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.
- 2429 views
Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
A thorough treatment of that text is vitally important.
If you want to talk about Romans 14:14, I'll mention something that pops to my mind. The word "unclean" brings the idea of prohibitions to my mind. Certain foods were proclaimed by God to be unclean in the OT and those foods were prohibited. Touching a dead body was prohibited and doing so made a person unclean. Unclean people were prohibited from participating in temple rituals and from engaging in certain aspects of every day life.
We see from the disagreements regarding foodstuffs, that some people were prohibiting foodstuffs and others were eating the things that the first group prohibited. Perhaps we should look at the "days" conflict with an eye toward prohibitions. Perhaps the people who considered all days alike were saying that no Old Testament prohibitions applied to a person's activities during any day, while the ones who considered one day above another were claiming that certain prohibitions were still in effect. In this case, we don't even have to deal with commands to worship on a certain day, since there were no prohibitions against worshipping on any day.
No, Romans 14 is not about such things. Such discussions are very popular and have been engaged in ad nauseam.
Dr. Minnick thought it included such things. And so does just about everyone I know. If you regard a day differently, what does that prevent you from doing? You have to say what “regard above” actually requires. You can’t just punt.
If you want to “combat the misuse of Romans 14 as supposed support for views about worship music that Romans 14 (or any other part of Scripture) in actuality does not support at all,” why not address it? Why not stop distracting and avoiding?
Paul commanded the churches of Galatia (1 Cor. 16:1-2) and the church of Corinth to do the same thing on the first day of the week (1 Cor. 16:1-2). Those commands considered along with who Paul was and the apostolic authority that he had to command people to do what he did provide more than enough apostolic basis for us to know that we are commanded to worship God corporately on the first day of the week.
“The same thing” they were to do was to put aside an offering for the saints on teh first day of the week. There is nothing of a gathering in that text. And I asked you a bunch of questions about it earlier and you haven’t answered them. Why not?
If this text is authoritative, then we need to answer some questions about it.
I suppose the really bold question for you Rajesh, is this: Does the text and what it says actually matter to you?
It doesn’t seem like it at times. You won’t address what the text actually says and doesn’t say. That seems odd to me.
Paul's example is applicable to all believers at all times? This is why I asked you about Paul preaching until midnight. You told me "His example did show to them that it was acceptable to do so sometimes." So what is your biblical basis for holding that one example is for all believers to do at all times and a another example is acceptable to do sometimes? After all, those two examples from Paul, meeting on the first day and preaching until midnight, are both in the very same verse.
I already explained this point by saying:
Unless you have biblical basis to hold that something about Paul's example is not applicable to all believers at all times in corporate worship, you must follow his example concerning corporate worship.
Again, comparing Scripture with Scripture is vital. The NT does not just have Paul's example about preaching; it also has commands about preaching that do not specify that every preacher must preach until midnight every time he preaches.
If you regard a day differently, what does that prevent you from doing? You have to say what “regard above” actually requires. You can’t just punt.
No, I do not. The Holy Spirit did not do so in Romans 14.
Those who want to discuss such things are free to do so. There is no NT command that anyone who discusses Romans 14 must do so. According to your approach to the Christian life, anything that is not directly and explicitly commanded in Scripture is not required. Yet you comment in this thread as if there were a direct and explicit divine command in Scripture about how Romans 14 must be discussed.
If you want to “combat the misuse of Romans 14 as supposed support for views about worship music that Romans 14 (or any other part of Scripture) in actuality does not support at all,” why not address it? Why not stop distracting and avoiding?
I am progressively treating the parts of the passage that have been misused to that end. When I have presented all that I believe needs to be presented, I will address in detail the misuse of Romans 14 to support certain music positions that are not supported by Scripture.
Again, comparing Scripture with Scripture is vital. The NT does not just have Paul's example about preaching; it also has commands about preaching that do not specify that every preacher must preach until midnight every time he preaches.
So now you're saying that we don't have to look at Paul's example but we have to look for specific commands to see if a particular activity has to be done.
Why don't you use this principle for worship on the first day of the week? Where are the commands to hold services on the first day of the week? You've been assuming that a command to gather an offering on the first day of the week is a command to assemble together on the first day, but the command to gather the offering does not actually specify that meeting together has to take place every first day. We have examples of the church meeting multiple days of the week, but the command to assemble together does not specify a time frame any more than the command to preach specifies a time frame.
If you regard a day differently, what does that prevent you from doing?
