I wish to apologize for the length of this response, but I have been unable to shorten it.
The work of William R. Newell is outstanding enough to not need my defense. Further, the discussion of the specifics of Romans 14 should probably be held in discussion forums rather than comments on the book (which, as you know, this chapter is well discussed in the topical forums). However, I will respond to the reply, and leave it to the folks who oversee this site to move it if they wish.
As to the “evident” point regarding “feast days,” it would seem that this would be far too limiting in the scope of the chapter. I would base that conclusion on both internal and external considerations. Rather, I believe that one might conclude, in the light of Acts 15 and the entirety of Pauline theology, that Paul has in mind the broader scope of legalism to satisfy Jewish converts.
Probably an excellent way to understand Romans 14 and 15 is to study Acts 15 once again. The argument Paul made to what constituted the Christian “Supreme Court,” supporting his evangelism of the Gentiles without requiring adherence to the Old Testament law is carried on here with a letter to the Romans which is explaining his gospel of salvation by faith. Beyond salvation by faith, though, is Paul’s constant theme of living by faith. Paul also addresses this matter in I Corinthians 10. In that passage, the point is that a Christian does not have to live in fear of offending God by ingesting meat offered to idols if one simply eats what is available. In the legalistic mindset, one has to avoid any possible contamination. This was the training of any Jewish convert. The Jews were required to go beyond the statements of the law to make sure they didn't break the law. This is still true in many Jewish homes. In Romans 14, it seems that many had taken to eating a vegetarian diet simply to avoid the possibility that the meat they bought in the market place had been offered to idols.
As to the “herbs” mentioned in Romans 14, these should not be confused with “bitter herbs” consumed at the Passover. The Greek word for “bitter herbs” would be "pikrídes," a fairly direct translation of the Hebrew, "Merorim," which is used for the Passover “bitter herbs.” It is not the word used by Paul in this passage, although I’m sure he was aware of it. Rather, the Greek in Romans 14 is "láchanon," a fairly direct translation of the Hebrew "Yarak." They both refer to “garden vegetables,” or just plain “vegetables,” and are translated that way in numerous translations. "Yarak" and "láchanon" are not the words Paul would use to refer to the bitter herbs of feasts. (See W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ISBE and/or just about any Bible dictionary available.) Therefore, the term “herbs” used in Romans 14:2 does not support the “feast days” supposition.
“Fasting” and “feast days” are not addressed in this chapter or in chapter 15, which should not have been separated from chapter 14 by Bible editors, because the beginning of chapter 15 carries on the discussion found in chapter 14.
Although “clean” and “unclean” are mentioned in chapter 14, I think it is probably better to conclude in the context that Paul’s use of the term is rather generic, meaning anything the individual Christian believes is wrong (as opposed to a specific reference to the clean and unclean meats of the Old Testament). In fact, in this chapter it is more like “unclean” meat refers to meat offered to idols.
The specific identification of “drink” in the discussion is made in verse 21. This is not a feast issue, but rather an issue of alcohol. Even today, there is considerable division in the church over this. Some Christians believe it is evil to drink any alcoholic beverage under any circumstance, while others attend churches which serve alcoholic wine for Communion (or the Lord’s Supper, in some churches’ terminology). According to Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10, if I am in the group who allow drinking of wine, it would not be appropriate to order it for dinner at a restaurant when accompanied by someone who finds it offensive. Linking it, however, to feasts, I believe, would be a stretch of interpretive principles. The point is that if I believe it is wrong, it is wrong for me. Further, if I have a Christian brother or sister who believes something is wrong, while I think I can do it in good conscience, it is wrong for me to flaunt my liberty in his/her presence and participate in the activity.
