Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
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?
 
Last edited:

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tishri1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2004
59,835
4,318
Southern California
✟324,584.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
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.
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?
 
Upvote 0

yedida

Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!
Oct 6, 2010
9,779
1,461
Elyria, OH
✟25,205.00
Faith
Marital Status
In Relationship
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!
 
Upvote 0

visionary

Your God is my God... Ruth said, so say I.
Supporter
Mar 25, 2004
56,917
8,033
✟572,538.44
Faith
Messianic
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..
 
Upvote 0
M

MikhaelDavid

Guest
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: visionary
Upvote 0

Tishri1

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 28, 2004
59,835
4,318
Southern California
✟324,584.00
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
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:thumbsup:

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:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
That goes against what Paul himself says in Romans 1:13.

If you compare this to other of his writings you will see that the 'weak' ones he is talking about are the believing Jews, the first ones, the ones of the Jerusalem church. Read especially about those he calls 'weak' regarding eating only vegetables, James the Just, the Righteous, the Tzadek, the brother of Yeshua was said to have been a vegetarian.

13 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.

As can be seen here he is speaking to believers only (brothers and sisters)

He also says that he wants to reap some harvest (for himself) from amoung them like he has from 'the rest of the Gentiles'.

This wording shows he is speaking to Gentile believers only.


http://www.biblestudytools.com/interlinear-bible/strongs.ashx?ll=g&t=kjv&sn=1484
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shimshon

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2004
4,355
887
Zion
✟107,464.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
That goes against what Paul himself says in Romans 1:13.
Only if you take this one verse out of context.

In context I believe Steve and Mark are correct. Otherwise, how would you explain Rom 2:17-29? Pauls audience is definitely mixed. Rom 1-2:16 are one audience, while Rom 2:17-29 are another.

Or would Paul be saying things like this to Gentiles?

17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18 if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19 if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth--


24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." 25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
Verse 27 is contrasting those who are not circumcized with those who are. He is speaking and refering to both Jew and Gentiles.

I belive your desire to discredit Paul is blinding your reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Shimshon

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2004
4,355
887
Zion
✟107,464.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Married
13 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles.
This is why I do not agree with the Stern Manifesto. This is a classic case where he took the plain meaning and skewed it. If you read this statement in it's un-sternian context you find Paul was talking bout reaping harvests among the Romans as he has among the rest of the NATIONS.

Nations where Jews had made a home in exile and not returned. Pauls harvest were Jews and Gentiles throughout the Nations. As opposed to Israel.

Remember how Yeshua mentioned the 'lost sheep'. Paul was gathering them at the command of the Lord. Both Jews and those who lived where they were scattered. (Jew and Gentiles throughout that nations (known world).
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
You can flame my beliefs all you want, it is a matter of believing what the church has taught about these letters or to make your own analysis of them with true unbiased reason.

14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish 15 —hence my eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

this follows what I posted and it is speaking of the Gentiles, no Jews here. Paul had never met these people, one should ask why he presumed to take it upon himself to write them such a letter? Even an cursory look into this letters history will show you that. Why are you being so antagonistic to me Shimshon, what have I done to deserve this?

I think you should be more concerned if I were to try and discredit Yeshua, he is much much more important to learn from than Paul.

I think if you read the letter as a whole you will come away scratching your head, as you have shown he changes course mid-way. The only other conclusion is that there were two letters combined. But I don't think that is what happened, even though there is some discussion as to the last two chapters belonging possibly to the letter to the Ephesians.
 
Upvote 0

Lulav

Y'shua is His Name
Aug 24, 2007
34,141
7,243
✟494,938.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
This is why I do not agree with the Stern Manifesto. This is a classic case where he took the plain meaning and skewed it. If you read this statement in it's un-sternian context you find Paul was talking bout reaping harvests among the Romans as he has among the rest of the NATIONS.

Nations where Jews had made a home in exile and not returned. Pauls harvest were Jews and Gentiles throughout the Nations. As opposed to Israel.

Remember how Yeshua mentioned the 'lost sheep'. Paul was gathering them at the command of the Lord. Both Jews and those who lived where they were scattered. (Jew and Gentiles throughout that nations (known world).

There is much evidence if one can look at it unbiasedly that shows that Paul was not gathering any Jews to his teachings.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums