Weak Brothers XXX

We are coming to the conclusion of my lengthy series on identifying who are the "weak brothers" of Romans and First Corinthians. My thesis has affirmed that "weak brothers" is not a reference to saved Christian brothers but to the religious neighbors and friends of Christians, especially those who were once of the same religious fraternities of Christians before they became Christians, when they were polytheists. As I have pointed out, it was very common for the many religious cults of the Greco-Roman world to view their fellow cult members as "brothers." When polytheists became Christians they continued to interact with their former Pagan cult brothers and no doubt continued to speak to them in fraternal terms. 

In fact, throughout history we see various groups of people who referred to those in the group as brothers. So we have "the fraternal order of police," or "the fraternal order eagles," etc. We also have "fraternities" in colleges and universities. We see group members calling each other "brother" in religious groups, political groups, cultural groups, etc. Many labor unions also use the term. When I was a young man working in a factory that made electrical components I was a member of "the international brotherhood of electrical workers." Many Communists call their fellow Communists "comrade" or "brother." Even in everyday speech I have myself said to another person - "brother, I..." Sometimes I say like Jesus "friend I do you no harm" (Matt. 20: 13), but could just as well have said "brother I do you no harm" or "neighbor I do you no harm" or some other such term. Black men often call each other "Bro." Therefore, it is not an undeniable proof to say that the weak ones are saved Christians because Paul refers to them as "brothers." I have cited other theologians who agree with me, even though my view is the minority view. But again, I insist that the majority is not always right, and all agree with this fact. 

The learned Dr. Albert Barnes in his commentary on I Corinthians 8: 11 writes:

"Shall the weak brother - The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That it means real Christian there can be no doubt. Because: (1) It is the usual term by which Christians are designated - the endearing name of "brother;" and, (2) The scope of the passage requires it so to be understood; see the note at Romans 14:20."

I totally disagree with what Barnes here says. First, "the scope of the passage" does not require it to be so understood. I have shown that to be a fact. Ironically, the context of Romans and Corinthians shows that the weak brothers are not Christians. Consider the single fact that Paul says he labors that he might "gain" or "save" the weak. (I Cor. 9: 22) That statement alone disproves what Barnes and others of his view say. That text puts the burden of proof back on Barnes and those of his view.

Consider also the fact that the evidence against the view of Barnes is cumulative. In other words, as I have previously stated, there are a dozen solid arguments to prove that the weak brothers are not true born again believers and yet there is only one argument to prove that the weak brothers are truly saved. This fact is clear and undeniable and I am amazed that so many learned men have failed to see it. Thankfully there are others who like I see how the weak brothers cannot possibly be saved believers. Recall also the fact that Paul says that the weak brother may perish (one for whom Christ died). (I Cor. 8: 11) At the end of this series or book I will list those arguments and set them over against the one single argument that the other view has.

Another thing to reiterate is how Paul uses the term "brother" to mean "neighbor." For instance, what Paul says about the weak brothers is sandwiched between the following two verses:

"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13: 10 nkjv)

"Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification." (Rom. 15: 2 nkjv)

By neighbor is not meant your fellow Christian as Barnes indicated. Your neighbor is every other human being as Jesus taught when he conversed with a lawyer who asked Jesus - “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10: 29 nkjv) Jesus then told the story of the good Samaritan who helped a wounded man, a man that a priest and a Levite walked by without helping him. Jesus then asked the lawyer - "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” (vs. 36-37) The scribes and Pharisees, like this lawyer, esteemed no one a neighbor except they who were their friends and benefactors, or were of their own nation or particular sect. Jesus said the second greatest commandment was to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12: 31) That includes every human being; And, every person is to be shown brotherly love. 

There are several new testament texts which speak of "brotherly love." (Rom. 12: 10; I Thess. 4: 9; Heb. 13: 1) Though this is especially true of those who are children of God by a new birth, it is also true in regard to those who are naturally the children of God. Recall that Paul said to the Athenian idolaters - "we are all God's offspring as your own poets have said." (Acts 17: 28) Peter speaks of showing "brotherly kindness" to others.

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love." (II Peter 1: 5-8 nkjv)

Again, though brotherly kindness is especially applicable to the relationship of believers towards other believers who are in the family of God, yet it cannot be limited to that. Surely believers are to show brotherly kindness to all men. The following verses cannot be limited to saved members of the family of God nor to brothers in the flesh.

"None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him." (Psa. 49: 7 nkjv)

"A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a castle." (Prov. 18: 19 NKJV)

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt. 5: 22-24 nkjv)

"Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?" (Matt. 7: 4 nkjv)

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psa. 133: 1 kjv)

Solomon also speaks of the "brethren of the poor" (Prov. 19: 7). He could have also spoken of those who are "brothers in arms," or of the brotherhood that is evident among soldiers. 

Paul also spoke of "false brethren" (II Cor. 11: 26; Gal. 2: 4), which I take to denote those who have professed Christ and been baptized but who were not genuine believers. Jesus referred to these kinds of Christians in the parable of the sower and the seed (or of the four soil types). The shallow or stony ground hearer is a temporary believer who is a mere professor of Christ but whose faith was not genuine. Of these Jesus said:

"But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles." (Matt. 13: 20-21 nkjv) 

These temporary believers never believed out of a "good and honest heart" as did the good ground hearers. Their faith did not endure, which revealed that they never had true faith to begin with. The seed that was sown in their hearts did not take DEEP root, which it always does in those who are truly born again by the word. The apostle John said that true saving faith does not only endure for a little while, but endures all the way. He wrote:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4-5 nkjv)

If what John here says is true (and it is), then the shallow ground hearer who stumbles and falls away from his professed faith, cannot be a true believer, for his faith was overcome by trials and persecutions. His faith being temporary was not "born of God." 

Jesus said to Peter when he foretold of Peter's denial of Christ: "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22: 32 nkjv)

The shallow ground hearer did not have a faith that did not fail. Judas Iscariot had this shallow kind of faith. He never was saved but was a devil from the beginning. Yet, he was called "brother" by Christ and the other apostles. Paul also, when writing to the Galatian churches, and speaking of "false brothers," and of the fact that some in the church had shown that they were never truly saved, nevertheless still calls them "brothers" (Gal. 6: 1). It is a common belief among Bible teachers that many who are members of Christian churches have never been truly saved for they did not believe with the whole heart, but with half a heart. Their faith was shallow and dead. Paul calls such professing Christians "false" (Greek pseudo) meaning "fake." Paul spoke of Timothy's faith as being "unfeigned" (II Tim. 1: 5), meaning it was genuine. 

Notice also how it is the stony ground hearer who "stumbles" just as the weak brothers.

I have given several examples for why the weak are called "brothers" by the apostle. I have suggested that the Romans and Corinthians who became Christians were once polytheists and regular attendees of the religious festivals of those various Pagan cults and fraternities and as such called their fellow idol worshipers "brother." I believe that once they became Christian that they still called their former Pagan cult members "brother." I have also suggested that those Pagans who were being discipled by Christians, or who were attending the meetings of Christians, were often called "brothers." These were the catechumens. I have also spoken of how all who are members of the church are called brothers even though they are hypocrites who were never saved. 

Many Christians view those of certain Christian cults as not really saved. Many think Mormons are not really Christians. Many think Catholics are not really Christians. Etc. Yet, we still out of charity call them "brothers." 

The Cumulative Proof

As I have stated already, there are a number of good arguments for viewing the weak brothers as not truly born again believers and that there is only one argument for viewing them as truly saved people. So, in concluding this series let me now list those several arguments for my thesis which says that the weak brothers are not true born again believers.

