# Rom 14 and OT Judaism



## KMK

Rev Winzer posted this on another thread which I had already satisfactorily derailed so I wanted to post it here.




> Abeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would Romans 14 principle of the stronger and weaker brother apply to those who choose to observe or not to observe christmas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The observances in Romans 14 were connected with the divine commands of the Old Testament which were still in the process of being removed. "Christmas" is a religious day of human appointment and to be opposed because it leads astray in the name of Christ.
Click to expand...


Are the weak in Rom 14 and 15 strictly Jewish Christians? If so, how do you explain their religious vegetarianism and their teetotalism?


----------



## MW

Meats and wine offered to the gods were thought to be ceremonially unclean.


----------



## earl40

What I find interesting is that most of today Christians use this to say that those who abstain from traditions of men are the weak ones to which Paul states just the opposite in that he (Paul) wonders how they are so easily led astray in Galations.


----------



## Jonny.

It's striking how (at least in my experience) when the issue of Christians drinking alcohol is discusses, the "weaker brother" is always taken to be the one who would fall into the sin of drinking too much, rather than the one who has scruples and abstains.

As for whether they're strictly Jewish Christians - I'm not 100% sure the weaker brothers were all Jewish, but Romans as a whole, and the section which comes straight afterwards certainly point to the unity through Christ between Jewish and Gentile believers. Maybe that suggests that the problem Paul was addressing was largely a difference of opinion between these two groups.

I suppose it would be next to impossible to know whether a particular meat or wine had been offered to idols or not, so they may have just been playing it safe by avoiding them altogether, rather than believing that meat or wine were inherently sinful.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

> The observances in Romans 14 were connected with the divine commands of the Old Testament which were still in the process of being removed.?



When were they fully removed? The destruction of the temple?


----------



## jambo

Just because someone celebrates Christmas or not would not make them a weaker brother or not. A weaker brother is someone who may be derailed on the Christian life because of our example. It's not the case of not doing anything because it is bound to upset someone but we have to consider the impact our actions may have on a specific individual. In the past people have asked, "...but what about the weaker brother?" Most times this refers to someone unknown. What they should say would be, "how would this impact upon Dave? 

We have the freedom in Christ, within the confines of scripture, to do whatever. However we must always be wise in whether to engage or refrain in any activity.

Paul was writing to the Christians in Rome. Not quite sure whether this was before or after Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome but one would presume that it would be a church containing a cross section of the residents of the city and their varied backgrounds.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

There are still general principles despite the immediate situation in view. Gillespie derives from Rom. 14 what he calls the rule of purity. See English Popish Ceremonies (2013) 377.


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> Meats and wine offered to the gods were thought to be ceremonially unclean.



Do you find this conclusion necessary because that is the subject of 1 Cor 8? Rom 14 and 15 says nothing about idol worship.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Do you find this conclusion necessary because that is the subject of 1 Cor 8? Rom 14 and 15 says nothing about idol worship.



1 Cor. 8-10 is different again. The starting point of the discussion is the lawfulness of all things. The apostle deals with meats from the perspective of their indifference, and corrects the abuse by demonstrating that indifferent things must not be used indifferently, but with charity, integrity, and piety.

In Romans 14 the issue is a matter of "faith." There were people who "believed" they were bound in the use of food and special days. Faith has no basis where there is no revelation of God. If these were mere human devices the apostle would not have called it "faith."


----------



## MW

Mr. Bultitude said:


> When were they fully removed? The destruction of the temple?



Difficult to answer. From the Epistle to Hebrews we know that the covenantal basis for the temple was already removed by the work of Christ. The same Epistle indicates "that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." It is similar to when the leaves of the tree are dead but are still hanging on the tree -- it is just a matter of time before they fall.