The point of this passage is not whether observing days and dietary laws is right or wrong, but rather it was an admonishment not to judge one another on this basis. Secondly, the point is that I am not free to flaunt my freedom by offending someone whose scruples lead to the belief that something is wrong. One of the easiest actions among Christians for the past 2000 years has been to judge other Christians who see things differently and march to a different drum beat. Evidence of this attitude can be found in almost any open theological forum, including those at CCEL. (Try to hold a Bible study class in a church that has an established statement of doctrine, with the attitude in the class that any Scriptural topic is open to discussion, weighing opposing arguments to understand why we believe what we believe, and see how fast one of the members of the class runs to the pastor to complain about the teacher not taking a strong enough stand on “the truth.”)
I believe the reason why William R. Newell treated the chapter the way he did was because his general approach to Scripture was to take Scripture at its straight-forward, face value. That seems to be his general approach to all of Romans. That is why there are a few surprises for the person who takes the time to ponder what he says throughout the book. Certainly chapter 14 is not the only place conservative, Bible-believing Christians will disagree on his interpretation of the text he is discussing.
Although you felt Newell missed something you felt was evident, I do believe you and Newell must agree on what he felt was the main point of the passage – stop the divisive condemnations. Many seem to forget that there is only one body of Christ, and all who have placed their faith for salvation in the shed blood of Christ are members of the body. Although some of my brothers and sisters are vegetarians, I no longer am. Although some of my brothers and sisters are “tea totallers,” some enjoy a glass of wine with their dinners. Also, we do not all agree on doctrinal issues, especially some that are less certain than others. Many Protestants would not consider reading a Roman Catholic book on theology; but the best presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity I have ever read was in a book by a Roman Catholic theologian, complete with imprimatur. I found the book in the library of Western Evangelical Seminary, which was at that time the seminary of the Evangelical Church of America (definitely Protestant). (Keep in mind that the two greatest apostles – Peter and Paul – each had a loving, but negative comment to make about the other in their epistles.) But if we fight and divide over these things, we are WRONG!! You also have made this point in your forum comments. Thank you.
Dave S.
Moderator, Volunteers for Proofreading; Group Leader, Gospel of John study group
2 Tim. 3:16--All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
Thoughts on the "evident" topic
I wish to apologize for the length of this response, but I have been unable to shorten it.
The work of William R. Newell is outstanding enough to not need my defense. Further, the discussion of the specifics of Romans 14 should probably be held in discussion forums rather than comments on the book (which, as you know, this chapter is well discussed in the topical forums). However, I will respond to the reply, and leave it to the folks who oversee this site to move it if they wish.
As to the “evident” point regarding “feast days,” it would seem that this would be far too limiting in the scope of the chapter. I would base that conclusion on both internal and external considerations. Rather, I believe that one might conclude, in the light of Acts 15 and the entirety of Pauline theology, that Paul has in mind the broader scope of legalism to satisfy Jewish converts.
Probably an excellent way to understand Romans 14 and 15 is to study Acts 15 once again. The argument Paul made to what constituted the Christian “Supreme Court,” supporting his evangelism of the Gentiles without requiring adherence to the Old Testament law is carried on here with a letter to the Romans which is explaining his gospel of salvation by faith. Beyond salvation by faith, though, is Paul’s constant theme of living by faith. Paul also addresses this matter in I Corinthians 10. In that passage, the point is that a Christian does not have to live in fear of offending God by ingesting meat offered to idols if one simply eats what is available. In the legalistic mindset, one has to avoid any possible contamination. This was the training of any Jewish convert. The Jews were required to go beyond the statements of the law to make sure they didn't break the law. This is still true in many Jewish homes. In Romans 14, it seems that many had taken to eating a vegetarian diet simply to avoid the possibility that the meat they bought in the market place had been offered to idols.
As to the “herbs” mentioned in Romans 14, these should not be confused with “bitter herbs” consumed at the Passover. The Greek word for “bitter herbs” would be "pikrídes," a fairly direct translation of the Hebrew, "Merorim," which is used for the Passover “bitter herbs.” It is not the word used by Paul in this passage, although I’m sure he was aware of it. Rather, the Greek in Romans 14 is "láchanon," a fairly direct translation of the Hebrew "Yarak." They both refer to “garden vegetables,” or just plain “vegetables,” and are translated that way in numerous translations. "Yarak" and "láchanon" are not the words Paul would use to refer to the bitter herbs of feasts. (See W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, ISBE and/or just about any Bible dictionary available.) Therefore, the term “herbs” used in Romans 14:2 does not support the “feast days” supposition.