1. The weak need to be saved, therefore they are lost brothers

2. "Weak" means sick, impotent, or unsound and are not adjectives for Christians

3. The weak may eternally perish and this cannot be true of real Christians

4. The weak are sick in faith, in religion and this cannot be true of real Christians

5. The weak still think that idols are real deities and this cannot be true of real Christians

6. The weak think that observing religious diets and holy days are essentials for salvation

7. The weak are sick and defiled in conscience and in religious knowledge

8. The weak judge slaves of another Lord (Christ); not fellow servants their own idol lord

9. The weak's religious regulations are from "self-imposed religion" and not Christianity

10. The weak condemn the strong for insisting that there is one God and one Lord alone

11. The weak condemn the strong for not observing dietary laws or holy days

12. The strong are the saved and therefore their opposites (the weak) are not saved

Weigh those arguments against the singular argument of the counter thesis which says the weak brothers are true Christians simply because they are called "brothers." I rest my case.

 

Weak Brothers XXIX

Let us return to our commentary of Romans chapter fourteen. We will cite the remainder of chapter fourteen along with verses one and two of chapter fifteen.

"21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. (15) 1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification."

All this is applicable in those cases where a religiously impaired sinner is offended by some Christian practice to the point where he will not listen to the Christian message. This is not always the case, however. In fact, I suspect that in most cases the weak brothers are not so offended (led into sin) that they become hostile towards the religiously healthy Christian. Rarely does a Christian's eating forbidden food, such as pork, prove to be a stumbling block to the religiously sick being discipled in the Christian faith. Yet it does happen, especially among the religiously intolerant.

In Corinthians and Romans the weak Brothers are distinguished by their scruples and doubts. In Corinthians they are wavering between a belief in trinitarian monotheism and a belief in polytheism. However, in Romans they are in doubt about Christian liberty relative to various kinds of abstinence. Ironically they don't seem to be in doubt, however, about observing religious diets and holy days. Are the weak brothers in doubt (or have scruples) about dietary laws and holy day observances? If so, then how can they legitimately condemn the strong ones for not believing in dietary laws and holy days? More situational irony.

If I am talking about religion to a polytheist or idol worshiper (discipling), or a brother from some other non Christian religion, or even one who is a member of a Christian cult, and being one who has a religious diet and observes holy days, should I argue with him over that issue or should I first dialogue with him about polytheism versus monotheism? If you have to pick your battles with such religiously sick folks, do it over what is the most important issue and not over secondary issues. I think that is what Paul is saying to the strong ones in the Christian faith.

For a Christian to drink wine (or any alcoholic beverage) is not forbidden in scripture. Getting drunk is condemned. Christians have the right or liberty to drink wine moderately. However, if a Christian thinks it may hurt his Christian witness to drink in the presence of someone who thinks it is sin, then it may be better not to drink in the presence of such. On the other hand, having a beer with a lost sinner may be a way to develop repertoire and good hospitable feelings with a religiously sick soul and be a good vantage point to begin speaking of Christ and talking religion. The same may be said about such things as cigarette smoking, playing the lottery, watching certain movies, etc.

The one designated as "he who doubts is condemned if he eats" is the weak, sick, and impotent religionist. He who doubts whether it is right to eat all kinds of food will be "condemned" in his conscience if he eats what he thinks is forbidden by his lord or god. Also, his self condemnation in conscience is due to not eating from proper faith. He violates the principle that says "whatever is not of faith is sin." The weak brother sins when he eats food he thinks is forbidden by God and this is because he does not act in true belief, in keeping with the faith of Christians. When Paul says the weak brother eats not out of faith he is identifying him as not a man of the Christian faith. A true new testament Christian does not have doubts about keeping dietary laws and observing holy days, or in his being involved in all kinds of man-made religious rituals and regulations, for he understands that all God requires for salvation is faith in God and his Messiah, and a turning away from all other gods. A professing Christian who doubts Christian liberty manifests that his faith is defective, and if defective, then lost.

So, what about Christians who observe Christmas and Easter? What about Catholics who observe many more such holy days and advocate for religious diets? Are they weak brothers? Are those not the very kind of things Paul has in mind in Romans chapter fourteen? Does my thesis force me to say that those professing Christians are really not saved? Does it force me to say that they are religiously and spiritually sick? No, first of all because those who keep those religious holidays do not all say that such is a necessary requirement for pleasing God or being saved. If, however, they claim that it is sin to not observe those holidays religiously and claim that eating certain meats on certain holy days is sin, then they show that they are sick brothers and have little understanding of the true faith of Christians. The fact is, a Christian who keeps such holy days is not spiritually better than those who don't, and vice versa. The same thing may be said about Sabbath keeping. Many Christians believe that they are still obligated to keep a weekly Sabbath (holy day), and some think the Sabbath is the seventh day (Saturday) while others say it was changed to Sunday. The truth however, as we have seen from the writings of the apostle Paul, that Christians are no longer under the laws of the Sabbath. (See Col. 2: 16) The old testament had several Sabbaths, and all of them are fulfilled in Christ who is the Christian Sabbath. Every day is a holy Sabbath for the Christian for he rests in Jesus everyday. It is the weak who think that observing days commends one to God.

Notice Paul's conclusion in Romans 15: 1-2. As I have said before, Paul uses the term "brother" not as a Christian brother, but as a brother in Adam. He says in his conclusion "let everyone of us please his neighbor for his good to edification." Notice that he did not use the term "brother" but used the word "neighbor." I think that is further proof that by "brother" he means your neighbor, especially your religious neighbor. It at least shows that what Paul says about the weak is applicable to people who are simply your neighbors. In commenting upon this verse Barnes has the following to say in his commentary:

"Please his neighbour - That is, all other persons, but especially the friends of the Redeemer. The word "neighbor" here has special reference to the members of the church. It is often used, however, in a much larger sense; see Luke 10:36."

I find this comment to reveal the bias of Barnes and others who say that the weak brothers are fellow Christians who are very immature in Christian doctrine. He gives a different take on Paul's use of the term "neighbor" than is warranted. Why does he say that "neighbor" in this text "has special reference to the members of the church"? He is saying this because he has taken the position that the use of the word "brother" denotes a true born again child of God. Yet, he does say the word "neighbor" "is often used in a much larger sense." So too is the word "brother" used in a larger sense! Other commentators also follow this lead of Barnes and try to equate "neighbor" with "brother" and therefore limit "neighbor" to mean spiritual "brother" and yet neighbor is not equated with those who are spiritual or Christian brothers. Rather than being forced to limit "neighbor" to born again believers because of their false view on who are the weak brothers, they should rather see "brother" as denoting your neighbor and therefore means your brother in Adam.

The above words of the text may be applied to Christian conduct generally, as exhorting that they are not to make their own happiness or gratification their standard of conduct, but are rather to seek the welfare of others. "Love seeks not her own" said Paul (I Cor. 13: 5); Also, "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth (or enrichment)" (I Cor. 10: 24). We are to seek to please everyone and yet in such a way as not to be a "man pleaser." (Gal. 1: 10) When pleasing men involves doing things that are forbidden by scripture, then Christians are not to please men. Recall that Paul said:

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22 kjv)

What does Paul mean by himself becoming weak? Recall that he had just said that to the Jews he became a Jew in order that he might more easily save the Jew. To those not under law, he acted as if he were not under law. First, let us speak of what he does not mean. He certainly does not mean that he changed his beliefs in each instance. He also does not mean to endorse the erroneous views of unbelieving Jews or Gentiles by becoming as they. Barnes in his commentary writes:

"I complied with their customs. I conformed to them in my dress, habits, manner of life, and even in the services of religion. I abstained from food which they deemed it their duty to abstain from; and where, if I had partaken of it, I should have offended them. Paul did not do this to gratify himself, or them, but to do them good. And Paul's example should teach us not to make it the main business of life to gratify ourselves, and it should teach us not to lacerate the feelings of others; not to excite their prejudices needlessly; not to offend them where it will do no good. If truth offends people, we cannot help it. But in matters of ceremony, and dress, and habits, and customs, and forms, we should be willing to conform to them, as far as can be done, and for the sole purpose of saving their souls."