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you find this conclusion necessary because that is the subject of 1 Cor 8? Rom 14 and 15 says nothing about idol worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Cor. 8-10 is different again. The starting point of the discussion is the lawfulness of all things. The apostle deals with meats from the perspective of their indifference, and corrects the abuse by demonstrating that indifferent things must not be used indifferently, but with charity, integrity, and piety.
> 
> In Romans 14 the issue is a matter of "faith." There were people who "believed" they were bound in the use of food and special days. Faith has no basis where there is no revelation of God. If these were mere human devices the apostle would not have called it "faith."
Click to expand...


My question has to do with your previous assertion, an assertion you have made on this board before, that the incorrect convictions of the weak in Rom 14 arose from superstitions about idol worship. Paul does not mention idol worship in Rom 14. Why is it not possible, considering there were both Gentile and Jewish converts in Rome, some of these incorrect convictions arose from Pagan superstitions?


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I believe it was Gillespie that spoke of the OT Cultus Observances as "laying in state" having been abolished in Christ, and awaiting the destruction of the Temple, when they would be forever buried.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried: Augustine's Simile*

Here is Augustine's simile in context: 
§1. My second argument whereby I prove that the imposing of the observation of holy days bereaves us of our liberty, I take out of two places of the apostle; the one, Galatians 4:10, where he finds fault with the Galatians for observing of days, and gives them two reasons against them. The one (v. 3), they were a yoke of bondage which neither they nor their fathers were able to bear; another (v. 9), they were weak and beggarly rudiments, not beseeming the Christian church, which is liberate[d] from the pedagogical instruction of the ceremonial law.



The other place is Colossians. 2:16, where the apostle will have the Colossians not to suffer themselves to be judged by any man in respect of a holy day, i.e. to be condemned for not observing a holy day, for _to condemn here means to accuse a party of guilt;_[1]and the meaning is,[2] suffer not yourselves to be condemned by those false apostles, or by any mortal man in the cause of meat, that is, for meat or drink taken, or for any holy day, or any part of a holy day neglected.


Two other reasons the apostle gives in this place against festival days. One (v. 17), What should we do with the shadow, when we have the body? Another (v. 20), Why should we be subject to human ordinances, since through Christ we are dead to them, and have nothing ado with them? Now, by the same reasons are all holy days to be condemned, as taking away Christian liberty; and so, that which the apostle says militates as well against them as against any other holy days. For whereas it might be thought that the apostle does not condemn all holy days, because both he permits others to observe days (Rom. 14:5), and he himself also did observe one of the Jewish feasts (Acts 18:21), it is easily answered, that our holy days have no warrant from these places, except our opposites will say that they esteem their festival days holier than other days, and that they observe the Jewish festivities, neither of which they do acknowledge. And if they did, yet they must consider, that that which the apostle either said or did hereanent [_hereabout_], is to be expounded and understood of bearing with the weak Jews, whom he permitted to esteem one day above another, and for whose cause he did, in his own practice, thus far apply himself to their infirmity at that time when they could not possibly be as yet fully and thoroughly instructed concerning Christian liberty, and the abrogation of the ceremonial law, *because the gospel was as yet not fully propagated; and when the Mosaical rites were like a dead man not yet buried, as Augustine’s simile runs.[3]* So that all this can make nothing for holy days after the full promulgation of the gospel, and after that the Jewish ceremonies are not only dead, but also buried, and so deadly to be used by us. Hence it is, that the apostle will not bear with the observation of days in Christian churches who have known God, as he speaks.

================= 

[1] Calvin, Comm. in illum locum. _judicare hic significat culpæ reum facere. _[CR 80 (CO 52), col. 110.; _Commentaries_, vol. XXI, 2.191.]
[2] Zanchius, Comm. ibid. [Col. 2:16; cf. 1601 ed., 409; cf. _Opera_, 6.303.]
[3] [Cf. Augustine’s Letter 82 to Jerome, _NPNF1_ 1.355; cf. Migne, _PL_ 33.282.]
From George Gillespie, _A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies_ (Naphtali Press, 2013) 52–53.​


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Thank you Chris!


