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

What else is allowed on this distinctively different day?

For the purposes of this thread, I do not care anything about discussing these matters. These are far less important matters; establishing what is the actual teaching of the passage is what matters the most.

I think this question absolutely relates to the "actual teaching of the passage." The passage uses the word "esteem" and figuring out what is involved (or allowed) in regards to "esteeming" is essential to establishing the teaching of the passage.

For the purposes of this thread, I do not care anything about discussing these matters.

Except that this is a major issue in understanding the passage and our obligations because of it. It is not a “minute application.” It is what Paul is addressing—how do we regard this day? You titled the thread “What does Romans 14 teach about … days” and now you say you don’t care to discuss what it teaches about days. The fact that you don’t care about discussing seems to indicate you don’t actually care about the meaning and application of the passage and the purpose of your own thread.

“First day of the week” is certainly is a right translation of the phrase. It is not the only one. The phrase means “Sunday” and you know this and you admit it by the way that you treat Sunday.

What does “first day of the week” refer to? Sunday.

I found a series by Dr. Minnick on Romans 14. Since Rajesh's argument (in part) are based on his, here is the message on Days.

It might be best to start with his introduction:

In Part One of the series, Dr. Minnink says:

3:30 We must differentiate between—we all have personal convictions we get passionate about…There is a difference between what the Text states and what our applications of the text are. We must keep those differentiated.

That I thought was very promising because understanding a qualitative difference between biblical principles and applications is key to my understanding of these passages.

28:35 it is essential that we define the people who are “weak in the faith.” . . . Has it bothered you—if you have strict convictions, this passage is calling you weak? [let's define "weak in faith"]

1. Negatives - NIV - not weak faith
2. Not weak in understanding of faith.
3. Not a personal weakness-vulnerability to certain sins.

Again, I agree with all of these. #1 and #2 were especially promising to me. Of note, those offer a different view than what Rajesh has been in the last few posts.

Kevin said: If weak in the faith means "lacking in the body of knowledge," then strong in the faith must mean "having full and total understanding of the body of knowledge."

Even though I disagree with Rajesh’s view of “in the faith” in R14:1, Kevin, the references to “weak” and “strong” are almost certainly relative. Even if Paul thought the “strong” had a better understanding of the faith, that would not mean they know everything.

If the group is willing to discuss Minnick’s message, then we’ll be discussing “knowledge” shortly.

Rajesh: Wrong. I do not care to discuss the numerous applications in this thread because that would eat up all the time in the thread and divert the focus away from treating the text itself. You should be able to understand the difference between those two things.

We don't have rules about this, but generally, if you started the thread you get to say what is off-topic.

On the other hand, sometimes your interlocutor might believe something is on-topic and we try to respect that.

Finally, someone has brought up in this thread the only actual biblical data that I can find that seems to be a viable explanation for the two differing views presented in Romans 14:5 and Paul’s assessment of and response to them.

As I recall, other biblical data has been raised. But here’s a major issue: Your comments are still focused on “corporate worship.” Acts 2 says nothing about corporate worship. I believe that will continue to be an error in your approach. You are inserting things into the text which the text does not say.

I do not care to discuss the numerous applications in this thread because that would eat up all the time in the thread and divert the focus away from treating the text itself.

There’s not really a dispute about what the text says. There is a dispute about how we should apply it. If you start a thread on “What Romans 14 teaches about … days,” it seems unreasonable to refuse to discuss what Romans 14 teaches about days.

I had a long drive yesterday so I went back and listened to Minnick’s message on this from 1996. It was what I recalled though I heard it earlier than 1996. As usual, he did a very good, if not his usual pedantic, job with the text. As I heard it I believe he made an error in his category of precept because he did not get the precept correct in 1 Cor 16:2. This is the same error you made—that the precept of “put aside” is the precept of “gather for corporate worship.” If that is the precept, then you have Paul setting aside his precept just a few words later when he says that no offering (e.g., gathering) should take place when he comes.

In other words, exegetically, whatever Paul commands in 1 Cor 16:2 is to take place only before he gets there and then to stop when he is there. If that precept/command is to meet, then Paul is certainly commanding the first day assembly and then turning around and forbidding the first day assembly when he arrives. If, on the other hand, he is commanding a particular approach to gathering an offering for the poor, then we have no problem. And none of that says that the church didn’t meet on the first day. It is a matter of whether 1 Cor 16:2 commands that meeting or assumes it. It seems clearly the latter. Simply put, it seems that first day meeting is never commanded in the NT (and that’s not really controversial). It certainly appears to be a matter of custom, which may be why it wasn’t commanded. Or it may not have been commanded because it wasn’t a command.

Minnick’s conclusion to the second message was instructive in that he admitted that the questions I am raising are among the main questions people have from the text and that faithful Christians can answer them in different ways, even as he made a case for the way he answers the questions. And I would raise many of the same points that Minnick raised about the matter, though with some different allowances.