I don't think that this is quite what Paul had in mind by becoming like his audiences. I can't imagine that Paul changed his clothes when he went from one area to another! I also don't think that he "complied with" the "customs" of the various peoples he came among, for many of those customs would be contrary to his own principles and beliefs. Paul is not saying that a good soul winner and evangelist must be a kind of cultural or religious chameleon. He is not saying that missionaries should abide by the maxim that says - "when in Rome do as the Romans." I think Paul was Paul wherever he went. 

I rather think what Paul had in mind is how he dialogued and reasoned with those of other religious beliefs. He did what any wise soul winner will do. He first found common ground, things he could agree with among the various peoples he mentions, and made that his starting point for further discussion. He certainly did this very thing in speaking to the religiously devout polytheists in Athens, as we have seen. On this point we have these observations from Google AI:

"In a debate, establishing common ground is a crucial first step for productive discussion and potential persuasion. It involves identifying shared values, beliefs, or areas of agreement, even if those areas are narrow, as a foundation for building arguments and rebuttals. By focusing on what is shared, debaters can create a more respectful and collaborative atmosphere, making it easier to engage with opposing viewpoints and potentially influence the other person's perspective." 

I think Paul is saying that he puts himself into the mindset of Jews, Gentiles, and other religiously impaired folks and then conducts himself like Socrates by asking questions of those folks, and just such questions as are apt to make them defend their views and to see the weaknesses of their religious views. I also think he informed those folks about things they knew nothing about, such as the life and death and resurrection of Christ, and of God's Oracles. 

Interesting are the following comments by Ellicott on the above text (emphasis mine):

"To the weak.—We can scarcely take this (as some do) to refer to weak Christians, of whom he has spoken in 1 Corinthians 8. The whole passage treats of the attitude which the Apostle assumed towards various classes outside the Christian Church, that he might gain them as converts...The word “save” means “win over to Christianity,” as in 1 Corinthians 7:16, and is used here instead of the previous word “gain,” being repeated to prevent any possible perversion of the Apostle’s meaning as to “gaining men.”" (Ellicott's Commentary)

On the other hand we find these words by Meyer in his commentary:

"To understand the phrase as denoting non-Christians from their lack of the higher powers of Christian life, especially of strength of conscience (Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), is against the formal use of οἱ ἀσθενεῖς, and cannot be justified by Romans 5:6." (Meyer's commentary)

So, here we see the disagreement over who are intended by those Paul calls weak or sickly brothers. Meyer does not prove that the weak are saved folks and what he says about the Greek word "astheneis" is not correct as we have previously shown. When Paul says that the weak need to be gained or saved he shows that the weak are not Christians. I believe Ellicott is correct and Meyer is not.

JFB's commentary says:

"gain the weak—that is, establish, instead of being a stumbling-block to inexperienced Christians (1Co 8:7) Ro 14:1, "Weak in the faith." Alford thinks the "weak" are not Christians at all, for these have been already "won"; but those outside the Church, who are yet "without strength" to believe (Ro 5:6)." (JFB commentary) 

So, we may add Dean Alford to those who agree with my own view.

 

Weak Brothers XXVIII

"14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense." (Rom. 14: 14-20 nkjv)

One of the errors of the religiously weak and sickly is that they believe that observing religious diets and holy days are essentials for finding favor with God. Paul says this to them: "But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse." (I Cor. 8: 8 nkjv) Jesus also said: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” (Matt. 15: 11 nkjv) In the above text in Romans Paul says "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men." So, the issues separating the weak from the strong are doctrinal and have to do with what God requires for salvation, for being "acceptable to God." We have already shown how the things that Paul discusses relative to the religiously sick ones has to do with salvation. Recall that he said "through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died" (I Cor. 8: 11) and in the above text he speaks of "destroying the work of God for the sake of food." So, those commentators who say that the "disputable" things of Romans chapter fourteen are mere opinions dealing with minor, tertiary, unimportant matters are wrong. If that were so, then why would salvation be at stake?

Paul's Message to the Weak

 

1. Religious diets and observing holy days avail nothing.

2. Nothing is unclean in itself, all food being pure in themselves.

3. Do not judge and condemn the Christian for not observing diets and holy days.

4. Who are you to judge another Lord's servants? Only his Lord may judge him.

5. The idols are not real, there being but one God

6. There is but one Lord and he is Jesus Christ

7. Be fully persuaded of your beliefs

Paul's Message to the Strong

1. Receive kindly the religiously weak

2. Do not offend the weak ones

3. Do not put stumbling blocks in the way of the weak coming to true faith

4. Seek the good and salvation of the weak above all things

5. Be sensitive to the infirmities of the weak and lead them gently to truth

6. Do not wound the religious conscience of the weak

7. Show the love of Christ toward the weak

8. Do some religious things in private and not in the presence of the weak

9. Do not provoke the weak to sin but provoke to love and good works

10. Be fully persuaded of your beliefs

The Solution

The solution is simple. The weak are not to utterly judge the religiously strong for eating all meats and for not observing holy days, allowing the Lord of the strong (Jesus) to judge his own servants. The strong are not to show contempt for the weak but should be concerned with them being saved from destruction. If the weak are offended by seeing the strong eat meat he thinks is forbidden, then the strong should not eat meat in their presence. Paul makes these summary statements:

"Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (I Cor. 8: 13 nkjv)

"It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." (Rom. 14: 21 nkjv)

"Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." (vs. 22)

"Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil."

The apostle Paul wrote:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (I Thess. 5: 22 kjv) I think this is the basic message to the strong ones (saved people) in their behavior towards the religiously sick, to those in false belief. Some might think this is hypocrisy, to eat pork for instance in private but not in public. Some also might think it is a case of living in fear of the weak. But, that is not the apostle Paul's perspective. He thinks that it shows love towards the spiritually sick to not do anything to hinder a sinner's coming to Christ and embracing the Christian faith. A companion text of Paul for the above text would be these words:

"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Col. 2: 16-23 nkjv)

This text should be studied in conjunction with the following text, one which we have already cited more than once.

"But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (Gal. 4: 8-11 nkjv)

Both of these texts are addressed to Gentile Christians who had once been polytheists and worshiped other idols and gods. Though they may have some application to Christian Jews, they are not the chief subject. Paul says to the Galatian believers "you served those which by nature are not gods." They also refer to false religion, i.e. "self-imposed religion." They also mention the keeping of various religious rules and regulations, such as keeping religious diets and observing religious holy days and feasts, or a religious calendar, all which are summed up in the words "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle." These represent man made religious rules in three categories. Some things are forbidden to touch, such as the Jews had about touching the bodies of the dead and becoming unclean. (Numb. 19: 13) Further, once a Jew touched a dead body, either human or animal, everything he touches likewise becomes unclean. (Hag. 2: 13; Lev. 11: 24-38; Isa. 52: 11) Some things are not to be tasted or eaten. Finally, some things are not to be handled. False religion, and even the religion of God for the Jews under the old covenant, has numerous regulations about such things. 

The above texts which describe false religion are applicable to those called "weak brothers." When Paul says "let no man judge you in food or drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths" we see this clearly. In Romans chapter fourteen it is the weak and sickly brothers who are judging the strong brothers for not observing such rules and "regulations" which are "according to the commandments and doctrines of men" and part of their "self-imposed religion" intended to "neglect of the body" and defeat the "indulgence of the flesh." However, keeping those various regulations are "of no value" in combating the flesh. It is the weak brothers who "turn again to the weak and beggarly elements" and involve themselves in "observing days and months and seasons and years." These are descriptions not of saved people, but of lost religious people. It will also include professing Christians who enter the church without having been born again or truly saved.