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> My question has to do with your previous assertion, an assertion you have made on this board before, that the incorrect convictions of the weak in Rom 14 arose from superstitions about idol worship. Paul does not mention idol worship in Rom 14. Why is it not possible, considering there were both Gentile and Jewish converts in Rome, some of these incorrect convictions arose from Pagan superstitions?



In referencing things offered to idols I was only suggesting what might have led to abstinence from all meats and wine, given that there is no Old Testament prohibition. This was in answer to your specific question along these lines. I was not saying this is the concrete issue in Romans 14. It only explains the total abstinence. It does not address the abstinence in general, the basis for it, or the reason for bearing with it. The issue in Romans 14 pertains to "faith" -- genuine faith -- faith established on the testimony of God -- faith expressed in service of the true and living God.

The idea that the apostle was laying a platform for the toleration of pagan superstitions is contrary to his fundamental conviction that the actions are being done with a good conscience in faith to God.


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> The idea that the apostle was laying a platform for the toleration of pagan superstitions is contrary to his fundamental conviction that the actions are being done with a good conscience in faith to God.



Obviously they are not to be 'tolerated', especially when they are essential matters. It is assumed that the strong, even while they are bearing with the weak, are following after the things wherewith one may edify another. The weak shall eventually become the strong, but in the meantime the strong are to bear with the incorrect convictions of the weak concerning matters of indifference. These incorrect convictions about matters of indifference might arise out of Pagan cults, or OT Judaism, or somewhere else. The general principle is the same.


----------



## earl40

..


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Ken, could you give some examples of what you are talking about?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

First, I don't think you can link societal practices (Romans 14-15) with the distinction of a false and true gospel (Galatians) in respect to the idea of "weaker" or "stronger" brothers and sisters. Second, Rev. Winzer somewhat points out that meats and wine were used in pagan customs/rituals. The early church fought (or sometimes gave in) to the idea and practice of emperor worship and pagan worship. Since during the first and second centuries people were given a certificate of sacrifice to show their loyalty to the state of Rome. Wine was used to pour out as an offering to the emperor or gods. This practice, particularly for the emperor, was more so practiced after emperor Augustus (since he wanted to be worshiped as a god like his uncle was... Julius). With this in mind, this might be what Paul is referring to in the letter (which is most likely the case given the context of the culture ... especially in Rome). Also, meat in the market almost always was first sacrificed to the gods, then given up for purchase at your local market. 

Paul tells us "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." That's why the principle of "Don't ask" or "don't tell" would apply here. If the person is still of the conviction that meat in the local area is not good to eat because it was most certainly used for sacrifice, then he must abstain "because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin." However, if he is content to eat, not knowing where it came from, then let that be for him a praise to God for the food he is about to receive.


----------



## KMK

NaphtaliPress said:


> Ken, could you give some examples of what you are talking about?



Whether or not you are a religious vegetarian, or drink wine, or 'sabbatize' other days besides the weekly Sabbath, are matters of indifference. These scruples might have arose from Pagan religions but the basic principle would be the same. The strong are to bare these infirmities until the weak are properly edified.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, could you give some examples of what you are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you are a religious vegetarian, or drink wine, or 'sabbatize' other days besides the weekly Sabbath, are matters of indifference. These scruples might have arose from Pagan religions but the basic principle would be the same. The strong are to bare these infirmities until the weak are properly edified.
Click to expand...


May I ask, with no rancor , where in scripture we are to tolerate a weaker brother "scruple" based on a false religion?


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ken, could you give some examples of what you are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you are a religious vegetarian, or drink wine, or 'sabbatize' other days besides the weekly Sabbath, are matters of indifference. These scruples might have arose from Pagan religions but the basic principle would be the same. The strong are to bare these infirmities until the weak are properly edified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask, with no rancor , where in scripture we are to tolerate a weaker brother "scruple" based on a false religion?
Click to expand...


