Romans 14:14

[Ματταθίας]

Greetings!

"οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν δι᾽ ἑαυτοῦ εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι ἐκείνῳ κοινόν."

In another forum I belong to, someone is arguing that κοινόν simply means "common," while others say that it means "unclean."

LSJ states that the New Testament usage is "common" or "profane."

I know the King James, New King James, New American Standard, and New International version translat4s it as "unclean." CEB Cranfield's commentary on Romans considers the word to be equivalent to the Hebrew, "טָמֵא"

Thoughts?

[Jean Putmans]

κοινοσ in non-christian Texts means generally "common" (as in "community", whithout any negative connotation), whilst in christian texts (Mk 7:2, Hb 10:29) it has the meaning "profane, worldly", as opposed to "αγιοσ". (see: Kittel, Theological Dictionary: As I use a German edition I cannot give you the exact pages in the English Edition, but one can look it up in the Index-Volume).

[Philip Arend]

Words usually have a range of meanings depending on their context. So both of the people you cite are referring to common usages of κοινὸν. It can also be used to refer to things which are shared in common. In the context of the passage you cite (Rom 14:14- not 7) it is used in the sense of profane or unholy. To be more specific: days or foods which were ceremonially holy or unholy in the Old Testament law.

[S Walch]

Words usually have a range of meanings depending on their context. So both of the people you cite are referring to common usages of κοινὸν. It can also be used to refer to things which are shared in common. In the context of the passage you cite (Rom 14:14- not 7) it is used in the sense of profane or unholy. To be more specific: days or foods which were ceremonially holy or unholy in the Old Testament law.

Yet in the LXX (Greek Septuagint), κοινὸν isn't used in this sense at all. One would expect if Paul fully had in mind the OT law's understanding of ceremonially holy or unholy days or foods, we'd have the word ἀκαθάρτος (which is used frequently in the LXX, especially in Leviticus - 96 times out of the 159 instances in the LXX, so over 60%) not κοινὸν, in Romans 14.

[Philip Arend]

The LXX usage is a good place to research. So, if Paul meant unclean, he did not use LXX vocabulary. Next step, looking at a research tool to look further at NT usage. Here is a relevant snippet from Silva's NIDNTTE:

2 The use of κοινός in the sense “profane” calls for comment. It occurs in Mark 7:2, 5, which speaks of eating with “unclean hands,” i.e., without performing a traditional purificatory ritual. In the sequel to this incident, where the vb. κοινόω is used (7:15, 18, 20, 23; par. Matt 15:11, 18, 20), Jesus teaches that what defiles a person is not dirt or anything external but the thoughts of the heart. Likewise Paul declared that “nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean” (Rom 14:14).
The vision to Peter in Acts 10, in which he was commanded to eat unclean creatures, symbolized God’s acceptance of the Gentiles and their inclusion in the new covenant (κοινός in 10:14, 28; 11:8; κοινόω [with the sense “to declare [Vol. 2, p. 710] unclean”] in 10:15; 11:9). Later Paul was accused of defiling the temple by introducing Gentiles (10:28), although in fact he had refrained from giving offense in this way. For further discussion of ceremonial purity see καθαρός G2754 (the LXX term for “unclean” is ἀκάθαρτος G176).
In Heb 9:13 κοινός refers to defilement under the old covenant, but 10:29 speaks of defiling or profaning the blood of the covenant, spurning the Son of God, and thus being worthy of greater punishment than under the old covenant. The book of Revelation takes up the concept and applies it in a moral sense when it declares: “Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev 21:27). (See further F. Hauck in TDNT 3:789–97; C. E. Carlston, “The Things That Defile (Mark 7:14) and the Law in Matthew and Mark,” NTS 15 [1968–69]: 75–96.)

Thus by the time of the NT it appears that this was a common usage.

[Jason Hare]

BDAG specifically lists ritually unclean as the first meaning of ἀκάθαρτος (notice the accentuation) and pairs it with κοινός.

