.) If the article is exposed indiscriminately with others in the market, if it be in itself lawful, if there is no ready mark of distinction, then the apostle would direct us not to hesitate.

(b.) If the use and purchase of the article would go directly and knowingly to countenance the existence of slavery, to encourage a breach of the Sabbath, or to the continuance of a course of dishonest living, then it would seem equally clear that it is not right to purchase or to use it. If a man abhors slavery, and Sabbath-breaking, and dishonesty, then how can he knowingly partake of that which goes to patronize and extend these abominations?

(c.) If the article is expressly pointed out to him as an article that has been made in this manner, and his partaking of it will be construed into a participation of the crime, then he ought to abstain. See 1Cor 10:28. No man is at liberty to patronize slavery, Sabbath-breaking, dishonesty, or licentiousness in any form. Every man can live without doing it; and where it can be done, it should be done. And perhaps there will be no other way of breaking up many of the crimes and cruelties of the earth than for good men to act conscientiously, and to refuse to partake of the avails of sin, and of gain that results from oppression and fraud.

(a) "Whatsoever" 1Timm 4:4

1 Timothy 4:4

Verse 4. For every creature of God is good. Gr., all the creatures, or all that God has created--πανκτισμα: that is, as he made it. Comp. Gen 1:10,12,18,31. It does not mean that every moral agent remains good as long as he is a creature of God, but moral agents, men and angels, were good as they were made at first. Gen 1:31. Nor does it mean that all that God has made is good for every object to which it can be applied. It is good in its place: good for the purpose for which he made it. But it should not be inferred that a thing which is poisonous in its nature is good for food, because it is a creation of God. It is good only in its place, and for the ends for which he intended it. Nor should it be inferred that what God has made is necessarily good after it has been perverted by man. As God made it originally, it might have been used without injury. Apples and peaches were made good, and are still useful and proper as articles of food; rye and indian corn are good, and are admirably adapted to the support of man and beast; but it does not follow that all that man can make of them is necessarily good. He extracts from them a poisonous liquid, and then says that "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused." But is this a fair use of this passage of Scripture? True, they are good --they are to be received with gratitude as he made them, and as applied to the uses for which he designed them: but why apply this passage to prove that a deleterious beverage which man has extracted from what God has made, is good also, and good for all the purposes to which it can be applied? As God made these things, they are good. As man perverts them, it is no longer proper to call them the "creation of God," and they may be injurious in the highest degree. This passage, therefore, should not be adduced to vindicate the use of intoxicating drinks. As employed by the apostle, it had no such reference, nor does it contain any principle which can properly receive any such appellation.

And nothing to be refused. Nothing that God has made, for the purposes for which he designed it. The necessity of the case--the "exigency of the passage"--requires this interpretation. It cannot mean that we are not to refuse poison if offered in our food, or that we are never to refuse food that is to us injurious or offensive; nor can it any more mean that we are to receive all that may be offered to us as a beverage. The sense is, that as God made it, and for the purposes for which he designed it, it is not to be held to be evil; or, which is the same thing, it is not to be prohibited as if there were merit in abstaining from it. It is not to be regarded as a religious duty to abstain from food which God has appointed for the support of man.

If it be received with thanksgiving. 1Cor 10:31; Eph 5:20; Php 4:6.