Newsflash: Personal Discipline Is Not Legalism

[Dan Miller] It seems clear to me that Paul believed that meat eating was happening and should continue to happen in the Roman community of believers.

There are a lot of tricky things about this passage. In response to your comments regards Rom 14:3, 6, one could argue that Paul is describing what WAS happening, not that he is advising eating and drinking in private. In fact, it appears that what is going on here is in PUBLIC, since the weak can see it and Paul tells them, don’t pass judgment on them. Here is the tricky part – on one hand you have Paul telling the weak to not judge, but then later on he tells the strong to abstain (at least publicly) so as not to destroy the work of God, or cause a brother to stumble. There must be different types of weak brothers – those who are not spiritually impacted by seeing the strong partake and those who would be tempted to sin against their conscience if they see a brother partake.

I think this means that the eating in faith should be done privately where public eating would cause a brother to stumble.

You are saying (I think) that perhaps this means that the belief that you can eat should be private. But wouldn’t that make the whole passage a violation of that? Paul openly stated that many Christians (perhaps even himself) believed they can eat meat.

That is a good point. Here is what Moo says, “Nor is he necessarily requiring ‘strong’ believers never to mention their views on these matters or to speak of their sense of freedom before others. As the context suggest, the silence that Paul requires is related to the need to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of the ‘weak’.’ This will mean that the ‘strong’ are not to brag about their convictions before the weak’ and, especially, that they are not to propagandize the ‘weak.’ “ The way I think about it is this – in your interactions with the weak, it is Ok to discuss it but not in a way that forces your faith on them against their will or against their conscience.

Here is where this passage gets so fascinating to me. Earlier Bert lamented that we didn’t have apostles around today to settle these questions. In Rome they actually did and yet Paul doesn’t throw his apostolic weight around and say you weak are wrong and just live with the strong eating and drinking. He says, you have to be fully convinced in your own mind! Wow! Even though “everything is clean” it is wrong if the person actually believes he is violating God’s law. So, Paul says the strong, who actually know the law best, may have to restrict themselves, at least publicly, if eating or drinking is gong to cause the spiritual downfall of your brother.

Given that, and because Paul says the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, those things don’t commend you to God or hinder your walk with God – there are times when it is best to abstain. All I’m saying is that a church can decide that is what they are going to do, for the good of the entire congregation. It doesn’t hurt the strong because that is not what the kingdom of God is all about. Instead, it emphasizes righteousness and peace of the kingdom, and the well-being of your spiritual brothers.

I’m not sure how much more I have to say on this subject. I do appreciate you and others helping me thing through this passage again.

Andy, you have given this passage much consideration. Good for you, but I believe you are still missing the main point. Christian liberty is an individual matter. Each individual must decide what his conscience allows, and also what liberties from which to refrain based upon his love and concern for a weaker brother. But as soon as you make abstaining a church-wide requirement, you have removed it from an individual Christian liberty issue to a mandated extra-Biblical rule. In other words, the church may not decide to require such a rule without violating the Christian liberty which belongs to each individual Christian.. Christian liberty practices must be decided individually before the Lord, not imposed upon others by another individual or group.

…should have 2 different discussions.

I Cor. 6-8, mostly ch. 8 and 10, are discussing the pollutions of idols absolutely prohibited in Acts. 15. It was done under elder authority, not apostolic authority, and the resolution was sent to the various churches throughout the Mediterranean world. The prohibition of knowingly partaking of pollutions of idols, the specific examples provided were meat offered to idols and participating in practically anything in the idol temple, was an absolute prohibition. It was not, is not, and never will be a liberty issue (see Rev. 2:14 & 20). God absolutely loathes idolatry. We need to leave I Cor. 8-10 out of the discussion on liberty.

Rom. 14, on the other hand, is referencing the change of status of absolutely prohibited unclean meats as per the OT law to being received with gladness. The “liberty” dilemma is the exact same one Peter had when he first received the revelatory vision—”…And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common (Acts 10:13-15)”. In the Romans 14 context Peter is the poster child for the “weak” brother—“For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.” The weakness of faith (belief) in Romans 14 is that there has been a God-ordained change of status in things that were absolute up to this point: clean and unclean meats; days such as sabbath and other designated holy days; etc.