Yes, Christians do have things that they are not to touch, taste, or handle. For instance, the scriptures mention "touching" a woman in sexual intercourse (I Cor. 7: 1) and they forbid touching any woman in this sense outside of marriage. Christians are also not to touch the evil world, morally and spiritually. That is the way for them to "keep unspotted from the world." (James 1: 27) So Paul cites the Oracle of God, saying: "Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” (II Cor. 6: 17 nkjv)

Wrote Gill in his commentary:

"and touch not the unclean thing. The allusion is to several laws under the former dispensation, which forbid touching many things which were accounted unclean, whereby pollution was contracted, and the persons were obliged to a ceremonial cleansing; see Leviticus 5:2 Numbers 19:11. It has no regard to touching, tasting, and eating any sort of food, which was forbid as unclean by the ceremonial law; for the difference between meats clean and unclean was now removed; but if anything is particularly designed by the unclean thing, it seems to be idolatry, and to be a prohibition of joining with worshippers of idols in their idolatrous practices, whereby a moral pollution is contracted; since in the beginning of the former verse it is said, "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" though it is rather intended in general, to forbid all communion and fellowship with unclean persons and things, not to touch them, to come nigh them, or have anything to do with them."

The saints at Colossae were being told that it was wrong to eat certain foods, etc. They were told that keeping these man-made rules was the key to spirituality. The practices Paul is alluding to appear to be forms of asceticism and legalism. Spirituality is not the result of keeping a multitude of man-made religious rules and regulations. Many religions, and some Christian cults, are full of such man-made ordinances. 

The things which the Christian is not to involve himself in are mentioned by the apostle Peter when he writes:

"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles--when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (I Peter 4: 3 nkjv)

These are unclean things which the Christian is not to "touch, taste, or handle" in coming out from among false religionists and coming to the Lord. Involvement in such things is to walk no more according to the principles of the world, or of "self-imposed religion." Some things have the appearance of being spiritual, religious, or holy, but in reality are but facades. Paul mentions that some of the religious rules to which Christians are no longer subject dealt with abstinence of various kinds, and of ways to "neglect the body." 

The weak and sickly brothers are they who are still bound to these man-made religious rules and traditions. They think that holiness and nearness to God is measured by how many such rules a man keeps.

 

Weak Brothers XXVII

The word "weak" in the above text is from the Greek word "asthenōn" a word which we have had much to say. Obviously "the weak" are they who need help, whether physical or spiritual or religious. The Apostle Paul's instructions to the strong ones (healthy, able) in Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen and in First Corinthians chapters eight through ten are designed to help the weak, to gain the weak, to save the weak, and not from a mere temporal destruction or perishing, but an eternal, as we have seen. With that foreword let us return to our commentary on these verses from Romans chapter fourteen:

"14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  (Rom. 14: 14-20 nkjv)

This is the fourth chapter of my analysis of the above verses. We have already had much to say about them and yet there is still much left to be said. It is like so many other texts in the bible that say so much in so little, or to use some metaphors, are pregnant with meaning, or have much in them to unpack. They are important in understanding what Paul's theology is relative to those who are weak brothers and those who are strong brothers. Let us begin by analyzing what Paul gives of the solution to the problems existing between each class of "brothers" or "neighbors." Let us also understand that when we say problems arise between the weak and the strong we are not to believe that there are always problems between these two classes of brothers. In many cases the problems Paul gives as examples do not come into play when both kinds of brothers interact with each other.

If a religious brother, neighbor, or friend is grieved to see you eat meat or some other food forbidden by his religious views and is offended, so that he will be less likely to dialog with or be discipled by you, and thus come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved, then you have "sinned against Christ." You have put a stumbling block in the path of the sick religious brother coming to faith in Christ and to an assured knowledge that there is "one God the Father, by whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and we by him," and coming to the knowledge that observing religious diets and holy days and abstaining from alcoholic beverages does not commend them to God since he does not require these things. In fact, it is his desire that believers have the privilege to eat all things (except for drinking blood), so long as the food is sanctified by the word of God and prayer and is received with thanksgiving to God, and are not obligated to observe holy days or religious festivals as means of obtaining God's special approval, nor commanded to abstain from alcoholic beverages, so long as one does not drink immoderately nor in the face of a weak brother who might be offended by it. 

Should Christians seek not to unduly offend those of other religions? How did Jesus deal with the polytheistic Gentiles (Greeks and Romans for instance)? How did the apostles deal with them? Did they offend them? Insult them? Castigate them? Abhor them? Show them no pity? Answering these questions might require far more elaboration. But, our subject has sort of brought us to this point. Just how do we confront those of other religions, or Christian cults? How Paul the apostle confronted them is best studied by examining his presence and apologetic sermon on the famed Acropolis in Athens, Greece in Acts chapter seventeen.

In essence, Paul challenged polytheists by: 

1. Building on common ground: He acknowledged their religious devotion and used their own cultural references.

2. Contrasting man-made idols with the true God: He explained that humans cannot create God, but rather God created humans and the world.

3. Proclaiming the reality of a single, powerful Creator: He presented a monotheistic view of God's power and sovereignty.

4. Calling for a personal relationship with this God through Jesus Christ: He emphasized the importance of repentance and introduced the concept of judgment through Jesus' resurrection.

5. Sharing his testimony and personal experience. (AI generated)

We see this in Acts chapter seventeen when Paul preaches in Athens, a city full of polytheists. In "Paul and the Classical World of His Time" Dr. Craig A. Evans (See here) writes:

"That Paul, the “apostle to the Gentiles,” frequently engaged the classical world of his time should come as no surprise at all. The Christian Church of the early centuries simply could not avoid the culture of the Greeks and Romans; it was everywhere around them...Paul collided with classical culture several times. Most of the problems for Paul lay in Greco-Roman morality and polytheism. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in his correspondence with the new Christians in the city of Corinth. Had the newly minted Gentile Christians in Paul’s churches held firmly to Jewish ideas of God and morality, Paul would have little to talk about in his letters!" (all emphasis mine)

Paul speaks to the Athenian idolaters fraternally, saying to them "we are all God's offspring." He did not speak condescendingly to them, did not chide them as Elijah did the prophets of Baal. (See I Kings 18: 25-40) Paul said to them "I see you are all very religious." He is not patronizing them as many of the Sophist lecturers did in that day. He conducts himself in the manner Paul spoke about to Timothy.

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." (II Tim. 2: 23-26 nkjv)

"Ignorant disputes" seems to me to connect with Romans 14: 1 where Paul said "welcome the one who is sick and without strength in religious belief but not to doubtful disputations." Avoiding "ignorant disputes" is advice not only to erring brothers in Christ but also to those who are of other religions. Also, his saying that soul winners "must not quarrel" is also apropos in how to deal with those who are impaired in their religious beliefs. Paul exemplified these qualities when he confronted the Athenian idolaters, who we must say were "weak brothers." 

Also, why does Paul speak of offending, grieving, hindering, etc., the weak brethren but does not speak of the weak offending the strong ones? Perhaps we will address that later.

On Offending Others

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his second epistle:

"We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed." (II Cor. 6: 3 nkjv)

It is sad that many Christians, including those who are in leadership and teaching positions, do not take heed to this exhortation of the great Apostle to the weak. The Greek word for "offense" (or offence) is not from skandalon as usual, but from "proskopē," though it means about the same thing, i.e. a trap or stumbling stone, an impediment or hindrance. As Christians who are not weak in faith but strong, we should be clearing obstacles, or removing stumbling blocks, from the way of sinners rather than laying them in the way! Said the same apostle:

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." (I Cor. 10: 31-33 nkjv)

Notice that this exhortation is addressed to three distinct peoples, i.e., Jews, Greeks, and the church. Notice too that it concerns "whether you eat or drink," which are two things mentioned as examples in Romans chapter fourteen that divide religious people. Paul does not want to offend the lost, whether they be Jews or Pagans, or sick brothers. Why does he want to be inoffensive to all? So that he may "profit" all or "that they may be saved." Here is another verse that shows that salvation is what is at stake. By "offending" these people Paul means not merely to upset them mentally or emotionally, but to lead them into sin. Every believer should be concerned about doing or saying anything that will prejudice the minds of the lost against Christian truth, or would cause "the way of truth" to be "evilly spoken of" (II Peter 2: 2). In speaking of his arrival in the idolatrous city of Thessalonica Paul said that he "was gentle among you" (I Thess. 2: 7). He spoke about Christians "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4: 15).