Larry: It is a matter of whether 1 Cor 16:2 commands that meeting or assumes it.

Right. The meeting is descriptive. The collection is prescriptive. Minnick missed that.

In Part One of the series, Dr. Minnick says:

Around 30 minutes in: "Conscience" is not in R14. But 1Cor8 is parallel. (1 Cor 8 “we have knowledge” “we know there is but one God” “There is not in every man that knowledge” “for some with conscience of the idol eat it as something offered and their conscience being weak is defiled.”) 14:14 “Whatever I can’t do in faith is sin.”

Rajesh and Kevin have been talking about knowledge. 1 Cor 8 seems to reinforce that weak=lack of knowledge.

But look more carefully. The temple-eaters [strong] had 'knowledge.' They knew:

• There is but one God
• An idol is nothing
• What is offered to an idol is offered to nothing. The meat is tainted by nothing.

Then we see that the "weak" didn't have that knowledge. Part of the knowledge was the fact that God is one. Is that what the "weak" fail to know? We could assume the worst of them (they are called "weak" after all), but we don't have to. Paul actually said what knowledge they didn't have:

1Cor8:7 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.

What I underlined is what the weak didn't know: that what is offered to an idol is offered to nothing. They thought it was "really offered to an idol."

Did they fail to understand that God was one? Paul didn't say, but they concluded that IF the meat was offered to an idol, that made it wrong. That is based on God's exclusive right of worship.

The command was not just what was to be done; it was also when it was supposed to be done

Yes, the command is about the offering. As you say, the commanded activity (putting aside an offering) was to be done on the first day of the week. But there are no Spirit-inspired words about a gathering. You have added that in.

Rajesh, this is simple grammar. It is one thing to hold your position firmly. It is quite another to try to make Scripture say something it doesn’t say.

I think the Corinthian church met on the first day each week. But we don’t get to add a command to the text for it. The command is to put aside money on the first day so that no collections will be made when Paul gets there. The end. There is no other command involved in that section.

Acts 2:46 specifies that they were breaking bread (including observing the Lord’s Supper), which was corporate worship:

I think it is unlikely that their daily meals together included the Lord’s Supper. That would much more likely have been a weekly observance. It is frequently noted that there is a grammatical difference between v .42 and v. 46. How much to lean on that is not entirely clear, but the prior point stands—that meals together don’t require the Lord’s Supper and it is unlikely that the Lord’s Supper was a daily occurrence in houses. Again, note how you have read something into the text that isn’t there.

Acts 20:7 is more likely to be communion. But there is still no first day command.

I would simply note again, Rajesh, that the first day command is not in the NT. And I am a first day person who believes the church should gather on the first day. I believe all days belong equally to the Lord and all have their purpose in his will for our lives.

Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

In fact, Luke specifies that when they came together for the purpose of breaking bread (including observing the Lord's Supper), Paul preached to them. Here we see two major aspects of corporate worship directly tied together as being done on the first day of the week.

So would this passage indicate the existence of a command to observe the Lord's Supper every Sunday?

How do you explain that Paul commanded them to do that activity on that day of the week? Did Paul just arbitrarily choose one day out of the seven?

No, I don’t think it was arbitrary. I have said multiple times that I think Sunday is the day the church should gather because of its significance and because of the church’s pattern. I have no problem saying that Paul commanded such an offering on the first day because that is when the church gathered. I am not sure why you keep missing that or pretending I haven’t said it.

I am pointing out the grammar of the passage—what did Paul actually command? It was an offering, not a gathering. The imperative is “put aside” (titheto). There is no other imperative in this verse. V. 1 has an imperative to “do also” (poisate) as the churches in Galatia were directed. Again, that deals with the collection for the saints. You have taken what is essentially a circumstantial clause (on the first day) and turned it into an imperative.

How does this apostolic command for a specified activity by each individual believer of a church on a specified day support your view that “all days belong equally to the Lord”? If all days belong equally to the Lord, why was the activity commanded to be on that day instead of on all days or on whatever day was convenient or preferred by each individual Christian in the church in Corinth?

All of this is irrelevant. The fact that something is commanded does not mean that all other things take a lesser role or become less important

There is a lot in this passage you haven’t interacted with. So let’s ask a few specific questions to move us ahead:

1. This was an offering for the saints. It does not appear it was for the general operating expenses of the church. So does this command apply to other offerings such as the regular weekly offerings? Or does this command only apply to the “collection for the saints”?
2. Paul commands that his offering stop when he got there (so that no collections be made when I come). If this is a command to meet, was Paul also commanding them to stop meeting?
3. What about a person who gives to their church online and does so on Tuesday or Friday? Are they in disobedience to the Scripture?
4. What about people who mail their check to the church? Obviously mail doesn’t run on Sunday, so are they disobedient?

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.

Some hold that this teaching gives believers latitude concerning the frequency of its observance. I haven't studied this question at length.

