Romans 14

Steve Petersen · #1 24th December 2010, 01:03 PM

Romans 14 is being discussed in another forum and I wanted to see if this is a plausible explanation of the real controversy.

The question of 'days' arises early in the chapter

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.

Lay this alongside the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah:

MISHNA I.: Three days before the festivals 1 of the heathens it is forbidden to have any business with them. One must not lend them anything (which can be useful to them) nor borrow such from them. And the same is the case with cash money, even to pay or to receive payment is forbidden. R. Jehuda, however, maintains: To receive payment is allowed, because it is a displeasure to the payers. And he was answered: Although it is now a displeasure, it pleases them, in the future.

MISHNA. II.: R. Ismael said: Three days before and three days after it is prohibited. The sages, however, say: Before the festivals, but not after them.

MISHNA III.: The following are the festivals of the heathens: Kalends, Saturnalia, kratsin. The accession of their kings upon the throne, their birthday, and the day of their death. So R. Mair. The sages, however, maintain that only such a death on which burning (dresses) is used, is conjoined with worshipping the idols. But in such on which it is not used, there is no .idolatry. All, however, agree concerning the following days: That of shaving his beard and hair, that in which he lauds, that on which he was released from prison, and that on which is celebrated a marriage of his son that the prohibition concerns only one day, and the only one man engaged in this affair.

If the congregations in Rome were mixed Jew/Gentile and believer/unbeliever and that some form of these restrictions were in place for Jews, isn't reasonable to assume that Paul was trying to mitigate the fences erected between Jews and Gentiles by rabbinic decree and not addressing the Torah at all?

GuardianShua · #2 24th December 2010, 04:41 PM

It is difficult to say Steve. Paul was addressing the Christian community. It is a known fact that the Rabbi's added many laws to what was already written. Perhaps it has to do with Rabbinical additions.

Lulav · #3 27th December 2010, 09:58 PM

I remember reading somewhere that Paul was not even acquainted with this congregation in Rome. He did not start it but was trying to add it to his group.

By verse 1:13 it seems he is only addressing Gentiles.

yedida · #4 27th December 2010, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

Romans 14 is being discussed in another forum and I wanted to see if this is a plausible explanation of the real controversy.

The question of 'days' arises early in the chapter

Lay this alongside the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah:

If the congregations in Rome were mixed Jew/Gentile and believer/unbeliever and that some form of these restrictions were in place for Jews, isn't reasonable to assume that Paul was trying to mitigate the fences erected between Jews and Gentiles by rabbinic decree and not addressing the Torah at all?

I've just vilolated my own (normal) rules for answering a post before reading through - but in the last 6 years of study this is what I have presumed was meant the majority of the time the "law" was mentioned, whether it be by Yeshua or Paul or any of the others. (It's what most of the teachers I've listened to lean toward, anyway.)
And it was for this reason (such passages as you shared) that gave rise to the Jews thinking that the Gentiles had to undergo "ritual conversion" to Judaism to "be saved" by faith in Yeshua who was the Jewish Messiah. And that view Paul was trying to prove otherwise. (This also from most of the teachers I've listened to.)
I have a hard time understanding how anyone can read of Hashem and/or Yeshua and still have hatred in their hearts for other human beings. The Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that that man (Jew or Christian or anything else) does NOT have God within them.

Tishri1 · #5 28th December 2010, 02:02 AM

are we allowed to post anything we see in chapter 14?

If so then this is my favorite part

19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

Originally Posted by Steve Petersen

Romans 14 is being discussed in another forum and I wanted to see if this is a plausible explanation of the real controversy.

The question of 'days' arises early in the chapter

Lay this alongside the Mishnah, Avodah Zarah:

If the congregations in Rome were mixed Jew/Gentile and believer/unbeliever and that some form of these restrictions were in place for Jews, isn't reasonable to assume that Paul was trying to mitigate the fences erected between Jews and Gentiles by rabbinic decree and not addressing the Torah at all?

yedida · #6 28th December 2010, 02:51 AM

Originally Posted by Tishri1

are we allowed to post anything we see in chapter 14?