I'll present a possibility, Larry. Exodus 35:2 says, Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
The next verse says they couldn't even light a fire on the holy day. These Sabbath restrictions were ingrained into the society of the Israelites. It wouldn't surprise me at all if many Israelite Christians would have their conscience bothered if they were attending church with people who worked or lit fires on the Sabbath.
According to your approach to the Christian life, anything that is not directly and explicitly commanded in Scripture is not required.
No.
Yet you comment in this thread as if there were a direct and explicit divine command in Scripture about how Romans 14 must be discussed.
No. I am saying that if you want to convince people of your position, you need to actually discuss the passage and its implications.
I am progressively treating the parts of the passage that have been misused to that end.
There doesn’t seem to be any progress at all here. You haven’t moved past your original post much in spite of many and repeated requests to do so.
So now you're saying that we don't have to look at Paul's example but we have to look for specific commands to see if a particular activity has to be done.
No, I am not saying that. We have to look at all the applicable content throughout the Bible. When we have both Pauline example and Pauline (or other apostolic) command, we have to base what we believe and practice on both his example and his (or other apostolic) command.
Romans 14 does not apply to how a Christian should esteem the Lord's Day. You are pushing for a Romans 14 approach to this disagreement. I reject your attempt to do so. That is where I am going to leave it in my interactions with you in this discussion.
You claim that Romans 14 doesn’t apply to days, in fact that seems like a foregone conclusion for you. You ignore discussion of what the text teaches that would inform us about the weak/strong status of the more free Christian, who “treats every day alike.”
You claim that Romans 14 doesn’t apply to days, in fact that seems like a foregone conclusion for you. You ignore discussion of what the text teaches that would inform us about the weak/strong status of the more free Christian, who “treats every day alike.”
No, I hold that it does not apply to days in every sense without any qualifications whatever they might be. Just as "all things" does not and cannot mean that the strong eat "all things" without any qualifications whatever in Romans 14:2, so esteeming "every day" in Romans 14:5 does not and cannot mean "every day" with no qualifications of any kind whatever they might be.
No, I am not saying that. We have to look at all the applicable content throughout the Bible. When we have both Pauline example and Pauline (or other apostolic) command, we have to base what we believe and practice on both his example and his (or other apostolic) command.
I would love to do that for first day of the week worship. We have specific verses that give the Pauline example. The people did meet on the first day of the week. They had to have met on that day in order to collect an offering on that day. So that's an example.
Where are the specific verses that give the "Pauline (or other apostolic) command"? You simply haven't shown me the command verses. Are both really needed or not? If you think the command is assumed because the early church worshipped on the first day of the week, then you are using example to make that assumption and you aren't really giving me a command from the Bible.
Here's another verse that gives an example within a command. Look at Romans 16:5 "Greet also the church that meets at their house." Paul is commanding the Roman church to greet the members of Priscilla and Aquila's church that met in their house. Is this also a command that Priscilla and Aquila's church has to continue to meet at their house and nowhere else or they would be disobedient? Does every other church at all times have to meet in houses?
No, I hold that it does not apply to days in every sense without any qualifications whatever they might be. Just as "all things" does not and cannot mean that the strong eat "all things" without any qualifications whatever in Romans 14:2, so esteeming "every day" in Romans 14:5 does not and cannot mean "every day" with no qualifications of any kind whatever they might be.
Ah, you've hit the nail on the head with the way you've described this. The "qualifications of any kind whatever they might be" are exactly the point of disagreement that believers may have about a particular foodstuff being prohibited or a day being above another day. Believers can have legitimate differences of understanding in regard to both those issues based on the knowledge they've so far acquired at their particular point in their Christian life.
I would love to do that for first day of the week worship. We have specific verses that give the Pauline example. The people did meet on the first day of the week. They had to have met on that day in order to collect an offering on that day. So that's an example.
Where are the specific verses that give the "Pauline (or other apostolic) command"? You simply haven't shown me the command verses. Are both really needed or not?
When there is a Pauline example concerning corporate life in the church, it is authoritative in what it reveals whether there is a command or not for that activity unless there is other information that shows that it is not.
Put differently, if there is also other revelation about the same matter, especially an apostolic command, but the command does not repeat the particulars or specifics of the activity spoken of in Paul's example, such as in the case of his preaching until midnight, those specifics or particulars of the activity are not mandatory. They still are instructive . . .
Concerning esteeming one day above another, my position is not based on just Pauline example--it is based on revelation from the entire Bible:
Ah, you've hit the nail on the head with the way you've described this. The "qualifications of any kind whatever they might be" are exactly the point of disagreement that believers may have about a particular foodstuff being prohibited or a day being above another day. Believers can have legitimate differences of understanding in regard to both those issues based on the knowledge they've so far acquired at their particular point in their Christian life.