I am not sure what is meant by the word 'tolerate'. 

Rom 15:1 says, "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." The charity of the strong shown to the weak in matters of indifference is not based upon whether a religion is false or true. It is based on the sacrifice of liberty (in matters of indifference) when doing so edifies the faith rather than destroys the faith of the weaker brother.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the apostle was laying a platform for the toleration of pagan superstitions is contrary to his fundamental conviction that the actions are being done with a good conscience in faith to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously they are not to be 'tolerated', especially when they are essential matters. It is assumed that the strong, even while they are bearing with the weak, are following after the things wherewith one may edify another. The weak shall eventually become the strong, but in the meantime the strong are to bear with the incorrect convictions of the weak concerning matters of indifference. These incorrect convictions about matters of indifference might arise out of Pagan cults, or OT Judaism, or somewhere else. The general principle is the same.
Click to expand...


If it is superstitious it is not indifferent. Superstition is evil. If it is done in service to God it is not indifferent. Service to God is good. A thing is indifferent when it is neither good nor evil in itself.


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MW said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the apostle was laying a platform for the toleration of pagan superstitions is contrary to his fundamental conviction that the actions are being done with a good conscience in faith to God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously they are not to be 'tolerated', especially when they are essential matters. It is assumed that the strong, even while they are bearing with the weak, are following after the things wherewith one may edify another. The weak shall eventually become the strong, but in the meantime the strong are to bear with the incorrect convictions of the weak concerning matters of indifference. These incorrect convictions about matters of indifference might arise out of Pagan cults, or OT Judaism, or somewhere else. The general principle is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is superstitious it is not indifferent. Superstition is evil. If it is done in service to God it is not indifferent. Service to God is good. A thing is indifferent when it is neither good nor evil in itself.
Click to expand...


I agree. My question is whether in your view the 'infirmities of the weak' is limited in scope to Jewish converts. If so, where do you see that limitation in the text?


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> I agree. My question is whether in your view the 'infirmities of the weak' is limited in scope to Jewish converts. If so, where do you see that limitation in the text?



I'm not sure where the idea of "Jewish converts" is coming from? The Jews who believed simply trusted in their Messiah. Gentile proselytes did the same. There was no "conversion" in the sense we use that term of unbelievers. Weakness of faith was a failure to see the spiritual implications of the coming of Christ.


----------



## KMK

Do you agree with Murray?



> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174



Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> I am not sure what is meant by the word 'tolerate'.



I simply put a word to what you wrote. 

"These scruples might have arose from Pagan religions but the basic principle would be the same. The strong *are to bare these infirmities *until the weak are properly edified."


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
Click to expand...


I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
Click to expand...


Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I can see how the Jews while there was some time given for the OT ceremonies to be honorably buried per Augustine cited above could esteem some days from the old economy over another because God had commanded so at one time and they needed to be borne with until they understood the demise of such clearly. But for days devoted to pagan gods one would have to construct some set of circumstances that met the qualification of things indifferent; but how could they even esteem such days over another without superstition, will worship or idolatry? They never were devoted to God by his command, so there's no burial for which to even wait.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
Click to expand...


So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity? The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.

I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.


----------



## KMK

NaphtaliPress said:


> I can see how the Jews while there was some time given for the OT ceremonies to be honorably buried per Augustine cited above could esteem some days from the old economy over another because God had commanded so at one time and they needed to be borne with until they understood the demise of such clearly.



Wouldn't Gentile converts need the same charity?


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity?* The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.
> 
> I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.
Click to expand...


