What Does Romans 14 Teach about Foods, Days, and Worship Music?
I have been studying Romans 14 a lot lately. In this thread, I am interested in intensively exegetical and theological discussion about what Romans 14 teaches about foods, days, and worship music.
Paul begins his teaching by saying the following:
Romans 14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
Paul speaks of some who believe that they may "eat all things," but others who are "weak in the faith" eat herbs. A sound handling of this teaching requires careful, thorough, biblical probing of this teaching.
When Paul says that some believe that they may eat all things, what is Paul actually teaching? To begin to answer this question properly, it is necessary to point out what Paul is not teaching.
When Paul says that some believe that may eat all things, he is not teaching that those who are not weak in the faith believe that they may eat all plant and animal substances whatever they may be, including even things that are known to be poisonous or otherwise unfit for human consumption as foods.
The teaching of Romans 14:1-2 does not show that Christians who do not eat plant and animal substances that are poisonous, etc. for human consumption are weak in the faith. Being strong "in the faith" does not entail that you believe that you may partake even of poisonous berries, mushrooms, etc.
- 336 views
The word asthenounta means "the one who is weak" or "the one who is unable."
Its antonym, dunatoi means "we who are strong" or "we who are able."
These are used in lots of ways because there are lots of inabilities.
Physical inability (John 11:3)
Financial inability (Acts 20:35)
Practical inability (Acts 4:16) The Rulers/Elders said, "καὶ οὐ δυνάμεθα ἀρνεῖσθαι" (literally, "and we are not strong to deny it").
Duty-guilt inability (Acts 4:20) Peter/John answer, "οὐ δυνάμεθα... μὴ λαλεῖν" (literally, "Not we are strong... not to speak."
Indeed, "Ability to drink poison" would be another possible way for astheneo or dunatos to be used. But I think we all agree that Romans 14 didn't teach inability or ability regarding toxic substances.
I think the inability of Romans 14 is very akin to the inability of Acts 4:20. They were unable to be silent because they would feel guilty if they didn't preach.
(Dan wrote)The word asthenounta means "the one who is weak" or "the one who is unable."
Its antonym, dunatoi means "we who are strong" or "we who are able."
I know I'm interacting with you one the other Romans 14 thread, but how does "inability" apply to eating only herbs and not meat? If we were talking only about physical attributes, then a lack of teeth would cause an inability to eat meat, but Romans 14:2 points out "belief" as the cause of one person being able to eat meat and the other person only eating herbs. So wouldn't the "inability" be due to one's theological belief? Wouldn't the rightness or wrongness of that theological belief be playing a role their inability to eat meat? It seems to me we come down to rightness and wrongness anyway even if we say the word means inability, since the inability would be due to a wrong belief.
When Paul says that some believe that may eat all things, he is not teaching that those who are not weak in the faith believe that they may eat all plant and animal substances whatever they may be, including even things that are known to be poisonous or otherwise unfit for human consumption as foods.
No, Paul doesn't say it Romans 14, but Mark does record Jesus saying it in Mark 16:17-18, And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
So if we are going to discuss drinking poison as a possible Romans 14 activity, then we do have biblical support for an understanding that some people were able to drink poison without it harming them. That doesn't mean i would want to try it myself in our current time period, but there could have been people in Paul's time who truly believed they could eat ALL things, even poison.
The promise to survive snake bites relates to survive-ability.
but Romans 14:2 points out "belief" as the cause of one person being able to eat meat and the other person only eating herbs. So wouldn't the "inability" be due to one's theological belief? Wouldn't the rightness or wrongness of that theological belief be playing a role their inability to eat meat?
I definitely agree that “belief” is the cause of their inability.
Both R14 and 1Cor8-10 deal with inability to act without self-condemnation. In other words, conscience-inability. Or “his conscience is unable.” Those passages don’t discuss inability to eat and physically survive.
Both R14 and 1Cor8-10 deal with inability to act without self-condemnation. In other words, conscience-inability. Or “his conscience is unable.” Those passages don’t discuss inability to eat and physically survive.
So why would a weak person's conscience be unable to eat meat? Wouldn't it be because he thinks eating it is a sin when it's not? Therefore, wouldn't the weak person also be the person who is wrong?
So why would a weak person's conscience be unable to eat meat?
Before I answer, I'm wondering what Rajesh was hoping to do with this thread.
Dan Miller said:
Indeed, "Ability to drink poison" would be another possible way for astheneo or dunatos to be used. But I think we all agree that Romans 14 didn't teach inability or ability regarding toxic substances.