Fear of offending others should not be the sole criteria for what we say and do. Some truths must be told in every situation no matter who it offends. Jesus said: 

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Matt. 18: 6-7 kjv)

Though we try as much as possible not to offend others, yet we know that preaching Christ and the Gospel will offend many. Yet, such must be preached. In this sense Christ himself is a stumbling block and gives offence to some. But, this cannot be avoided nor should it. (See I Cor. 1: 23) However, we must work hard to ensure that we do not offend others needlessly. For instance, how should Christians deal with homosexuals? Some however, in violation of the principles laid down by the apostle about offending weak brothers, may begin to point out such people and angrily say nasty things in public about them or to them.

Holier Than Thou?

It seems to me that the difficulty involved one group of religious brothers thinking that they were superior in ethics and holiness with the attitude expressed in Isaiah 65:5 where some say "stand by yourself, come not near to me for I am holier than thou." Such an attitude is an irritant to God. The weak brothers thought that they were superior to the strong brothers because they thought there were more favored by God because they kept religious diets and holy days and abstained from certain things, like wine, certain foods, and even in abstaining from marriage and sex. The truth is, of course, that the strong were superior to the weak. But, that does not mean that the strong have a license to speak condescendingly to the religiously weak. 

Holiness or nearness to the heart of God is not measured by what we eat or drink or don't eat or drink, nor whether we keep holy days, or observe man made traditions, rites, and ceremonies, nor because we have superior knowledge in some tertiary matters. A Catholic who prays while giving the sign of the cross is no more holier than a Protestant who prays without it. We must remember that "God looks upon the heart":

"For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (I Sam. 16: 7 nkjv)

God is highly interested in the attitudes of our hearts and minds. Both the weak and the strong should remember the words of the apostle who said:

"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself." (Phil. 2: 3 nkjv)

The Love Principle

"Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love."

Not only is salvation at stake in how the strong interact with the weak, but so too is love. How do the strong ones keep from offending the weak, from leading them into sin? How do they recover them from being weak and sickly? How do they help the weak to "close the deal" with Christ and to embrace Christianity (or the gospel)?

The Bible speaks of "sound doctrine" (I Tim. 1: 10; see also I Tim. 6: 3; II Tim. 1: 13; etc.). "Sound" is from the Greek word "hygiainō" and means to be sound, to be well, to be in good health. So we read:

"And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." (Luke 5: 31 kjv)

The word "whole" is from the same Greek word and is set in opposition to "sick." To be "sound" is to be healthy and may be used in a physical sense or a spiritual, mental, or religious sense. "Sound doctrine" is healthy doctrine. The weak are sick in their religious views and practices. When we read that they are "weak in the faith" we see "unsound, or sick in the Christian faith." Of some people who Paul described as being unsaved, he wrote: "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Tit. 1: 13; See also 2: 2 kjv) So we teach and admonish the religiously weak in order that they may become sound in faith, which occurs when they accept the Christian faith.

If you eat what your weak brother thinks is taboo, and you eat it knowing that it will provoke a negative response in him, offending him, then you show you do not care about winning or gaining the weak brother, and that all you want to do is to insult or ridicule him, and which only produces a stronger bias in him against the truth and keeps him in his sin. When the strong ignores the scruples of the weak and eats forbidden food in the presence of the weak who thinks it is an insult to the deity he recognizes, then it becomes a case where "it is evil for the man who eats with offense" (Rom. 14: 20). To offend such sick souls is evil and not an act of love. It shows that the strong are really not interested in the salvation or religious health of the weak. Therefore Paul concludes: "Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another." Condemning the religiously weak and ignorant by the Christian is not going to help bring the weak to salvation. For the healthy and strong to view the false religionists as irredeemable reprobates is not to walk in love towards them. It will not edify them nor make them more amenable to the Christian message. 

This makes us think of a first principle in medical care and ethics which says that all who seek to doctor the sick should "first, do no harm." If we are going to be used by God to heal the spiritually sick and weak, then we must not do any harm. So Paul wrote:

"Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed. Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb. 12: 12-14 nkjv)

I think this text is applicable to both physical as well as spiritual infirmities. It also has two categories of patients, one is your own self, and the other stands for sick people. "Pursue peace" with the weak, sick, and strengthless, which means to be gentle with them in bringing them to spiritual and religious health. Another text bearing on this comes from the Apostle Peter who said:

"Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing." (I Peter 3: 8-9 nkjv)

To "love as brothers" is certainly applicable to how Christians are to treat fellow believers, but it must not be limited to that, no more than "having compassion for one another" or being "tenderhearted" and "courteous," for the Christian ought to show these qualities and attitude even towards those who are his neighbors, to those of other religions, yea, to all men. If those of other religions, the religiously sick, "revile" you as a Christian, do not revile in return. Denigration is out of place when the strong ones work with improving the state of the weak ones. Recall these words of the apostle Paul:

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Phil. 2: 3-4 nkjv)

This is the attitude and perspective that the religiously and spiritually strong and healthy ones should have towards the religiously sick.

 

Weak Brothers XXVI

The above text has been often cited by me throughout this series. It is a key text for understanding who are the weak brothers. It says the weak ones, like the other groups of people mentioned in the text, need to be "gained" or "saved." Therefore, the view that says that the weak brothers are saved, yet immature, cannot be correct. But, we must also ask them a rhetorical question: Gain or save them from what? It can't mean to save them from sin via justification by faith and rebirth of the Spirit for they have already been saved and that is why they are called "brothers." (according to the view we are combating) If the weak brothers are new converts who have doubts about several points of Christian doctrine, and who therefore need to be gained or saved from doctrinal error and false religious practices, how can they be gained if the weak are not to be disputed with in the matters pertaining to his scruples? For many believe that when Paul says "receive him who is weak in the faith but not to dispute over his opinions" he forbids trying to help the weak to see his errors and become strong and no more weak. Recall that Paul said:

"Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good, unto edifying." (Rom. 15: 1-2 asv)

So, what are the "infirmities" (i.e. weaknesses, sicknesses, impotencies) of the weak (impotent)? If it is an infirmity to keep religious diets and holy days, and to not drink wine, or to doubt the truth of the Christian creed, is Paul advising the strong to not try to change their minds by rational argument from scripture? Does Paul not want the weak to become strong? Further, what does Paul mean by "bearing" the infirmities of the weak? Is it not what any soul winner must do in winning converts to Christ? A soul winner and apologist must put up with a lot of obstacles in the thinking of a potential disciple in trying to persuade him of the truths of the Christian religion. Read "infirmities of the lost sinner" and understand the text better. 

Also, I repeat what I have said before about Paul's use of the word "brothers" in referring to the weak ones. In the above text Paul uses the word "neighbor" instead of brother. At the end of this series I will add further thoughts on the use of the term "brothers" and show that it does not necessarily mean a genuine believer. Consider also that on one side of this debate there are numerous arguments that show that "the sick ones" are not saved believers, while on the other side is one single argument, being that Paul calls the weak ones brothers. My brothers who believe the weak are born again believers I invite to come and answer these questions and arguments. Now let us return to our commentary and observations on this part of Romans chapter fourteen.