Since Paul is writing to a church whose faith is world famous (Rom 1), we can assume that they were united around essential things like corporate worship on the Lord's Day. However, if there were some new converts who had the incorrect conviction that they should, in order to serve God properly, place limitations on their activities on other days as well, whether Jew or Gentile, then they should be received and edified. That is the duty of the strong.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Charity generally in something indifferent, yes. But in applying general principles we shouldn't over extend the circumstances the apostle was dealing with. The church would not treat the Jewish holy days and dietary observances the same now as they are long dead and buried. If a modern day convert is observing some practice out of an antiChristian upbringing and religion it has to be for some reason that can consist with the nature of indifference. It cannot be tainted with superstition or idolatry or will worship because then it would no longer be indifferent and not to be treated in the same way. I'm having a hard time imagining what they might be, like some pagan holy day or dietary practice to use some similar example; again the difference is once commanded by God versus idolatrous worship of another god. Gillespie cited somewhere above looked at the chapter the same way Matthew Henry did.


MatthewHenry on Romans 14 said:


> 1. There was a difference among them about the distinction of meats and days these are the two things specified. There might be other similar occasions of difference, while these made the most noise, and were most taken notice of. The case was this: The members of the Christian church at Rome were some of them originally Gentiles, and others of them Jews. We find Jews at Rome believing, Acts 28:24. Now those that had been Jews were trained up in the observance of the ceremonial appointments touching meats and days. This, which had been bred in the bone with them, could hardly be got out of the flesh, even after they turned Christians especially with some of them, who were not easily weaned from what they had long been wedded to. They were not well instructed touching the cancelling of the ceremonial law by the death of Christ, and therefore retained the ceremonial institutions, and practised accordingly while other Christians that understood themselves better, and knew their Christian liberty, made no such difference. (1.) Concerning meats (Romans 14:2): _One believeth that he may eat all things_--he is well satisfied that the ceremonial distinction of meats into clean and unclean is no longer in force, but that every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused nothing _unclean of itself,_ Romans 14:14. This he was assured of, not only from the general tenour and scope of the gospel, but particularly from the revelation which Peter, the apostle of the circumcision (and therefore more immediately concerned in it), had to this purport, Acts 10:15,28. This the strong Christian is clear in, and practises accordingly, eating what is set before him, and asking no question for conscience' sake, 1 Corinthians 10:27. On the other hand, _another, who is weak,_ is dissatisfied in this point, is not clear in his Christian liberty, but rather inclines to think that the meats forbidden by the law remain still unclean and therefore, to keep at a distance from them, he will eat no flesh at all, but _eateth herbs,_ contenting himself with only the fruits of the earth. See to what degrees of mortification and self-denial a tender conscience will submit. None know but those that experience it how great both the restraining and the constraining power of conscience is. (2.) Concerning days, Romans 14:5. Those who thought themselves still under some kind of obligation to the ceremonial law esteemed _one day above another_--kept up a respect to the times of the passover, pentecost, new moons, and feasts of tabernacles thought those days better than other days, and solemnized them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days. Those who knew that all these things were abolished and done away by Christ's coming esteemed every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord's day, which all Christians unanimously observed but they made no account, took no notice, of those antiquated festivals of the Jews. Here the apostle speaks of the distinction of meats and days as a thing indifferent, when it went no further than the opinion and practice of some particular persons, who had been trained up all their days to such observances, and therefore were the more excusable if they with difficulty parted with them. But in the epistle to the Galatians, where he deals with those that were originally Gentiles, but were influenced by some judaizing teachers, not only to believe such a distinction and to practise accordingly, but to lay a stress upon it as necessary to salvation, and to make the observance of the Jewish festivals public and congregational, here the case was altered, and it is charged upon them as the frustrating of the design of the gospel, falling from grace, Galatians 4:9-11. The Romans did it out of weakness, the Galatians did it out of wilfulness and wickedness and therefore the apostle handles them thus differently. This epistle is supposed to have been written some time before that to the Galatians. The apostle seems willing to let the ceremonial law wither by degrees, and to let it have an honourable burial now these weak Romans seem to be only following it weeping to its grave, but those Galatians were raking it out of its ashes.





NaphtaliPress said:


> But for days devoted to pagan gods one would have to construct some set of circumstances that met the qualification of things indifferent; but how could they even esteem such days over another without superstition, will worship or idolatry? They never were devoted to God by his command, so there's no burial for which to even wait.