① pert. to that which may not be brought into contact w. the divinity, impure, unclean (the cultic sense, mostly LXX, also Jos., C. Ap. 1, 307; SIG 1042, 3; Just., D. 20, 4): of foods (Orig., C. Cels. 3, 11, 9) w. κοινός: πᾶν κοινὸν καὶ ἀ. anything common or unclean Ac 10:14, 11:8; GJs 6:1; w. μεμισημένος of birds (and other animals Lev 11:4ff; Dt 14:7ff; Did., Gen. 52, 22) Rv 18:2; (τὸ) ἀ. what is unclean 2 Cor 6:17 (Is 52:11; Hippol., Ref. 9, 12, 23).—Esp. of everything connected w. polytheism, which defiles whatever it touches (Am 7:17; Is 52:1 ἀπερίτμητος κ. ἀ.; SibOr 5, 264) of gentiles ἄνθρωπος κοινὸς ἢ ἀ. Ac 10:28; τέκνα ἀ (opp. ἅγια) 1 Cor 7:14 (on the question of child baptism s. τέκνον 1a). As the ceremonial mng. fades, the moral sense becomes predominant.

Under κοινός, they also list the meaning of ceremonially impure:

ⓑ specifically, of that which is ceremonially impure: Rv 21:27. χεῖρες (ceremon.) impure Mk 7:2, 5 (MSmith, Tannaitic Parall. to the Gosp. ’51, 31f); οὐδὲν κ. διʼ ἑαυτοῦ nothing is unclean of itself Ro 14:14a; cp. bc of this same vs. οὐδέποτε ἔφαγον πᾶν κ. καὶ ἀκάθαρτον I have never eaten anything common or unclean (1 Macc 1:62) Ac 10:14; cp. vs. 28; 11:8 (CHouse, Andrews University Seminary Studies 21, ’83, 143–53); GJs 6:1 (s. deStrycker). Hb 10:29, s. 2a.

Has anyone checked the reference from 1 Maccabees?

1 Maccabees 1:62
καὶ πολλοὶ ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκρεμάσθησαν. καὶ ὀχυρώθησαν ἐν αὑτοῖς τοῦ μὴ φαγεῖν κοινά· (Swete)
But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. (NRSV)

[Jason Hare]

Yet in the LXX (Greek Septuagint), κοινὸν isn't used in this sense at all.

How about the verse I just quoted from 1 Maccabees? It doesn't seem outside of the range of meaning.

[S Walch]

The LXX usage is a good place to research. So, if Paul meant unclean, he did not use LXX vocabulary. Next step, looking at a research tool to look further at NT usage. Here is a relevant snippet from Silva's NIDNTTE:

...[snip long quote]...

Thus by the time of the NT it appears that this was a common usage.

Indeed some interesting comments from Silva. Note what he says concerning the Mark passages: "what defiles a person is not dirt or anything external but the thoughts of the heart." The "unclean food" laws in Leviticus are nothing to do with dirt or anything external. If one looks at the Mark section (7:1-23), "unclean" as equalling "ἀκάθαρτος" is not the charge levelled against the disciples, and as Mark interprets in 7:2, κοινός is ἀνίπτοις/unwashed, not ἀκάθαρτος. My question is exactly how far were κοινός and ἀκάθαρτος seen as synonymous, rather than something distinct. The passages in Acts seem to differentiate the two, as it's κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον, not just either κοινός or ἀκάθαρτος used, as similar to φιλέω and ἀγαπάω in John 21. To me it seems κοινός is a different category of what is considered "inferior". Even in Heb 10:29, I prefer the Lexham EB's understanding of κοινὸν ἡγησάμενος as "considers ordinary" as a meaning much better than say the ESV's "profanes", unless "profanes" here is with the understanding "showing irreverence or contempt", and not "unholy" or "ritualistically impure", and if it was understood as meaning "deems inferior", I don't see much arguing against that.

BDAG specifically lists ritually unclean as the first meaning of ἀκάθαρτος (notice the accentuation) and pairs it with κοινός.

This appears to be only in regards to Acts 10:14 etc., which I would say indicates a difference between the two, rather than an accord.

Under κοινός, they also list the meaning of ceremonially impure:

Again, most of this is due to the inclusion of the word in Acts 10, and I think the interpretation using Mark 7:2 and 5 seems to ignore how Mark explains how he's using the word in the Gospel. Notice how there's very little non-NT related references for the use of the word as indicating something "ceremonially impure"? Compare that to BDAG's explanation of κοινός in a "general" sense, and there's quite a difference. LSJ doesn't even cite any non-NT literature for κοινός as meaning "ceremonially impure".

Has anyone checked the reference from 1 Maccabees?