If so then this is my favorite part

I agree. We need to be sensitive to others and where they are at in their journey.
When I read about foods in the Bible from Sinai to Rev. I always figure they are speaking of the Bible list that we have to know what is clean and unclean - i.e., Paul wouldn't be calling bacon or catfish "food", unclean animals never made the ascension to equality with clean animals. So when he said "all" I'm thinking in terms of maybe (clean) meats that may have been offered to idols before getting to market, the uncertainty of that possiblity - that would hold no power over Hashem's blessings, but it could cause some people some anxiety.
Or, maybe, like for me I won't cook meats and dairy together, but I will put cheese on a cooked hamburger or add some meat to a cooked pizza. A lot of my congregation won't eat dairy and meats in the same meal. I don't think it would cause them to stumble at all but to keep from offending them at table I've chowed down on many naked hamburgers!

visionary · #7 28th December 2010, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by yedida

I agree. We need to be sensitive to others and where they are at in their journey.
When I read about foods in the Bible from Sinai to Rev. I always figure they are speaking of the Bible list that we have to know what is clean and unclean - i.e., Paul wouldn't be calling bacon or catfish "food", unclean animals never made the ascension to equality with clean animals. So when he said "all" I'm thinking in terms of maybe (clean) meats that may have been offered to idols before getting to market, the uncertainty of that possiblity - that would hold no power over Hashem's blessings, but it could cause some people some anxiety.
Or, maybe, like for me I won't cook meats and dairy together, but I will put cheese on a cooked hamburger or add some meat to a cooked pizza. A lot of my congregation won't eat dairy and meats in the same meal. I don't think it would cause them to stumble at all but to keep from offending them at table I've chowed down on many naked hamburgers!

I am also of the opinion that Paul is speaking and writting letters to the congregation leaders who during his time would have been Jewish brethren believers who would be teaching the gentiles coming into the congregations ...do not talmudize them..

MikhaelDavid · #8 28th December 2010, 11:01 AM

Here is my brief take on Romans 14...

This is talking about things indifferent, those things that can not be determined by the word of God, such as "what days of the week to fast" or "what color should I wear today". God tells us that fasting is good but outside of the required "Day of Atonement" He has not given us what days we are to fast.. I believe this is where the food and drink comes in, in the passage... The man who keeps the day and does not eat, keeps it to the Lord, and the man who does not keep the day and does eat, keeps it to the Lord...

Remember, the Pharisee's were saying, "I fast three days a week" and some were saying I am better because "I fast Monday, Wednesday and and Sunday" and others were saying I am better because "I fast Tuesday and Wednesday and Friday" No one can determine from God's word what is the better day to fast on..

What about the weaker brother? Remember first that we are taught that there is a difference between a weaker brother and a Pharisee. A weaker brother is new to the faith and is not quite sure what is allowed and what is not allowed.. A Pharisee is one who has added to God's law and is not new in the Faith.. A Pharisee is one who will not be shown that he is wrong.. He commands people to abstain from things that God has not required.. He is not stumbled but inflamed in emotion, passion and anger..

Paul gives us different ways to handles the two.. With a weaker brother, I, out of love, should desist my action or allowance of a certain thing in front of that brother until he is shown biblically that it is allowed or taught from the elders that the thing is permitted. A weaker brother is to be taught and not coddled as a weaker brother down through his life.

On the other hand, Paul tells us how to handle a Pharisee.. Not like a weaker brother, we are to stand up to that Pharisee and if he does not desist then we have done all we can and walk away but we are not required to desist our actions or allowance in front of that person.