The trick is in identifying when a change of status has occurred. In our modern world the idolatry of ancient Greece and Rome has completely changed. Of the 7+ billion people for all practical purposes there are none that worship Diana or the image which fell down from heaven. Put a little silver image of her on your shelf and it is nothing more than a knick knack. Its status has changed. Easter bunnies and Halloween goblins, etc., may not have enjoyed that change of status. And there is where the Rom. 14 principles come into play.

I think that in most matters of so-called legalism the argument has little to do with a God-ordained change of status but a simple rationalization of that which the carnal heart wants to do anyway.

.

[AndyE]… All I’m saying is that a church can decide that is what they are going to do, for the good of the entire congregation…

I know you said you’re kinda done with this discussion.

The issue that I have is related to Greg’s, but a different angle. I see in Romans 14 a command to fellowship with our brother even when our tendency is to judge our brother.

Paul saw in the weak a concern for the standing of the eating brother. Paul told him “don’t judge” and “God is able to make [the strong] stand.”

That’s my main issue with abstinence covenants as I have understood them. They clearly say (I thought), “You cannot be in our fellowship unless you totally abstain.”

Dan Miller:

Romans 14 commands us to fellowship with those that God has accepted (credible profession) in spite of clear knowledge that our brothers/sisters do what we consider sinful and refuse to do other things we think are good.

Andy: No, it can’t just be that. Otherwise you have no basis ever for church discipline.

Yeah. This indeed becomes a very interesting discernment.

Verse 5 must be about the Jewish holidays, because almost all of the Gentile holidays were to idols. You are going to have a tough time making a holiday to Zeus more holy, I dare say, and that illustrates that the dietary qualms had then would largely be due to Jewish qualms about kosher food. Neither Jew nor Gentile had any objection to eating meats, after all—or drinking wine, for that matter. So I’d argue here that what’s going on is that they (like us, really) were still working out how Christ had completed the Law.

So the trouble I have with today’s applications of the passage are that I generally cannot see anything comparable except for “our own church culture has declared that these things are wrong.” The trouble with that is that it’s much closer to what the Pharisees were doing than I’d like to see.

There is only one reason that Jews were vegetarian: idolatry avoidance. This was common in foreign cities. Daniel did it God honored it as obedience. Josephus wrote that it was a common conviction for centuries.

Romans 14 was NOT about ham vs beef. It was about meat that could be idol-tainted prior to market purchase.

[Dan Miller]

There is only one reason that Jews were vegetarian: idolatry avoidance. This was common in foreign cities. Daniel did it God honored it as obedience. Josephus wrote that it was a common conviction for centuries.

Romans 14 was NOT about ham vs beef. It was about meat that could be idol-tainted prior to market purchase.

Idols and images are not even mentioned in Romans except for once in chap 1, once in chap 2, and a vague reference in chap 8 in a historic reference of those who had not bowed down to the image of Baal. There is not the slightest mentioning that pollutions/meat offered to idols is even part of the discussion in all 16 chapters. The days mentioned in Rom 14 are definitely Jewish holy days.

If the meat in Rom 14 is idol meat, then Paul has completely contradicted himself in the 2-3 year period between writing Corinthians and Romans.

Rom 14 is most assuredly referencing the issues of Acts 10, not Acts 15, 21, and Rev. 2.

Well, I’m guessing that the rabbis wouldn’t think idol meat was kosher, but I don’t know how much I want to argue with Dan here. I would say that idolatry certainly could factor in, but other issues of kosher food (e.g. Gentiles not butchering permissible animals properly per Jewish law) could factor in as well. Interestingly ,my overall argument is stronger with Dan’s interpretation. :^) (thanks, Dan!)

Regarding “how on earth can we know?”, that’s a reasonable inference, IMO, from the fact that neither Jews nor Gentiles would avoid meat for its own sake, so there would have to be something objectionable about the particular meat in question. Hence kosher or idolatry.