"14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  (Rom. 14: 14-20 nkjv)

This is the third chapter in a row dealing with the above verses. If one has read all the preceding twenty five chapters I think he will see how the "weak" or "sick" brothers are not born again believers, being at most but inquirers into the religion of Christ.

A paraphrase of what Paul advised the strong ones (the members of the church of Rome that he is addressing) to say to the weak ones would be something like this:

"if they ate food in front of a religiously weak person and offended the weak, then they should let the weak know that they meant no offense; That his religion has no dietary laws, because not eating certain foods does not effect one's relationship with God. However, dear brother, friend, or neighbor, if it offends you that I eat pork then I will not eat pork in your presence. Allow me the liberty however to eat it outside of your presence. You don't want to force the requirements of your god upon me do you?"

That is my paraphrase of Paul's advice to the strong ones. The whole guiding principle of a believer's conduct towards the religiously sick and impaired is to keep them from becoming biased against the Christian faith. I have cited the words of Solomon on this point already in this series. He said:

"A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle." (Prov. 18: 19 kjv)

We should not restrict the word "brother" in this text, and in others like it, to a physical brother or brother in Christ. "Brother" here includes your natural brother, your brother through Adam, and is all the same as your "neighbor." The "winning" of this text has often been cited as referring to converting people to Christ. That being so, we must admit then that they were brothers before they were converted (or "won"). Solomon also said: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who wins souls is wise." (Prov. 11: 30 nkjv) In Paul's instruction to the strong (spiritually or religiously healthy ones) on how to "win" or "save" the weak brothers (I Cor. 9: 22) he is giving them wisdom to win the souls of the religiously or spiritually sick. In fact, you could put "he who wins the souls of the weak is wise" over Romans chapter fourteen and First Corinthians chapter eight. 

Paul says to the strong ones - "if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love." So, does this mean that since some are vegetarians for religious reasons and get offended when a Christian eats meat that the Christian then is forever forbidden to eat meat? That does not seem right. Recall that Paul said these words relative to how the strong should behave towards the weak relative to their religious errors and doubts:

"But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" (I Cor. 10: 28-29 kjv)

By "you" in this exhortation are the members of the church at Corinth. He addresses them as if none of them were weak ones in belief. The one who says to the strong "this is offered in sacrifice to idols" is the religiously unhealthy, or the unbeliever as we have seen. (I Cor. 10: 27-30) The weak brother has a "weak conscience." (I Cor. 8: 12) Why weak, sickly, or impaired in conscience? It is because he is still a believer in the reality of idols and other gods. 

So, what would be a good paraphrase for what Paul says about the weak ones and what they should say to the strong ones? I would paraphrase it like this: 

"Brother, do not judge the Christian for eating foods you think are forbidden by your God or gods ("let not him which eats not judge him that eats"; Rom. 14: 3 kjv). After all, "Who art thou that judges another man's servant? to his own master he stands or falls." (Rom. 14: 4 kjv) His eating all foods, all meats, is done to his Lord and God who gives him this liberty. So too with observing holy days or drinking wine or other alcoholic drinks. However, we who eat all things, and drink wine, and do not observe holy days, do not want to offend you and so we will not eat food forbidden in your presence. Likewise do not judge us for not participating in your religious feasts and observance of the holy days of your religion."

We have spoken mainly of the difficulty over religious diets as compared to the difficulty over observing religious "holy days" or "religious feasts." There are three issues that Paul brings up in Romans chapter fourteen that separate the religiously or spiritually weak from the strong. They are religious diets, keeping holy days, and wine drinking. In Corinthians the issue concerned knowledge about monotheism and polytheism, about whether the idols and gods were non entities or real beings, and about whether a Christian ought in any case to eat food that was offered to idols. Paul says that in the weak brothers there was not "that knowledge" that there "is one God of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things," etc. (I Cor. 8: 6-7) That was a far more important issue than the issue of religious diets, observing holy days, or abstinence of alcoholic beverages. 

Paul's religiously and spiritually weak, sick, and powerless brothers have a "weak or sick conscience," are easily offended when the strong ones of Christianity don't follow them in their religious beliefs and practices. They have a conscience that continues to be "defiled" due to their retaining a belief in idols. (I Cor. 8: 7) Notice what Paul said to Titus about those whose consciences are defiled.

"To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." (Titus 1: 15 nkjv)

Here we see that it is those who are "unbelievers" who have a mind and conscience that are defiled. 

 

Weak Brothers XXV

In this chapter we will continue to comment upon the following verses. 

"14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  (Rom. 14: 14-20 nkjv)

There is a lot to unpack in these verses, hence we had to cut our commentary short in the preceding chapter. In this chapter let us begin by understanding what is at stake in properly interpreting it.

Salvation of the Weak is at Stake

What is the chief concern of Paul in his exhortations to the strong ones (who I have identified as being those who are saved Christians) on how to behave towards the weak (who I have identified as being those who are not Christians but religious people who are open to giving Christians a chance to teach them)? The following verses tell us that it is the salvation of the weak.

"And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11 nkjv)

"Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (I Cor. 8: 13 nkjv)

"to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22 nkjv)

"Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14: 15)

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food." (Rom. 14: 20)

"It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." (Rom. 14: 21-22 nkjv)

Some translations give for "is offended" the words "is led into sin." Also, "is made weak" is "asthenie" and means, as we have said, "sick" or "impotent."

When we say that Paul is concerned about the salvation of the religiously sick and weak, we do not deny that he is also concerned with the salvation of the strong ones. Likewise, just as Paul was concerned about the weak ones being "led into sin" so also he is concerned about the strong ones sinning by the way they treat the weak brothers. So Paul said to the strong ones: "But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." (I Cor. 8: 12 nkjv) When Paul warns the strong ones about offending the sick ones he not only warns them about sinning in so doing but also about how they will have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged for such actions.

This situation brings us therefore to the debate over whether born again believers may lose their salvation. For those who believe that both the weak and the strong are born again believers, and who believe that it is impossible for such believers to be lost, the above texts will prove difficult, especially in the case of those who are styled "weak or sick brothers." Those who believe that both classes are saved spiritual brothers, and who believe that believers can lose their salvation, will see these texts as proof that their position is correct. Since my position views only the strong ones as truly saved believers, I have less difficulty in debating with those who believe that saints can lose their salvation. I believe that the eternal salvation of the weak ones is at stake, not in losing salvation however, but in obtaining initial salvation itself. In the case of the strong ones, the danger is that they will lose rewards and their Lord's commendations, not loss of salvation. That seems to be what Paul taught when he said - "If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (I Cor. 3: 15 nkjv)

Also, sinning against the weak brothers may reveal that the strong ones were not really what they profess to be, i.e. true born again believers. After all, perseverance in faith and holiness are essentials for being saved in the end. But, perseverance does not mean living a sinless life.

Paul does not use the same language when speaking of the results of the sin of the weak ones, in the above texts in Romans and First Corinthians, as he does for the sin of the strong ones. The weak ones may perish, or have the work of God upon them destroyed by their remaining unconverted. Any stumbling blocks that we as believers put in the way of sinners for coming to Christ for salvation makes us guilty of having been a contributing cause in their damnation, or failure to be saved. When speaking of the damnation of weak brothers Paul says they perish, or are destroyed. I don't think that is a temporal perishing or destruction as some of my Calvinist brothers aver. They take that view because 1) they believe that the weak ones are born again believers (mainly because they are called brothers) and 2) it is said that Christ died for them. But, before delving further into those difficulties, let me return to my assertion that Paul does not say of the strong ones that their sinning against the weak brothers results in the work of God being destroyed in them as it does in the weak brothers. That is because it is impossible to destroy God's work in preserving the believers and insuring their perseverance. It is possible however to destroy the pre-regeneration or pre-salvation work of God in the weak brothers, as in all lost sinners. That is what Paul meant when he said that he did not preach the gospel "with wisdom of words," because in that case he would be making "the cross of Christ of no effect" (I Cor. 1: 17).  

