What Does Romans 14 Teach about Foods, Days, and Worship Music?

In Rome, some were objecting, saying that “might be tainted”=off limits.

In Corinth, the big argument was whether one could enter the temple, sit at a feast, and eat. Paul called them to stop that. But did his warning apply to offered-meat outside the temple?

10:25-30

If you don’t know go ahead.

If you are told, YOU, in your conscience, can actually still eat it.

But since you were told, don’t eat it for the sake of the conscience of the one who told you.

1 Corinthians was written before Romans was. Given what the Spirit inspired Paul to write in 1 Corinthians, according to your understanding of Romans 14 all Paul would have had to have done in Rome was to inform the weak of 1 Cor. 10:25-30 to show that they were obligated to change their views.

That's not what we see in Romans 14.

Now, as to a "difference" between how Paul treats the issue of market meat in Romans vs 1 Corinthians, I'm not sure I see a real difference.

Clearly, there was a difference in the audiences.

In Rome, the big question was, "Is market meat permissible? Or is it maybe idol-tainted and therefore idolatrous?"

In Corinth, the big question was, "Is it ok to go into the temple and eat what was just offered?" It doesn't seem like market meat was controversial in Corinth, so little needed to be said.

I think that we may have reached an impasse. To me, it is unthinkable that the Spirit inspired what He had Paul write in 1 Cor. 10 about eating whatever was sold in the marketplace only for the profit of the Christians in Corinth.

You say that the big question in Rome concerned that very matter. If that were true, unquestionably God would have wanted Paul to profit the Romans with the same teaching that He gave earlier to Paul to profit the Corinthians.

Paul explicitly did not want the weak in Rome to "change their views." Well, I should be careful.

In Romans:

• Both weak and strong were told to be fully persuaded in their minds.
• Both weak and strong were told that they honor the Lord by living out their conviction.
• Both weak and strong were told that the active Lordship of Jesus was the reason for these differing convictions.

So, he didn't want the weak to change their position on meat. He DID want them to understand that that position was NOT universal. (Stop judging. Stop calling what God gave other people evil.)

God wanted the strong to stop despising the weak concerning whatever the nature of their weakness was. God says much more to the strong in Romans 14-15 than He does to the weak.

Rajesh, if the meat-offered-to-idols view is untenable, then what do you consider to be the reason for the weakness of the Romans believers? Why were they refusing ALL meat? If certain believers were trying to insist that God was still displeased with unclean animal meat, they would not have been eating only vegetables. They would have felt free to eat beef and lamb, since God approved of beef and lamb.

Good question. I do not know the answer.

More importantly, whether the meat-offered-to-idols understanding of the issue in Romans 14:1-2 is correct or not, Romans 14:1-2 does not provide any support for using the teaching of that passage to argue for the acceptability of using all "genres" of instrumental music in corporate worship.

Well, if you can't think of some other logical reason for their weakness, then how can you consider the meat-offered-to-idols position to be untenable?

I am continuing to study the subject and exploring other possibilities biblically. I am not at the point where I am ready to propose other explanations.

If you don't understand the weakness in Romans 14, then how can you say that an opposition to a musical genre is NOT a weakness?

Regardless of whatever Paul is addressing in Romans 14:1-2 concerning foodstuffs, his teaching pertains only to the use of foodstuffs as foodstuffs. That teaching is not any way about any kind of acceptability of the universal use of foodstuffs in corporate worship.

In fact, indisputable explicit biblical revelation shows that there was no universal divine acceptance of the use of all foodstuffs in corporate worship.

At most, therefore, those who try to use Romans 14:1-2 as justification for holding to universal divine acceptance of all "genres" of instrumental music could only do so concerning a supposed divine acceptance for their use in ordinary life--not in corporate worship.

Furthermore, many direct biblical teachings show that there is no validity in applying what the Bible teaches about foods--whether they are used as foods or in corporate worship--to a right understanding of what the Bible teaches about "genres" of instrumental music--whether they are used in ordinary life or in corporate worship.

This paragraph here makes me wonder why you wanted to use this thread to talk about those who "eat all things" in anticipation of making a point about musical genres.

Because many misuse that phrase in Romans 14 as part of their basis to make false claims about God's accepting the use of all "genres" of instrumental music in corporate worship.

Since this thread is about Romans 14, then we should stick to the focus mentioned in the chapter,

This strikes me as funny, considering the history of what has been directed toward me on SI. Romans 14 says exactly zero things about meat offered to idols, yet you and others want to make that the understanding and focus of Paul's teaching about ordinary eating and drinking. If I were to do what has been done to me, I would be screaming about "eisegesis" . . .

So this shows that the principles of Romans 14 would apply throughout life, which would include both "ordinary life" and "corporate worship." I don't really get the sense that the New Testament makes huge distinctions between ordinary life and daily worship and corporate worship.

Wow. This is quite the striking assertion, and it is an assertion that is not supported even by Romans 14 itself. Paul says that the kingdom of God is not meat and drink--he plainly thereby distinguishes in some vital manner between things that pertain directly to the kingdom of God and matters concerning ordinary eating and drinking.

There is not even a hint in Romans 14 that Paul intended what he taught about eating and drinking things as foodstuffs to be directly paralleled to things pertaining to the kingdom of God, which especially would concern corporate worship.

This thread is about “Romans 14” and “Foods, Days, and Worship Music.”

Rom14 says nothing explicit about music.

I would suggest holding off on even bringing up music until the situational meaning and then the principle of the passage is understood.

Romans 14 also does not say anything explicitly about many other subjects to which believers seek to apply it. I am all for rightly understanding "principles" from the passage that are legitimately applicable; precisely identifying the exact nature of the differences is not necessary to do so.

In order to rightly handle the passage, what the rest of the passage says has to be treated.

Because Paul directly ties what he says about days to what he says about foods, the two must be treated together, even as Paul deals with them together:

Romans 14:5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. 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.

Romans 14:5 differs from 14:1-2 in important ways that need to be examined carefully.