If a church observes the Lord's Supper on some Sundays but not on other Sundays, are they esteeming the Lord's Supper Sundays more highly than the other Sundays?

With apostolic authority, Paul as the Christ-chosen apostolic leader of the Church discipled God's people everywhere in every church (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 11:1) to esteem the first day above all other days as the day on which they were to worship God corporately. Scripture provides more than sufficient evidence for the truthfulness of this interpretation that he discipled the churches in Galatia (cf. 1 Cor. 16:1) and the church in Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 16:2) to do exactly what he himself later did in Troas (applying 1 Cor. 4:17 to Acts 20:7).

You included Acts 20:7 at the end of this paragraph. That verse says, And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

Paul preached until midnight in this verse. Was Paul's apostolic authority being used to teach the churches to have services until midnight?

To hold that the first (“all days belong equally to the Lord”) is true requires denying explicit biblical revelation about one day that belongs to the Lord uniquely:

Which days do not belong to God as much as the others?

You say there is explicit revelation but you haven’t actually shown that. Even Rev 1:10 does not specify that it is a specific day of the week. And the phrase “Lord’s day” for Sunday does not become customary until several hundred years later. What if it was a day of the month? Or a day in John’s life? Or a day of the Spirit’s particular moving? The text doesn’t tell us. So why do you? (I believe it was probably Sunday, but I am pointing out that the text doesn’t say that.)

Jesus taught otherwise (Matt. 22:37-40).

So your claim is that Jesus believed some of his commands did not have to be followed? Of course you aren’t claiming that but what else does your response mean? Matt 22:37-40 establishes that the entirety of the Law (and probably even our NT ethic) stems from two foundational issues: love for God and love for man. It doesn’t mean some things are less important.

Remember Jesus said, “These you ought to have done and not left the others undone”? Why is that? Because it all mattered. There were no unimportant parts of obedience.

The fact that Jesus commanded husbands to love their wives does not mean that they are allowed to provoke their children to anger. The fact that we are commanded to not steal does not mean that we are allowed to murder. The fact that the Corinthians were commanded to put aside an offering for the poor on the first day for a limited period of time does not mean that the other days did not belong to God as well.

With apostolic authority, Paul as the Christ-chosen apostolic leader of the Church discipled His people everywhere in every church to esteem the first day above all other days as the day on which they were to worship God corporately.

Where do we see this command in Paul’s apostolic authoritative writings?

And why does Paul say we can be convinced in our own mind about how we regard the days?

And yet all of this continues to miss the point because we really don’t disagree on the specific matter of what day Christians should gather as a church. We only slightly disagree on why, since you think it is a command and I don’t. But we both agree on the significance and the historical practice of it.

The real issues are what else are Christians allowed to do on the first day, the Lord’s day, Sunday or whatever name you want to call it. I have asked specific questions that would help clarify your position for us but you keep going back to stuff that has already been said multiple times rather than moving on and talking about other important issues.

I feel ready to move forward...

Rajesh, you treat one day above another. And you have a fairly robust (no one agrees it's explicit) biblical case for doing that.

Are you, in that position, weak, strong, or neither? You asked previously about where "days" is linked to "weakness." BEFORE we try to answer that, let's look at this in more general terms.

Here are characteristics that distinguish "strong" from "weak" in the Text:

• Inability - is a characteristic of weakness. The weak cannot eat meat in Rome (R14:2). The one with a weak conscience cannot eat in the temple in Corinth (1C8:7,8-9). If he does what he is unable to do, he will be defiled (1C8:7) he will judge himself(R14:22).
• Sin - The one who is "weak," and does what his conscience forbids, sins (R14:14, 1C8:12)
• Freedom - The strong can eat all things. He is more free in his assessment of what he can do. He has a "right" to eat in the temple (1C8:8-9).
• Bearing - Responsibility to bear the other position. The strong must bear the weakness of the weak(R15:1). The one with freedom must not, by eating, encourage the weak to eat(1C8:10-11). To the weak, become weak (1C9:22). The weak cannot support fellowship by taking on (bearing) the position of the strong.
• Judging - The weak will tend to judge. Label as sin what the strong does that is allowed(R14:3).
• Belittle - The strong will tend to belittle (R14:3).

Some might suggest the following characteristics to distinguish them: (I will follow with what in the text of Rom14 and 1Cor8-10 supports this.)

• Maturity - The word "weak" is used.
• Knowledge - The temple-eaters [strong] are said to have knowledge (1Cor8:1-7). (However, when Paul addresses a lack of knowledge (ἀγνοεῖν, 1C10:1-22), he refutes temple-eating.)
• Excellence - Romans 2:17-18: “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent [διαφέροντα], because you are instructed from the law.” The same Jews who later read R14 claim excellence. Paul doesn't refute that, but he does say that hypocrisy ruins their claim.

Now, I do not agree that those last three are legitimate biblical characteristics that distinguish between weak and strong. I'll leave it to others to present that case.