As far as how a Calvinist who believes that Christ only died for the elect or for believers only deals with Paul's speaking of the weak brothers perishing "for whom Christ died" there are several solutions. Those Calvinists who believe the weak brothers are born again believers are forced to say that the perishing is not eternal, but denotes a mere loss of temporal spiritual blessings. I find that untenable and unlikely. First, that is not how the term "perishing" or "destroyed" is generally used in scripture. Others, like Dr. John Gill in his commentary on the text, says that Paul does not affirm that the weak brothers will perish but only asks the question rhetorically ("and through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died") and says that such a question does not imply that such will occur. I find that explanation also untenable. In my posting in this series title "Throgmorton on the Weak" (See here) I wrote, citing Dr. W.P. Throgmorton from his debate with Elder J. R. Daily of the "Primitive Baptist" church. Throgmorton said: 

 

"We read of one weak brother for whom Christ died that perished. I Corinthians 8:10-11 “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” In the Revised Version, American, it reads: For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whom Christ died.” It doesn’t mean a brother in Christ, because we have seen that those in Christ will never perish, but here is a brother in Adam for whom Christ died, who perishes. The Greek word apoleitai (apoleitai) is the same as in John 3:16, where the word perish occurs."

Throgmorton saw the problem with saying that the weak brothers were born again children of God in light of his belief in the impossibility of believers losing their salvation. So, he believed as I do that the weak ones are not saved. However, he believed that Christ died for all men and so he had no problem believing that many for whom Christ died will perish. Calvinists who believe that the weak brothers are born again Christians cannot avoid either problem. They have to explain how to reconcile the fact that born again believers for whom Christ died may perish or be destroyed. Since I do not believe the weak brothers are saved Christians, I as a Calvinist only have to deal with how I can believe that someone for whom Christ died may perish. As a Calvinist I have two possible answers to this problem. 

First, there is a sense in which Christ died "for" all men and a sense in which he died only for the elect (or only for believers). The death of Christ had some benefits for all men. Spurgeon said this very thing, saying that God purchased some good things for all men and all good things for some men (the elect). So, Paul may mean that Christ died "for" the temporal good of even those who are never saved, what theologians call "common grace."  

Second, Paul could simply be saying that Christ died for weak brothers in the same way he says that Christ died for sinners, without intending that he died as a sacrificial substitute and bore the penalty for every single sinner, or for those who do not believe. Every believer was once a religiously weak, sick, or impotent sinner brother and so we may say Christ died for them. The question is this: did Paul say that Christ died for every weak brother, i.e. every sinner? I think not. We may then rephrase Paul's question like this: "and through your knowledge shall the lost sinner perish?" Those who believe that the weak brothers are saved Christians has Paul asking - "and through your knowledge shall born again believers perish?" The weak brother (lost religiously sick person) will indeed perish if he falls short of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. 

In the next chapter we will continue our examination of this section of Romans chapter fourteen.

Weak Brothers XXIV

"14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15 Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17 for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for the man who eats with offense."  (Rom. 14: 14-20 nkjv)

Who is under consideration when Paul says "to him who considers anything to be unclean"? Answer: It is the weak ones. Is their belief about unclean food right or wrong? Answer: Wrong, for Paul says there is in fact "nothing unclean of itself" and "all things are pure." Further, the text in First Timothy at the top of this posting says that the Christian is one who sees that there are no restrictions on eating food. Paul does not deny that God under the old covenant did put restrictions on what foods may be eaten and when eaten. God called certain animals "unclean" and others "clean." God's labeling animals as such is what makes them clean or unclean. God is not merely recognizing that certain animals are clean or unclean and stating then what he sees, rather he makes something unclean or clean by his simple declaration. No food was unclean of itself. God taught this to Peter.

"9 The next day, as they went on their journey and drew near the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance 11 and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. 12 In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. 13 And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." 14 But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." 15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." 16 This was done three times. And the object was taken up into heaven again. 17 Now while Peter wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant, behold, the men who had been sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate." (Acts 10: 9-17 nkjv)

We know of course that the primary teaching of the Lord to Peter concerned the salvation of the Gentiles who the Jews considered as unclean. This vision was in order to prepare Peter for going to preach to the Gentile centurion Cornelius and his household. Later in the house of Cornelius Peter says:

"Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (vs. 28 nkjv)

But, that does not mean that it is also true that now, under the new covenant, what food was once unclean is now clean. Both facts are true. It was the decree of God in the old testament that made certain foods and things unclean, and not unclean in themselves. Likewise it is the decree of God in the new testament that declares that there is no food unclean and therefore no one should view certain foods as unclean.

In the passage above in First Timothy it is those who "depart from the faith" and who give "heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons" and "speak lies in hypocrisy" and "have their own conscience seared with a hot iron" who "command to abstain" from eating certain foods. "Weak in the faith," or "sick and impotent in the faith" is because of "departing from the faith," i.e. the Christian faith. (I Tim. 4: 1-2 nkjv)

Paul says "to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." So, even clean things become unclean things in the minds of the religiously weak and sick, a case where perception becomes reality. So, what should those who know better do to help the weak one to see his error? The opinion that nothing should be done to correct him is a false interpretation. After all, as we have seen, some translate Romans 14: 1 as forbidding all attempts to discuss or debate the issues of religious diets and holy days. Yet, as we have seen, Paul plainly tells the weak ones that religious diets avail nothing and are a useless practice. So, what are Christians or strong ones to do when their religiously sick brothers are "grieved because of your food" and they or others insist that you stop eating certain foods or failing to observe holy days? 

I call this situation the "tyranny of the weaker brothers" and refers to a situation where individuals with mature faith in a Christian or religious community (strong ones) are constrained by the sensitivities or legalistic views of those with a sick or impotent faith (belief system). This can lead to a situation where the majority, who are confident in their understanding of Christian liberty, are unduly restricted by the minority's perceived limitations. Though Romans chapter fourteen and First Corinthians chapters eight through ten emphasize love and consideration for those with weak, impotent, or sick consciences and religious beliefs, sometimes some folks use what Paul said in order to create a situation where the "strong" are obligated to constantly yield to the "weak," potentially leading to a "tyranny." Some individuals may use the "weak brother" concept as a way to manipulate or control others, rather than genuinely seeking to protect those who are religiously weak. The ideal situation is for weak brothers to search the matter and become "fully persuaded in their own minds" as Paul advised. At the same time the strong ones in faith should continue to be sensitive to the needs, infirmities, and limitations of the weak.

In an Internet article titled "The Tyranny of the Weak," Mindy Kitchens writes (See here - emphasis mine):

"Actor Anthony Hopkins once said, "Beware the tyranny of the weak. They just suck you dry." Much earlier, writer Oscar Wilde believed that "the worst form of tyranny the world has ever known is the tyranny of the weak over the strong." First of all, I'm not some old, cruel evolutionist promoting the survival of the fittest or blanket adaptation. There are those who warrant and deserve our assistance, protection and compassion. However, I am incredibly weary of people who use pseudo-depression, overblown illness or generally common-to-all circumstances to bully the rest of us into not only feeling sorry for them, but bending to their every whim and walking on eggshells while we do it."

We see much of this not only in the religious world but also in the cultural or political world. A "victim mentality" is behind a lot of the condemnation of those who seek to correct, rebuke, and denounce the weak in society, such as the poor and less educated. People jump all over you if you offend someone else with your views or who is different from you socially or economically. So, how do you deal with people who are overly sensitive and take offense over even the smallest matters? Do you retreat into silence and sacrifice your own views? Do you have to be overly careful or anxious about offending inferiors? 