“Fasting” and “feast days” are not addressed in this chapter or in chapter 15, which should not have been separated from chapter 14 by Bible editors, because the beginning of chapter 15 carries on the discussion found in chapter 14.
Although “clean” and “unclean” are mentioned in chapter 14, I think it is probably better to conclude in the context that Paul’s use of the term is rather generic, meaning anything the individual Christian believes is wrong (as opposed to a specific reference to the clean and unclean meats of the Old Testament). In fact, in this chapter it is more like “unclean” meat refers to meat offered to idols.
The specific identification of “drink” in the discussion is made in verse 21. This is not a feast issue, but rather an issue of alcohol. Even today, there is considerable division in the church over this. Some Christians believe it is evil to drink any alcoholic beverage under any circumstance, while others attend churches which serve alcoholic wine for Communion (or the Lord’s Supper, in some churches’ terminology). According to Romans 14 and I Corinthians 10, if I am in the group who allow drinking of wine, it would not be appropriate to order it for dinner at a restaurant when accompanied by someone who finds it offensive. Linking it, however, to feasts, I believe, would be a stretch of interpretive principles. The point is that if I believe it is wrong, it is wrong for me. Further, if I have a Christian brother or sister who believes something is wrong, while I think I can do it in good conscience, it is wrong for me to flaunt my liberty in his/her presence and participate in the activity.
The point of this passage is not whether observing days and dietary laws is right or wrong, but rather it was an admonishment not to judge one another on this basis. Secondly, the point is that I am not free to flaunt my freedom by offending someone whose scruples lead to the belief that something is wrong. One of the easiest actions among Christians for the past 2000 years has been to judge other Christians who see things differently and march to a different drum beat. Evidence of this attitude can be found in almost any open theological forum, including those at CCEL. (Try to hold a Bible study class in a church that has an established statement of doctrine, with the attitude in the class that any Scriptural topic is open to discussion, weighing opposing arguments to understand why we believe what we believe, and see how fast one of the members of the class runs to the pastor to complain about the teacher not taking a strong enough stand on “the truth.”)
I believe the reason why William R. Newell treated the chapter the way he did was because his general approach to Scripture was to take Scripture at its straight-forward, face value. That seems to be his general approach to all of Romans. That is why there are a few surprises for the person who takes the time to ponder what he says throughout the book. Certainly chapter 14 is not the only place conservative, Bible-believing Christians will disagree on his interpretation of the text he is discussing.
Although you felt Newell missed something you felt was evident, I do believe you and Newell must agree on what he felt was the main point of the passage – stop the divisive condemnations. Many seem to forget that there is only one body of Christ, and all who have placed their faith for salvation in the shed blood of Christ are members of the body. Although some of my brothers and sisters are vegetarians, I no longer am. Although some of my brothers and sisters are “tea totallers,” some enjoy a glass of wine with their dinners. Also, we do not all agree on doctrinal issues, especially some that are less certain than others. Many Protestants would not consider reading a Roman Catholic book on theology; but the best presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity I have ever read was in a book by a Roman Catholic theologian, complete with imprimatur. I found the book in the library of Western Evangelical Seminary, which was at that time the seminary of the Evangelical Church of America (definitely Protestant). (Keep in mind that the two greatest apostles – Peter and Paul – each had a loving, but negative comment to make about the other in their epistles.) But if we fight and divide over these things, we are WRONG!! You also have made this point in your forum comments. Thank you.
Dave S.
Moderator, Volunteers for Proofreading; Group Leader, Gospel of John study group
2 Tim. 3:16--All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.