You have misunderstood what I mean by what I said. My position is that by comparing Scripture with Scripture, it is impossible to validly hold that Romans 14:1-2 supports that the strong believer eats everything of plant or animal origin with no exclusions whatever for any reason whatever it might be.
Similarly, comparing Scripture with Scripture shows that it is impossible to validly hold that esteeming all days "alike" has ever been the right position when considering all days in every single respect concerning days whatever that respect might be.
When there is a Pauline example concerning corporate life in the church, it is authoritative in what it reveals whether there is a command or not for that activity unless there is other information that shows that it is not.
Put differently, if there is also other revelation about the same matter, especially an apostolic command, but the command does not repeat the particulars or specifics of the activity spoken of in Paul's example, such as in the case of his preaching until midnight, those specifics or particulars of the activity are not mandatory. They still are instructive . . .
That's an awfully convoluted way of trying to derive a biblical position about an issue. You're saying an example of an activity is authoritative unless there is a revelation or command that "does not repeat the particulars or specifics of the activity" but is still somehow about the activity without being specifically about the activity. At that point, it's only "instructive" instead of "mandatory" or "authoritative," even though you had mentioned in a previous post that we need to consider "who Paul was and the apostolic authority that he had to command people to do what he did." "What he did" is another phrase for "the examples of his activities," which he had apostolic authority to command, unless, of course, they happen to be just instructive.
And we're supposed to get a biblical position from that?
Concerning esteeming one day above another, my position is not based on just Pauline example--it is based on revelation from the entire Bible:
Yet of those eight lines, the first two are about the seventh day of the week, the next 5 are about the first day of the week, and the last one doesn't even specify whether it's referring to the seventh day or the first. No wonder there were disagreements about considering one day above another.
That's an awfully convoluted way of trying to derive a biblical position about an issue. You're saying an example of an activity is authoritative unless there is a revelation or command that "does not repeat the particulars or specifics of the activity" but is still somehow about the activity without being specifically about the activity. At that point, it's only "instructive" instead of "mandatory" or "authoritative," even though you had mentioned in a previous post that we need to consider "who Paul was and the apostolic authority that he had to command people to do what he did." "What he did" is another phrase for "the examples of his activities," which he had apostolic authority to command, unless, of course, they happen to be just instructive.
Again, if there is a direct command to do something but the command does not specify every aspect of the activity that is commanded, the specifics concerning that activity as they may be seen in an example in some other passage are not automatically being commanded.
Preaching is directly commanded by Paul and others, including Jesus. All the specifics of that preaching have not been commanded.
Paul's preaching until midnight is not something that is commanded.
Yet of those eight lines, the first two are about the seventh day of the week, the next 5 are about the first day of the week, and the last one doesn't even specify whether it's referring to the seventh day or the first. No wonder there were disagreements about considering one day above another.
The 5 about the first day show that the first two are no longer the mind of God for man, but the first two still are relevant to the overall point because they show that it has always been God's mind that one day was to be esteemed above the others.
Concerning the last one, there are only 2 occurrences in the NT of the special Greek adjective used in Revelation 1:10 to signify what belonged uniquely to the Lord:
1 Cor. 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
The only available information about when the disciples after the Resurrection observed the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7) shows us that it was observed on the first day of the week.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we learn that the Lord's Table that uniquely belongs to Him is to be observed on the day that uniquely belongs to Him. That day is the first day of the week. All 6 of the NT lines of evidence therefore point to the correctness of esteeming the first day of the week above all the other days of the week.
Romans 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
Comparing Romans 14:14 with 2 Corinthians 6:17 plainly shows that Paul did not intend his teaching in the former to viewed as a universal statement applicable to all things whatever they might be regardless of any and all considerations about what those things were. When Paul said, "There is nothing unclean of itself," he was speaking concerning foodstuffs that had been created by God. He was not speaking of anything and everything regardless of who made it.
Furthermore, in 2 Corinthians 6:17, Paul does not leave any room for any differences among individual believers and how they esteem those things that he commands all believers not to touch.
Holding Romans 14:14 to be universal teaching about all things without any exclusions and applying it as such to claim that all "genres" of instrumental music are "clean" in and of themselves is a mishandling and misapplication of Romans 14:14.
It seems to me we are in a classic Romans 14 situation, on an issue about which Romans 14 is explicit no less. I imagine this is exactly what Paul had in mind: That one side was making their case so strongly and without biblical authority that he was cautioning them about their responses towards those who differed.