I think the inability of Romans 14 is very akin to the inability of Acts 4:20. They were unable to be silent because they would feel guilty if they didn't preach.
I am not sure that we really are in agreement. My point is that Romans 14 does not teach that for a believer to be strong he must believe that he may eat anything and everything that is of plant or animal origin regardless of any and all other considerations.
1. Believers who do not eat all berries whatsoever those berries may be--whether known or unknown--and wherever those berries may be found are not believers who are weak in the faith.
2. Believers who have gluten intolerances and therefore do not eat foods with gluten are not weak in the faith.
3. Believers who have peanut allergies such that eating anything that has even a small amount of peanut residue on it would lead to life-threatening consequences for them are not weak in the faith.
Do you agree that Romans 14 does not teach that such believers are weak in the faith?
Do you agree that Romans 14 does not teach that such believers are weak in the faith?
I understood this was the question. I agree--but since I have never encountered this before, I do want to be very careful.
Allergens.
My wife is allergic to peanuts. If she ate them and couldn't get medical care, she would die. So obviously she "can't eat peanuts." Paul's language for "can't" is weak. So Paul would say, "She is weak to eat peanuts," or, "She is not strong to eat peanuts."
BUT that is NOT the sort of inability Paul was talking about in R14 and 1Cor8-10. Those were about an inability arising out of a sense that to eat it would be to participate in idolatry.
The only way I would say my wife is R14-weak to eat peanuts is that for her to eat peanuts it would be basically to attempt suicide. And that is wrong. So, it's something that she morally can't do. My definition of weak is "unable to do some act without self-condemnation." I guess, in a sense, she "can't" attempt suicide without self-condemnation, but that would be an unusual use of the word.
Wow. I am sorry to learn of your wife's very serious problems with her allergy to peanuts.
I understood this was the question. I agree--but since I have never encountered this before, I do want to be very careful.
I commend you for wanting to be very careful. God wants us to be very careful about what we espouse and commend to others.
BUT that is NOT the sort of inability Paul was talking about in R14 and 1Cor8-10. Those were about an inability arising out of a sense that to eat it would be to participate in idolatry.
I am grateful that we concur about what Paul is not talking about in Romans 14, at least in the respect that we have talked about so far.
The view that Romans 14 is talking about meat offered to idols has never commended itself to me. Regardless, my focus is on probing what Romans 14:2 (as well as the rest of the passage) actually establishes and what it does not.
To further probe the teaching of Romans 14 concerning those who eat "all things" as being strong believers, examining what Scripture reveals about honey provides a biblical basis for establishing some relevant considerations.
A. Divinely provided use of honey as a foodstuff
Deut. 32:13 He made him ride on the high places of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;
Ps. 81:16 He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee.
B. Divinely approved use of honey as a foodstuff
Prov. 24:13 My son, eat thou honey, because it is good; and the honeycomb, which is sweet to thy taste:
Prov. 25:16 Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.
Isa. 7:15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
C. Prohibited consumption of honey [from an unacceptable source] as a foodstuff
Jdg. 14:8 And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion.
Jdg. 14:9 And he took thereof in his hands, and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.
D. Divine revelation warning against intemperate consumption of honey as a foodstuff
Prov. 25:16 Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.
Prov. 25:27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.
E. Divinely prohibited use of honey in worship
Lev. 2:11 No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.
F. Sinful use of honey in idolatrous worship
Ezek. 16:19 My meat also which I gave thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou hast even set it before them for a sweet savour: and thus it was, saith the Lord GOD.
How do these biblical points about honey inform our understanding of what Romans 14 teaches about strong believers being the ones who eat "all things"?
How do these biblical points about honey inform our understanding of what Romans 14 teaches about strong believers being the ones who eat "all things"?
I don't think honey-eating would be an example of a Romans 14 issue. Is it realistic to think that some believers would understand those condemnation verses to mean that a believer shouldn't eat honey at all and that they would then judge other believers for eating any honey? I just don't see it.
D. Divine revelation warning against intemperate consumption of honey as a foodstuff
Prov. 25:16 Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it.
Prov. 25:27 It is not good to eat much honey: so for men to search their own glory is not glory.
God, here and in other places, prohibits overeating.
C. Prohibited consumption of honey as a foodstuff
Jdg. 14:8 And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion.
Jdg. 14:9 And he took thereof in his hands, and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion.