1 Maccabees 1:62
καὶ πολλοὶ ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκρεμάσθησαν. καὶ ὀχυρώθησαν ἐν αὑτοῖς τοῦ μὴ φαγεῖν κοινά· (Swete)
But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. (NRSV)

The 1 Maccabees passage is actually quite pertinent, as it does use quite a few words to describe things certainly considered "ceremonially impure" or "profane" or "defiled":

1 Macc 1:43-
⁴³καὶ πολλοὶ ἀπὸ Ἰσραὴλ ηὐδόκησαν τῇ λατρίᾳ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕθυσαν τοῖς εἰδώλοις, καὶ ἐβεβήλωσαν τὸ σάββατον... ⁴⁵καὶ κωλῦσαι ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίας καὶ σπονδὴν ἐκ τοῦ ἁγιάσματος, καὶ βεβηλῶσαι σάββατα καὶ ἑορτάς, ⁴⁶καὶ μιᾶναι ἁγίασμα καὶ ἁγίους· ⁴⁷οἰκοδομῆσαι βωμοὺς καὶ τεμένη καὶ εἴδωλα, καὶ θύειν ὕεια καὶ κτήνη κοινά, ⁴⁸καὶ ἀφιέναι τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν ἀπεριτμήτους, βδελύξαι τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἐν παντὶ ἀκαθάρτῳ καὶ βεβηλῶσαι...
⁶²καὶ πολλοὶ ἐν Ἰσραὴλ ἐκρεμάσθησαν. καὶ ὀχυρώθησαν ἐν αὑτοῖς τοῦ μὴ φαγεῖν κοινά· ⁶³καὶ ἐπεδέξαντο ἀποθανεῖν, ἵνα μὴ μιανθῶσιν τοῖς βρώμασιν, καὶ μὴ βεβηλώσουσιν διαθήκην ἁγίαν· καὶ ἀπέθανον... (Swete)

⁴³And many from Israel consented to his service, and they sacrificed to idols and defiled the Sabbath... ⁴⁵and to withhold burnt offerings and sacrifice and drink offering from the sanctuary and to profane Sabbaths and festivals, ⁴⁶and to defile the sanctuary and holy things, ⁴⁷to build altars and shrines and idols and sacrifice pigs and common animals, ⁴⁸and to leave their sons uncircumcised, to make repulsive their souls with all impurity and profanation...
⁶² And many in Israel were in suspense and determined among themselves not to eat what was common. ⁶³And they chose to die so that they might not be defiled by the food and not profane the holy covenant, and they died... (LES)

Is this really in any relation to the use of κοινός in Romans 14:14? I would say not, as the context from Rom 14:1 isn't about eating ceremonially unclean animals and therefore becoming "defiled" or "ritualistically impure", but about whether it's okay to abstain from eating meat or wine (14:21), and not passing judgement on one who says it's okay, and another that it isn't (one may see a more modern take on this: veganism vs non-veganism). There're many other Greek words which could've been employed if ceremonially impure/unclean foods were being considered here as according with the Torah. What would Paul's, presumably more-Gentile, audience have been thinking of when reading/being read his letter? I'd put my money on the difference between what one considered better or inferior eating and drinking diets, rather than ritualistically clean or unclean animals as it pertained to the Torah, or as Philip said it "days or foods which were ceremonially holy or unholy in the Old Testament law".

[Barry Hofstetter]

κοινός, like any other good Greek word (and they are all good) has a range of usage and meaning, which can change diachronically. I suspect for most of the time period that the LXX was being composed, It was not the best lexical choice for "unclean." 1 Macc was however composed in Greek and later than most of the LXX translation, when the word had developed in application to the idea of "unclean." We are talking about things that are not to be used commonly, and the logic of the development is fairly obvious.

As for Romans 14:14, I think the heart of the matter (pardon) is internal rather than the external defilements consider under the OT economy, which are show here not to be objectively unclean. If you really consider it κοινόν, then so it is. That applies as much to what others feel as to yourself, and so we are called to be sensitive in our practice so as not cause another to violate his conscience.

[Shirley Rollinson]

κοινός, like any other good Greek word (and they are all good) has a range of usage and meaning, which can change diachronically. I suspect for most of the time period that the LXX was being composed, It was not the best lexical choice for "unclean." 1 Macc was however composed in Greek and later than most of the LXX translation, when the word had developed in application to the idea of "unclean." We are talking about things that are not to be used commonly, and the logic of the development is fairly obvious.

As for Romans 14:14, I think the heart of the matter (pardon) is internal rather than the external defilements consider under the OT economy, which are show here not to be objectively unclean. If you really consider it κοινόν, then so it is. That applies as much to what others feel as to yourself, and so we are called to be sensitive in our practice so as not cause another to violate his conscience.

as a matter of curiosity, when did the term "κοινη" come into use to indicate the language?