And as I have asked Rajesh, what is your responsibility towards those who differ? Biblically, your responsibility is not to judge or hold in contempt (depending on whether you think you are weak or strong). You are commanded to let them be convinced in their own mind.
But I also think biblically, you have a duty to interact with Scripture more faithfully. Consider:
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we learn that the Lord’s Table that uniquely belongs to Him is to be observed on the day that uniquely belongs to Him. That day is the first day of the week.
Where does Scripture identify this as the first day of the week?
It doesn’t. You have assumed that to be the case (and you might be right); but it isn’t in the text. This identification of “the Lord’s day” as the first day of the week does not come until several hundred years later apparently.
You keep leaning on this line of argument that assumes the conclusion but it is fraught with difficulty.
Honestly, your whole hermeneutic seems so convoluted here it is hard to follow. You have examples as commands and then try to divide it out by saying multiple examples that don’t contain all aspects have a different meaning that other examples. Or some such explanation. It doesn’t work well.
At the end of the day, we are seeing Romans 14 played out in front of us, but seemingly without the tolerance for fellow believers that Romans 14 calls for.
But I also think biblically, you have a duty to interact with Scripture more faithfully. Consider:
[RajeshG said:] "Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we learn that the Lord’s Table that uniquely belongs to Him is to be observed on the day that uniquely belongs to Him. That day is the first day of the week."
Where does Scripture identify this as the first day of the week?
It doesn’t. You have assumed that to be the case (and you might be right); but it isn’t in the text. This identification of “the Lord’s day” as the first day of the week does not come until several hundred years later apparently.
You keep leaning on this line of argument that assumes the conclusion but it is fraught with difficulty.
It is not legitimate and misrepresents what I have said for you to lift 2 concluding sentences that I wrote out of their context and set them forth without also quoting the supporting argument that I made prior to making those statements.
Before making those statements, I said the following:
The 5 about the first day show that the first two are no longer the mind of God for man, but the first two still are relevant to the overall point because they show that it has always been God's mind that one day was to be esteemed above the others.
Concerning the last one, there are only 2 occurrences in the NT of the special Greek adjective used in Revelation 1:10 to signify what belonged uniquely to the Lord:
1 Cor. 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.Rev. 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
The only available information about when the disciples after the Resurrection observed the Lord's Supper (Acts 20:7) shows us that it was observed on the first day of the week.
My statements that you quoted do not assume something to be the case. I argued for my position based on the only NT uses of a special Greek adjective in connection with the only available information about a specific day of the week when Paul observed the Lord's Supper with other believers.
You can reject that argument, but it is not legitimate for you to say that I assumed something when I made a specific argument to support what I said.
Furthermore, my argument is based on the explicitly stated churchwide importance of Paul's apostolic practice (1 Cor. 4:17; 11:1; etc.). You appear to ignore or dismiss that vital information in your continual assertion that seems to set forth that only direct and explicit commands with all details explicitly stated are authoritative in determining what Christians are to believe and do.
The Bible does not teach that the only thing that matters are such commands.
it is impossible to validly hold that Romans 14:1-2 supports that the strong believer eats everything of plant or animal origin with no exclusions whatever for any reason whatever it might be.
The vegetarian considered meat to be wrong, ethically. Why?
- The vegetarian was judging the meat eater. (v.3)
- The vegetarian was concerned (Paul believed) about the standing of the meat eater. (v.4)
- The vegetarian logically concluded that meat was wrong (unclean). (v.14)
- The vegetarian was at risk of guilt-sadness and destruction. (v.15)
- The vegetarian was at risk of calling God's gift of food evil (v.16)
- Having concluded that he cannot eat meat, to eat is to enter condemnation. (v.23)
This passage is about ethics. It's not trying to comment about poison or unavailable foods. It's about the normal anti-meat position Jewish people actually held in that day. It's also about the normal days-treating position Jewish people actually held.
-------
You still are ignoring the details Romans 14 offers about who is weak.
It is not legitimate and misrepresents what I have said for you to lift 2 concluding sentences that I wrote out of their context and set them forth without also quoting the supporting argument that I made prior to making those statements.
I didn’t misrepresent what you said. I pointed out that you have to assume that “the Lord’s day” in Rev 1:10 is Sunday because the text doesn’t say so. “First day” or something equivalent is not in Revelation 1 at all. That is indisputable. And I think you admit that by pointing to other passages to make your point.