KMK said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how the Jews while there was some time given for the OT ceremonies to be honorably buried per Augustine cited above could esteem some days from the old economy over another because God had commanded so at one time and they needed to be borne with until they understood the demise of such clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't Gentile converts need the same charity?
Click to expand...


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity?* The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.
> 
> I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Paul is writing to a church whose faith is world famous (Rom 1), we can assume that they were united around essential things like corporate worship on the Lord's Day. However, if there were some new converts who had the incorrect conviction that they should, in order to serve God properly, place limitations on their activities on other days as well, whether Jew or Gentile, then they should be received and edified. That is the duty of the strong.
Click to expand...


May I ask if you had a former SDA who wanted to worship on Saturday at your church, because of a "scruple" which I believe is no scruple but a sin, would you hold a service for that person on Saturday ? Or would you attempt to mend his misinformed conscience in the right direction to the proper day of worship?


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
Click to expand...


I agree with Prof. Murray on v. 5 that "the most reasonable, if not the only feasible, view of this scrupulosity on the part of some is that they regarded the holy days of the ceremonial economy as having abiding sanctity. Others recognized that these ritual observances were abrogated with the passing away of the ceremonial institution" (2:177-178).

The commentaries of Hodge and Moo make a solid case for seeing the whole chapter in terms of the old economy still casting its shadow over the consciences of New Testament believers. Moo is especially mindful of the fact that the Jew-Gentile relationship is a theological motif which runs throughout the epistle.

The Epistle to the Galatians demonstrates that the Old Testament does not teach Judaism, and there the apostle is quite firm in resisting the influence of the Judaisers, even in the observance of days. Judaism is not the issue in Romans 14.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity?* The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.
> 
> I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Paul is writing to a church whose faith is world famous (Rom 1), we can assume that they were united around essential things like corporate worship on the Lord's Day. However, if there were some new converts who had the incorrect conviction that they should, in order to serve God properly, place limitations on their activities on other days as well, whether Jew or Gentile, then they should be received and edified. That is the duty of the strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask if you had a former SDA who wanted to worship on Saturday at your church, because of a "scruple" which I believe is no scruple but a sin, would you hold a service for that person on Saturday ? Or would you attempt to mend his misinformed conscience in the right direction to the proper day of worship?
Click to expand...


I believe, because of Paul's teaching elsewhere, that he viewed corporate worship on the first day of the week as 'essential' just like you and I. Therefore, I don't think Paul is asking the strong to change their services to Saturday instead of Sunday in order to bear the infirmities of the weak. Whether one is a vegetarian, or a teetotaler, or rests on other days of the week in addition to the Lord's Day, and does so 'unto the Lord', and 'giveth God thanks', and submits to the common confession of the church, then I think he should be received into the church and receive edification. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity?* The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.
> 
> I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Paul is writing to a church whose faith is world famous (Rom 1), we can assume that they were united around essential things like corporate worship on the Lord's Day. However, if there were some new converts who had the incorrect conviction that they should, in order to serve God properly, place limitations on their activities on other days as well, whether Jew or Gentile, then they should be received and edified. That is the duty of the strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask if you had a former SDA who wanted to worship on Saturday at your church, because of a "scruple" which I believe is no scruple but a sin, would you hold a service for that person on Saturday ? Or would you attempt to mend his misinformed conscience in the right direction to the proper day of worship?
Click to expand...


I believe, because of Paul's teaching elsewhere, that he viewed corporate worship on the first day of the week as 'essential' just like you and I. Therefore, I don't think Paul is asking the strong to change their services to Saturday instead of Sunday in order to bear the infirmities of the weak. Whether one is a vegetarian, or a teetotaler, or rests on other days of the week in addition to the Lord's Day, and does so 'unto the Lord', and 'giveth God thanks', and submits to the common confession of the church, then I think he should be received into the church and receive edification. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> The commentaries of Hodge and Moo make a solid case for seeing the whole chapter in terms of the old economy still casting its shadow over the consciences of New Testament believers.