If someone (let's name him Balu) used these verses to train their conscience that honey is prohibited as a foodstuff, I would tell Balu, gently, the following.
These verses actually do NOT prohibit honey as a foodstuff. This is part of Samson's story. He was under a Nazarite vow. As such he was not allowed to touch the carcass of a dead animal. What he did wrong there was touch the carcass.
As far as "weak," Balu is weak. Now, WHAT does "weak" mean in that sentence?
Traditional view: Balu's weakness is his poor understanding the Word and has an overly strict conscience. He should follow it until two things happen: 1) he better understands Judges 14 and 2) he comes to accept that he can eat honey.
My view: Balu's weakness is that he believes the Word prohibits honey. His self-assessment is that he cannot eat honey without self-condemnation. [edit: Note--I did not say "wrongly believes."]
These verses actually do NOT prohibit honey as a foodstuff. This is part of Samson's story. He was under a Nazarite vow. As such he was not allowed to touch the carcass of a dead animal. What he did wrong there was touch the carcass.
Last night, I expected that somebody might raise an issue with what I wrote about Samson's use of honey, etc. but I did not have time this morning to revise what I had written. I left out some words that I have now added to my original post: [from an unacceptable source].
The honey that was in the dead lion was an unacceptable source of honey. Samson was prohibited from eating that honey.
I don't think honey-eating would be an example of a Romans 14 issue. Is it realistic to think that some believers would understand those condemnation verses to mean that a believer shouldn't eat honey at all and that they would then judge other believers for eating any honey? I just don't see it.
I did not present that treatment of biblical revelation about honey to discuss whether eating honey is or is not a Romans 14 issue. Rather, comparing Scripture with Scripture is essential to rightly understand what the Spirit has revealed in Romans 14, and the biblical teaching about honey pertains directly to that proper understanding in ways that I intend to set forth in subsequent posts in this thread.
I did not present that treatment of biblical revelation about honey to discuss whether eating honey is or is not a Romans 14 issue.
Well, then it does seem rather strange to present it in a Romans 14 thread. The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that I personally wouldn't have to think someone else's standard is realistic for that other person to actually have that particular standard.
I do think it's okay for someone to have a more restrictive standard for themselves than what other people have, even if it's to the degree of abstaining from honey. That seems to be the logic of the last part of Romans 14:6. "He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." It sounds like both eating and abstaining would be acceptable activities, even when abstaining isn't required by God.
What if honey-eating actually is displeasing to God? Would that mean that the honey-abstainer really does gets to judge? I think the judging that's prohibited is a judging "with disdain." None of us are perfect, so everyone of us would be able to point our fingers at others who have sins in their lives and they could point at us. We have to realize that we each answer to God and our goal should be to build each other up rather than treat each other with disdain. Some sins would get to the point of church discipline, but honey-eating wouldn't be one of them in my opinion
Well, then it does seem rather strange to present it in a Romans 14 thread.
No, it is not strange; it is entirely biblical because what we believe Paul means by "eats all things" in Romans 14:2 must be established and based foremost not on our opinions but rather on what Scripture itself reveals about the eating of things that is or is not acceptable to God.
What if honey-eating actually is displeasing to God?
There is zero Bible to establish that honey-eating itself is displeasing to God. In fact, it is exactly the opposite--we know with certainty that eating honey is acceptable to God, provided it is done within the limits that He has revealed in His Word.
At least 19 additional verses in Scripture beyond the ones that I treated previously highlight the importance of honey in Scripture distinctively by speaking of God's promise to bring His people into a land that flowed with milk and honey:
Exod. 3:8 And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites.
Exod. 3:17 And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt unto the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and honey.
Exod. 13:5 And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month.
Exod. 33:3 Unto a land flowing with milk and honey: for I will not go up in the midst of thee; for thou art a stiffnecked people: lest I consume thee in the way.
Lev. 20:24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.
Num. 13:27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
Num. 14:8 If the LORD delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land which floweth with milk and honey.
Num. 16:14 Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.
Deut. 6:3 Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
Deut. 11:9 And that ye may prolong your days in the land, which the LORD sware unto your fathers to give unto them and to their seed, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Deut. 26:9 And he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Deut. 26:15 Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Deut. 27:3 And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee.
Deut. 31:20 For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.
Jos. 5:6 For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they obeyed not the voice of the LORD: unto whom the LORD sware that he would not shew them the land, which the LORD sware unto their fathers that he would give us, a land that floweth with milk and honey.
Jer. 11:5 That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Then answered I, and said, So be it, O LORD.