In an Internet article titled "On weaker brothers and applying biblical principles" by Stephen Kneale (See here) we have these good comments - emphasis mine): 

"Discussion over stumbling blocks and causing brothers or sisters to stumble crop up regularly in the church. Usually, it must be said, when one person doesn’t like what another person is doing. In a sly attempt to stop someone else doing what they believe they ought not to do, even though the Bible doesn’t directly say so, the ‘stumbling block principle’ gets invoked. Usually, in such circumstances, the view amounts to something like: I do not like what you are doing and so, because I don’t like it, you have to stop it lest you cause me to take offence. In his NICNT on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee addresses this very issue."

Though I object to the title of this article, I agree with the above citation. What I object to is how Kneale, like so many others, will invariably say "weaker" brothers rather than "weak" brothers. I dealt with this at length in the earlier chapters in this series. Such a phenomenon manifests the erroneous position of those who think the weak brothers are born again Christians. Paul's use of the term "weak" is not given to a comparative degree. If he did, then we would expect him to also say "stronger" instead of "strong." Since "weak" means sick and impotent, weaker would then mean "more sick" or "less able," and would therefore imply that the strong were in fact themselves sick and wimpy. That shows the error of those who say the weak are merely less knowledgeable Christians, reductio ad absurdum. 

In the next chapter we will continue our analysis of the above verses since the present posting on them has become long. They are after all full of much truth that needs to be unpacked.

 

Weak Brothers XXIII

As I pointed out in previous chapters, "without strength" comes from the singular Greek word that is translated as "weak" in Romans and First Corinthians when speaking of weak brothers who observe religious diets and holy days, and who have scruples or doubts about the Christian creed. Recall that Paul said:

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." (I Cor. 8: 5-9 NKJV)

This passage tells us that "the weak" are those persons who do not have the knowledge or conviction of the creed stated in the passage. The weak do not have "that knowledge" which is expressed in the creed which confidently confesses that there is "one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him" and that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and through whom we live," and who denies not that the so-called gods and idols are real entities, and who believes that a proper religious diet commends one to a god.

Recall also how we showed how the Greek word "asthenēs" is rarely translated as weak, but translated mostly as sick or impotent, or its cognates such as "without strength." Being labeled as religiously sick or impotent is not a description of true Christians.

Paul uses the Greek word asthenōn as an adjective for those who are not saved. "When we were yet asthenōn Christ died for us." Thus, "the weak," the religiously and spiritually sick and powerless, are they who are not saved. We could translate the text as "when we were yet spiritually sick," or "when we were yet religiously impotent," or "when we were yet weak." When a person believes in Christ he then is no longer weak, sick, or impotent (spiritually, religiously, and morally speaking).

Notice also the similarity of these two texts which are addressed to the strong ones concerning how they are to behave towards the weak ones:

"Beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." (I Cor. 8: 9)

"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (Rom. 14: 13 nkjv)

This is another indication that the weak ones of First Corinthians are the same weak ones of Romans. With these introductory remarks, let us continue our commentary and analysis of the remainder of the chapter. 

"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (vss. 10-13)

Again, we must identify who is intended by the various pronouns in the above texts. Who is Paul exhorting when he says "you" ought not to judge or show contempt for "your" brother, and when he says "we" shall all be judged by Christ and when "each of us" give account of "himself" to God? Or, when he says "let us not judge one another anymore" or "in our brother's way"? Is he speaking to the strong ones only? Or to the weak ones only? Or to both? Or, to every man, whether saved or unsaved?

It appears that Paul is addressing the strong ones and exhorting them in regard to how they appraise and think of those who are religious and yet not saved, and how they behave themselves in their presence. He also speaks of them not putting hindrances or stumbling blocks in the way of the weak brothers so as to "cause them to fall." If the weak ones are saved people, people who are already Christian and monotheists, then putting a stumbling block in their way is to hinder them in their perseverance or preservation. If the weak ones are not saved people, then putting a stumbling block in the way of the weak ones would be a hindrance in their being converted and saved. Of course, the principle of behavior would be the same in either case. Saved people should be doing everything possible to aid the salvation of the lost or of the backsliding Christian.

On the other hand, some might argue that the words "cause to fall" implies that the weak are saved, for to fall means to fall from a state of grace and salvation. In reply we say that the Greek word translated "cause to fall" is "skandalon" from which we get our word "scandal." It means a trap or a snare. It refers to anything that is put into a person's path that would likely cause a person who is walking to stumble and fall. But, this could occur to those who are lost and who are being led to Christ. Notice another passage where the skandalon is used.

"As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom. 9: 33 nkjv)

The ones who stumble at the word are those who do not believe the word, and so such stumbling is not what believers do. Peter is even clearer, writing these words:

"Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people..." (I Peter 2: 7-9 nkjv)

"Rock of offense" is "skandalou." But notice that the ones who stumble at the word are not born again children of God but unbelievers. They are the disobedient in the text, the ones who stumble and are offended against Christ, and who are not of that "chosen generation" nor "his own special people." So, the argument that "cause to fall" can only apply to the saved is false. 

The problem Paul sees in the attitude of the strong ones against the weak ones is seen in the several words he uses to describe it, such as "judging" or "showing contempt," or putting stumbling blocks in the way of religious brothers coming to see their error in worshiping false gods and thinking that dietary laws and observing holy days are ways to gain the favor of the gods. We actually see religious condemnation and contempt throughout history and even in our day to a large extent. We see where some Muslims have the attitude that says all who will not submit to Allah and the Quran should be persecuted or even put to death. Some cite verses that seem to say such and many Islamic terrorist organizations agree. We see this attitude in some Christian organizations, such as in the Catholic church of the Dark Ages when they killed Protestants for heresy and were behind the Crusades and the Inquisition where thousands were killed in the name of religion. We see it in the hatred of many against the Mormons in this country in the 19th century.

Defaming those who are religiously sick (the weak), and doing nothing but condemning them, and viewing them as irredeemable and hopeless "reprobates" shows that the one doing those things cares not about the spiritual condition of those he is denouncing. Christians are the only religiously healthy and strong ones. But, they are not to boast about this in an arrogant manner. 

Putting a stumbling block in the way of people so as to keep them from salvation is a serious matter and the Lord will not deal lightly with such professing Christians who do this. Said the Lord Jesus:

"Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17: 1-2 nkjv) 

Here the offending or placing stumbling blocks in the way is in respect of those who have not yet come to Christ. We see this being done also by the Pharisees in these words:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." (Matt. 23: 13 nkjv)

So, we see how putting an obstacle in the way of sinners coming to Christ is what Paul is talking about when he says that believers should not put stumbling blocks in the way of religiously sick and impotent brothers.

So, who is included in the judgment seat of Christ? When Paul says "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" does he say this to both the weak and the strong or only to the strong? If said to both then his warning is to all men, for all are either saved or lost. Some translations say "judgment seat of God" rather than "of Christ." Of course the judgment of believers is of a different nature than the general judgment of unbelievers before the great white throne (See Rev. chpt. 20). 

Paul's exhortation in Romans chapter fourteen which says "resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way" is similar to his exhortation to the weak in First Corinthians where he says: 

"And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (I Cor. 8: 11- 13 nkjv)

Christ died for sinners and we may be either hindrances to their salvation or assistants. Will we be a means in their salvation or in their damnation? Paul says that when we hinder the lost, the religiously sick and impotent, then we "sin against the brethren" or "sin against Christ" and will be judged by God for it. 

Paul believes that weak brothers may "perish" but if they were strong in the faith of Christ there would be no possibility of that happening. 

Notice the parallel in the words above that say "because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish" with the words of Paul in Romans chapter fifteen that says "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died" (14: 15). This again suggests that the weak ones are the same in both Corinthians and Romans.