So, now that the old economy no longer casts its shadow over our consciences, what is the application of Rom 14,15 to the church today?


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity?* The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.
> 
> I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Paul is writing to a church whose faith is world famous (Rom 1), we can assume that they were united around essential things like corporate worship on the Lord's Day. However, if there were some new converts who had the incorrect conviction that they should, in order to serve God properly, place limitations on their activities on other days as well, whether Jew or Gentile, then they should be received and edified. That is the duty of the strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask if you had a former SDA who wanted to worship on Saturday at your church, because of a "scruple" which I believe is no scruple but a sin, would you hold a service for that person on Saturday ? Or would you attempt to mend his misinformed conscience in the right direction to the proper day of worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe, because of Paul's teaching elsewhere, that he viewed corporate worship on the first day of the week as 'essential' just like you and I. Therefore, I don't think Paul is asking the strong to change their services to Saturday instead of Sunday in order to bear the infirmities of the weak. Whether one is a vegetarian, or a teetotaler, or rests on other days of the week in addition to the Lord's Day, and does so 'unto the Lord', and 'giveth God thanks', and submits to the common confession of the church, then I think he should be received into the church and receive edification. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
Click to expand...


The point would be is that as we both agree it is an "essentially" a sin and not a scruple we should not allow a "weaker" brother to stay in such sin.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Murray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rome was cosmopolitan and so was the church there. It may have been, and the evidence offers much to favor the theses, that various types of weakness proceeding from different backgrounds and influences were represented in that situation which the apostle envisaged. The Epistle to the Romans, Vol II, pg 174
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or do you believe only one background and influence, that of OT Judaism, was represented in that situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you asked Matthew but in what context do you think this verse applies towards? 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
> 
> The reason I ask is it not concerning a religious day like Sunday or Saturday that the Jews used to set apart? Or do you not see it this way? If you see it refers to a religious holiday I hope you can not imagine Paul would say a pagan religious holiday is adiaphorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I agree with Murray that we cannot know with certainty the origin of this scruple. It could come from the Gentiles or the Jews or maybe both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *So if a Gentile convert had a scruple that he should esteem Saturday to worship God other than Sunday you would bare that infirmity?* The reason I chose this example is that we are to understand an action and judge (such as worshipping on Saturday) as sin and not a scruple. It was a scruple for the Jewish in the early church and not today. Even the early Jewish converts (who chose Saturday) would look at a gentile choosing Saturday, based on a pagan religion, would see this as not a scruple but sin.
> 
> I tend to disagree with Murray for the reason I stated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Paul is writing to a church whose faith is world famous (Rom 1), we can assume that they were united around essential things like corporate worship on the Lord's Day. However, if there were some new converts who had the incorrect conviction that they should, in order to serve God properly, place limitations on their activities on other days as well, whether Jew or Gentile, then they should be received and edified. That is the duty of the strong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I ask if you had a former SDA who wanted to worship on Saturday at your church, because of a "scruple" which I believe is no scruple but a sin, would you hold a service for that person on Saturday ? Or would you attempt to mend his misinformed conscience in the right direction to the proper day of worship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe, because of Paul's teaching elsewhere, that he viewed corporate worship on the first day of the week as 'essential' just like you and I. Therefore, I don't think Paul is asking the strong to change their services to Saturday instead of Sunday in order to bear the infirmities of the weak. Whether one is a vegetarian, or a teetotaler, or rests on other days of the week in addition to the Lord's Day, and does so 'unto the Lord', and 'giveth God thanks', and submits to the common confession of the church, then I think he should be received into the church and receive edification. "For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point would be is that as we both agree it is an "essentially" a sin and not a scruple we should not allow a "weaker" brother to stay in such sin.
Click to expand...