Jer. 32:22 And hast given them this land, which thou didst swear to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey;
Ezek. 20:6 In the day that I lifted up mine hand unto them, to bring them forth of the land of Egypt into a land that I had espied for them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands:
Ezek. 20:15 Yet also I lifted up my hand unto them in the wilderness, that I would not bring them into the land which I had given them, flowing with milk and honey, which is the glory of all lands;
What's more, Ezekiel 20:6 and 20:15 underscore that importance profoundly through revealing the divine declaration that the land that flowed with milk and honey that God spied out and promised that He would give them was the glory of all lands"!
Through direct divine declaration, we thus learn that God Himself made known that the Promised Land was glorious in His estimation above all other lands and that divinely extolled land was a land that flowed with honey.
We must carefully consider the relevance of this additional evidence in determining a right "understanding of what Romans 14 teaches about strong believers being the ones who 'eats all things.'"
There is zero Bible to establish that honey-eating itself is displeasing to God. In fact, it is exactly the opposite--we know with certainty that eating honey is acceptable to God, provided it is done within the limits that He has revealed in His Word.
You don't have to convince me that honey-eating is acceptable to God. I've already stated that it I didn't see it as realistic that someone would prohibit honey-eating. I used the "if" statement as a hypothetical to make a point about judging.
It would have been clearer if I had said, "What if honey-eating, or some other activity, actually was displeasing? Would we then get to judge?" I would say "yes," even with the passage telling us not to judge. I think the passage is telling us not to judge with disdain or with quarrelsomeness. After all, Matthew 7:1 tells us not to judge, but the point of that instruction is that we are not to judge with hypocrisy. Matthew 7:5 tells us, "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." So we actually can judge the mote in our brother's eye in spite of being told not to judge.
I think it might be the same way in Romans 14. We're told not to judge, but it ends up being an instruction to not judge with disdain since each one of us has to answer to God as our master. Each one of us would be at different points in our sanctification journey and none of us will ever be completely without sin while we are on earth. Instead of looking down at each other, we need to work together to exhort one another in unity and even rebuke one another in unity at times. Even the person with the mote in their eye is still our brother.
Through direct divine declaration, we thus learn that God Himself made known that the Promised Land was glorious in His estimation above all other lands and that divinely extolled land was a land that flowed with honey.
We must carefully consider the relevance of this additional evidence in determining a right "understanding of what Romans 14 teaches about strong believers being the ones who 'eats all things.'"
So how much information about foodstuffs in the Bible do you think needs to be covered to understand Romans 14? Do we also need to examine the verses that mention almonds, cucumbers, figs, leeks and lentils? Perhaps we need to cover verses that refer to dates, since the honey mentioned in the phrase "a land flowing with milk and honey" is actually date honey rather than bee's honey.
So how much information about foodstuffs in the Bible do you think needs to be covered to understand Romans 14? Do we also need to examine the verses that mention almonds, cucumbers, figs, leeks and lentils? Perhaps we need to cover verses that refer to dates, since the honey mentioned in the phrase "a land flowing with milk and honey" is actually date honey rather than bee's honey.
Everything in the Bible is from God! We should be in awe of everything in His Word and consider ourselves to be the most blessed of all people because we have the entirety of His Word to study continually.
None of us knows anything yet as we ought to know it:
1 Cor. 8:2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
I come to my Bible continually expecting God to show me great and wondrous things that I have never known.
I categorically reject the mindset that we are the generation who knows everything important that there is to be known from God's Word. (I am not saying that you have this mindset--I do not know what your thinking is in this regard.)
We need to study all of His Word because we cannot predetermine how the Spirit will illumine our understanding as we study everything that God has said. So, yes, we do need to examine it all.
I have never heard of the claim that those verses concern date honey rather than bee's honey. At first glance, my take is that difference--if it is a valid claim--is irrelevant, but maybe upon further study, it would become clear that it is somehow relevant.
I come to my Bible continually expecting God to show me great and wondrous things that I have never known.
I categorically reject the mindset that we are the generation who knows everything important that there is to be known from God's Word.
I have to say this is one of the most important things posted on SI in a while. The unity promoted by Romans 14 leads towards: 15:4 "For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope."
The whole book of Romans is pushing towards Jew-Gentile fellowship. Yes, it covers a lot of theology, but all of that is for the Jew first and also for the gentile. The promotion in 15:4 of "what was written" is there partly to encourage fellowship with the Jews, who knew the Scriptures.
Discussion