You appeal to “the Lord’s Supper” on the first day to argue that the “Lord’s day” must also be the first day. But exegesis doesn’t work like that. A common possessive noun does not meant that object possessed is the same. “David’s army” and “David’s throne” are not the same.
Again you might be right, and I think you are, but it’s not in the text.
You appear to ignore or dismiss that vital information in your continual assertion that seems to set forth that only direct and explicit commands with all details explicitly stated are authoritative in determining what Christians are to believe and do.
Talk about misrepresentation, this is it.
My main and virtually only point is that Romans 14 says that each is to be persuaded in his own mind whether to regard all days alike or to regard one day above another.
I have not said, nor do I believe, that only “direct and explicit commands with all details explicitly stated are authoritative in determining what Christians are to believe and do.”
As I said, we are exactly in a situation that Romans 14 addresses.
I didn’t misrepresent what you said. I pointed out that you have to assume that “the Lord’s day” in Rev 1:10 is Sunday because the text doesn’t say so. “First day” or something equivalent is not in Revelation 1 at all. That is indisputable. And I think you admit that by pointing to other passages to make your point.
You appeal to “the Lord’s Supper” on the first day to argue that the “Lord’s day” must also be the first day. But exegesis doesn’t work like that. A common possessive noun does not meant that object possessed is the same. “David’s army” and “David’s throne” are not the same.
Of course, you misrepresented me. By selectively quoting only my concluding statements apart from the support provided for them, you made it look like I just pulled those statements "out of thin air" without providing any support for them.
No, I do not have to assume that "the Lord's day" in Rev. 1:10 is the first day of the week. I am making a theological and lexical argument for the validity of that position.
You obviously do not understand the point that I am making about the Spirit's reserving that adjective only for those two instances. I have not said anything to support claiming that my view is that "a common possessive noun" means "that the object possessed is the same." That is an absurd reading of what I said.
What I am saying is that the use of the special adjective stresses the importance of the two things that they explicitly say that the Lord possesses--I have not said anything to say that they are the same thing. Your example about David's army and David's throne is totally irrelevant to my point.
I have not said, nor do I believe, that only “direct and explicit commands with all details explicitly stated are authoritative in determining what Christians are to believe and do.”
I went back through the whole thread and looked at all your comments to see how many times you talked about there not being a command and the importance that you have placed on that point. One of your key assertions has been that there is no command to worship God corporately on the first day.
For example, you said,
Undeniably, your focus in these remarks (and elsewhere) is on whether there is a command or not.
Does Revelation 1:10 or the surrounding context use the phrase ” first day of the week”?
That is literally all I addressed. And that’s why I quoted what I did … Because that is all I wanted to address. I don’t want to address your other points so I didn’t quote them.
All the rest of your post is irrelevant to my point. I completely understand your argument. I was not addressing that at all. My point was only about what the text actually says.
[RajeshG]You appear to ignore or dismiss that vital information in your continual assertion that seems to set forth that only direct and explicit commands with all details explicitly stated are authoritative in determining what Christians are to believe and do.
[Larry]Talk about misrepresentation, this is it. . . .
I have not said, nor do I believe, that only “direct and explicit commands with all details explicitly stated are authoritative in determining what Christians are to believe and do.”
Notice that I qualified what I said by saying, "You appear to . . ." and "seems . . ." I did not misrepresent you because I did not assert that you have said or believe . . .
Ok, now let’s move on: what do you believe a Christian can or cannot do on the Lord’s Day?
In addition to everything else that I have presented, treating Romans 14:6 in its direct and necessary connection with Romans 14:5 shows that it is plain that Romans 14:5 cannot and does not apply to when churches must meet for corporate worship. It does so as follows:
Romans 14:6 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.
Romans 14:6 explicitly speaks of those who do not regard a day and do not regard it to the Lord.
If Romans 14:5 applies to every believer's being persuaded in their mind about esteeming the first day of the week as the day that a believer must corporately worship God or not, Romans 14:6 inescapably and undeniably shows that believers are justified in not worshiping God corporately on the first day of the week.
Those who refuse to meet on the first day of the week on the basis of their view of the teaching of Romans 14:5-6 would say that unto the Lord they do not meet on the first day of the week. The others in the church then could not say anything to them about their refusal to worship God corporately on the first day of the week.
Plainly, it is inescapable and undeniable that understanding that Romans 14:5-6 applies to what day of the week churches are to meet for corporate worship would lead to unworkable division in the churches of God.
It would also do so because it would lead to numerous believers who hold that Paul's command to follow him (1 Cor. 11:1) does not apply to following him about when he met with believers to worship God corporately (Acts 20:6-7).
Discussion