Receiving necessarily precedes edification.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> Receiving necessarily precedes edification.



So how does one edify a brother by tolerating what is sinful behaviour? One corrects a brother and points him in the right direction and does not simply look the other way and tolerate such. I think you are mixing a scruple with a sin that is codified in scripture.


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> So, now that the old economy no longer casts its shadow over our consciences, what is the application of Rom 14,15 to the church today?



It has numerous applications which will give practical guidance and benefit to believers in fellowship with one another, but none of these applications require a Christian to give any credence to man made worship or holy days. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."


----------



## KMK

MW said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now that the old economy no longer casts its shadow over our consciences, what is the application of Rom 14,15 to the church today?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has numerous applications which will give practical guidance and benefit to believers in fellowship with one another, but none of these applications require a Christian to give any credence to man made worship or holy days. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Click to expand...


Thank you.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Receiving necessarily precedes edification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does one edify a brother by tolerating what is sinful behaviour? One corrects a brother and points him in the right direction and does not simply look the other way and tolerate such. I think you are mixing a scruple with a sin that is codified in scripture.
Click to expand...



The fact that you are treating him like a brother means that you have 'received' him as such. Once received, the weaker brother is not edified by knowledge alone, but also by charity. (1 Cor 8:1) How are you going to be in a charitable relationship with him if you 'despise' him or receive him only for 'doubtful disputations'?

BTW, 'tolerate' is a word you keep using. Are you referring to Rom 15:1 "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves."


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Receiving necessarily precedes edification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how does one edify a brother by tolerating what is sinful behaviour? One corrects a brother and points him in the right direction and does not simply look the other way and tolerate such. I think you are mixing a scruple with a sin that is codified in scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are treating him like a brother means that you have 'received' him as such. Once received, the weaker brother is not edified by knowledge alone, but also by charity. (1 Cor 8:1) How are you going to be in a charitable relationship with him if you 'despise' him or receive him only for 'doubtful disputations'?
> 
> BTW, 'tolerate' is a word you keep using. Are you referring to Rom 15:1 "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves."
Click to expand...


My wife tolerates a lot of sin from me.  8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Also I do not "despise" a man who sins but I do despise the sin that is in all men....including myself. I also see that as pointed out by Matthew that Romans 14 is not concerning man made worship or holy days but God commanded days. I can withhold the drinking of wine at a party as described in Romans but I refuse to do such on The Lord's day at church. Now I will state my church currently does serve only juice and I must bear with the elders on this error, according to love, while I am a member.


----------



## KMK

earl40 said:


> Now I will state my church currently does serve only juice and I must bear with the elders on this error, according to love, while I am a member.



The word 'despise' in Rom 14:3 means 'to make nothing of' or 'to set at nought'. The warning is not so much about 'hating' the weak, but 'ignoring' the weak.

The example you provide is interesting. Obviously, you and your church believe that juice or wine in the Lord's Supper is a matter of indifference. If it were an essential, then you would have a hard time bearing one another's 'infirmity'. This underscores the importance of a church's confession of faith. It not only clarifies the essentials, but also the indifferences.


----------



## earl40

KMK said:


> The word 'despise' in Rom 14:3 means 'to make nothing of' or 'to set at nought'. The warning is not so much about 'hating' the weak, but 'ignoring' the weak.
> 
> The example you provide is interesting. Obviously, you and your church believe that juice or wine in the Lord's Supper is a matter of indifference. If it were an essential, then you would have a hard time bearing one another's 'infirmity'. This underscores the importance of a church's confession of faith. It not only clarifies the essentials, but also the indifferences.



This underscores the point that my elders think that to serve grape juice, and not serve wine, is adiaphorous though _I do not believe it is adiaphorous_ and I bear this sin in forbearance. I believe they (my elders) are reading Romans 14 incorrectly and I have the grape juice stains on my lapel to prove it.


----------