So, what about other things, like drinking wine? Well the bible as already determined by God that drinking wine is ok, in moderation. And sometimes required, The Lord Supper and Passover. So outside of those two ordinances I would abstain in front of the weaker brother until he is shown or taught. The Pharisee on the other hand is quite a different approach.

One more note, Whatever God has required in His law can not be put under the banner of "Weaker Brother". So if God said "Thou shalt Not" or "Thou shalt DO" then we are required to submit whether that be a keeping of a Sabbath day, the Lord Supper with wine, or abstaining from immoral conduct.

Tishri1 · #9 28th December 2010, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by yedida

I agree. We need to be sensitive to others and where they are at in their journey.
When I read about foods in the Bible from Sinai to Rev. I always figure they are speaking of the Bible list that we have to know what is clean and unclean - i.e., Paul wouldn't be calling bacon or catfish "food", unclean animals never made the ascension to equality with clean animals. So when he said "all" I'm thinking in terms of maybe (clean) meats that may have been offered to idols before getting to market, the uncertainty of that possiblity - that would hold no power over Hashem's blessings, but it could cause some people some anxiety.
Or, maybe, like for me I won't cook meats and dairy together, but I will put cheese on a cooked hamburger or add some meat to a cooked pizza. A lot of my congregation won't eat dairy and meats in the same meal. I don't think it would cause them to stumble at all but to keep from offending them at table I've chowed down on many naked hamburgers!

I was thinking more about the deaper meaning but yes we know that not everything out there is considered food

Originally Posted by MikhaelDavid

Here is my brief take on Romans 14...

This is talking about things indifferent, those things that can not be determined by the word of God, such as "what days of the week to fast" or "what color should I wear today". God tells us that fasting is good but outside of the required "Day of Atonement" He has not given us what days we are to fast.. I believe this is where the food and drink comes in, in the passage... The man who keeps the day and does not eat, keeps it to the Lord, and the man who does not keep the day and does eat, keeps it to the Lord...

Remember, the Pharisee's were saying, "I fast three days a week" and some were saying I am better because "I fast Monday, Wednesday and and Sunday" and others were saying I am better because "I fast Tuesday and Wednesday and Friday" No one can determine from God's word what is the better day to fast on..

What about the weaker brother? Remember first that we are taught that there is a difference between a weaker brother and a Pharisee. A weaker brother is new to the faith and is not quite sure what is allowed and what is not allowed.. A Pharisee is one who has added to God's law and is not new in the Faith.. A Pharisee is one who will not be shown that he is wrong.. He commands people to abstain from things that God has not required.. He is not stumbled but inflamed in emotion, passion and anger..

Paul gives us different ways to handles the two.. With a weaker brother, I, out of love, should desist my action or allowance of a certain thing in front of that brother until he is shown biblically that it is allowed or taught from the elders that the thing is permitted. A weaker brother is to be taught and not coddled as a weaker brother down through his life.

On the other hand, Paul tells us how to handle a Pharisee.. Not like a weaker brother, we are to stand up to that Pharisee and if he does not desist then we have done all we can and walk away but we are not required to desist our actions or allowance in front of that person.

So, what about other things, like drinking wine? Well the bible as already determined by God that drinking wine is ok, in moderation. And sometimes required, The Lord Supper and Passover. So outside of those two ordinances I would abstain in front of the weaker brother until he is shown or taught. The Pharisee on the other hand is quite a different approach.

One more note, Whatever God has required in His law can not be put under the banner of "Weaker Brother". So if God said "Thou shalt Not" or "Thou shalt DO" then we are required to submit whether that be a keeping of a Sabbath day, the Lord Supper with wine, or abstaining from immoral conduct.

deaper meaning
word

Steve Petersen · #10 28th December 2010, 11:43 AM

Mark Nanos believes that the 'weaker brother' are Jews who have not yet come to faith in Jesus. Thus, he believes, as I do, that Paul was addressing mixed congregations, not only of Jews and Gentiles, but believers and unbelievers.