One third possibility is that the tradition of asceticism in Judiasm had pervaded Rome—there’s a hint that Timothy was influenced by that in Ephesus (Paul’s direction to drink a little wine because he was always sick). But in a mostly Gentile society, ,I think that idol worship or non-kosher slaughter would be the stronger candidates.

[Lee]…The days mentioned in Rom 14 are definitely Jewish holy days.

I agree - definitely Jewish holy days, probably including Sabbath.

[Lee]…If the meat in Rom 14 is idol meat, then Paul has completely contradicted himself in the 2-3 year period between writing Corinthians and Romans.

The “apparent contradiction” between 1 Corinthians 8 and 10:1-22 is significant enough.

In 1Cor8, refusing to eat in the temple is the “weak” position and eating in the temple is the “liberty” position (vv7-10).

In 1Cor10:1-22, eating in the temple is condemned.

I’m curious how you deal with that?

As I remember it, I Corinthians 8 deals with meat offered to idols, and chapter ten with eating in an idol’s temple. They are not the same. Surplus meat previously offered to idols was sold in the meat markets for anyone to purchase and eat at home or in the home of a neighbor. The origin of the meat would not be obvious in this case, unless one took it upon himself to declare that, “this meat was offered to idols.” In which case, Paul says not to eat it, but not because it was offered to idols, but because of the association in the mind of the one who made the identification. Paul says its fine for Christians to eat meat offered to idols, but he says it is not OK to eat meat in an idol’s temple. The difference, as I see it, is that eating in the temple is a public act which strongly implies agreement with idol worship. Eating idol meat at home is different, because there is no visual or obvious connection with the idol. Meat loses its idolatrous association by passing through the meat market. I think this is an important point, and helps us sort out what is and is not guilty of sinful associations.

1 Cor 8:7-10

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?

Andrew Naselli phrased the apparent contradiction like this:
In 1 Cor 8, Paul appears to have a category for a Corinthian Christian eating εἰδωλόθυτα (meat sacrificed to idols) in an idol’s temple without sinning. Verses 9–10 in particular seem to support that it was not always idolatrous for Corinthian Christians to eat εἰδωλόθυτα in an idol’s temple:

But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? (8:9–10)

But that seems difficult to harmonize with 10:14–22 because there Paul appears to say that eating such food in the temple participates in worshiping demons. Verses 19–21 in particular seem to contradict 8:9–10…

- Naselli, Andrew David, Southeastern Theological Review, 9.1 (Spring 2018): 23–45

[Dan Miller]

1 Cor 8:7-10

However, not all possess this knowledge. But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols?

When we discussed this several years ago, you said you would eventually present your overall understanding of the passage, but I don’t ever recall seeing that. I would like to see that.

In regard to this specific passage, I think “this right of your” is the right to eat meat, not the right to eat meat in the temple. IOW, they are abusing their right by eating in the temple. But we’ve gone back and forth on this one as well, I believe. I think you said you had a way to resolve the “contradiction” that you haven’t shared, as of yet.

Yes, Andy, I am actually writing a book. I am working on later chapters that deal practically with personal convictions and church discipline, etc. I could post this chapter.

As far as “this right of yours,” the for (γάρ) in v.10 clearly connects the dangerous action named in v.10 to the dangerous “right” named in v.9.

Here is where we discussed this previously: https://sharperiron.org/forum/poll-was-it-always-idolatrous-for-corinth…

BTW, the gar (sorry not sure how to import greek) works just as well for my understanding of the passage as yours. How could this right “somehow” (ESV, NASB) or “by any means” (KJV) become a stumbling block to others? You who have this knowledge need to take care, FOR (here is the somehow) if you exercise your right by eating meat in the pagan temple, it could encourage the weak to violate his conscience. So, not only does the gar work in my view, it also has the advantage of not creating a contradiction in Paul’s argument. :)

But again, we’ve already discussed this. If you would like to post the relevant parts of your book, I would take the time to read it.