Weak Brothers XVII

In chapter XV of this series I began a commentary on Romans 14: 5-6. In chapter XIV I dealt with Romans 14: 1-2, 4. In chapter XIII I dealt with Romans 14:1 and 15: 1. So, I have already given some commentary on this important chapter. The commentary I now write will be an addition to those chapters. I encourage all who are interested in the right interpretation of what Paul writes about the weak and strong brothers to read those chapters, yea even all the chapters I have written.

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things" (vs. 1).

First, we must ask what Paul means by "receiving" one who is weak in the faith, a question I addressed in earlier chapters but will now enlarge upon. In order to decide the question one must ascertain who is meant by "one who is weak in the faith." If the weak is a fellow Christian, or fellow member of the church, then "receiving" such would carry a different connotation and ramifications than if the weak was not a Christian. Does it denote officially receiving someone into church membership? If so, then we cannot say that the weak one is already a saved member of the church. Also, if the weakness is of the nature of those weak ones in first Corinthians, then it means that they are very doubtful of the truth that there is only one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, etc. But, how could any church accept into church membership anyone who was not fully assured of those truths? Or, does receiving a weak person simply mean to welcome him in some way? If so, believers may welcome lost sinners just as well as saved sinners. I have already dealt with this question in chapters thirteen through fifteen. Another question that must be ascertained is whether the exhortation is on how one kind of church member is to treat another kind. Are Christian churches by choice composed, or should be composed, of both weak and strong? 

The other thing that must be ascertained is what is meant by receiving weak (or impotent) ones "but not over doubtful things" or "but not to quarrel over opinions," etc.? We will deal with this after we speak of what is involved in "receiving" or "welcoming" those who are weak in the faith, that is, weak in their religious beliefs and in their acceptance of Christian teachings. 

We must first see how the apostle, in the words of the text, implies that the Roman Christians to whom he is speaking to are not the weak. If half the church of Rome were weak and half were strong, then Paul would not be addressing the entire membership as being strong. His exhortation is to all the members of the church in Rome and tells them to welcome religiously impotent people, which implies that the members are not such themselves. If part of the church were strong and part weak, then Paul would have worded his exhortation this way: "you who are strong ones, welcome the ones who are weak in the faith." Is Paul saying that the strong in the church should welcome the weak in the church? But, if the weak are already in the church, what does welcoming them mean? Does it mean "don't shun them"? Paul did say: "Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." (Rom. 14: 7 nkjv) 

Another question is whether "weak in the faith" means "weak in the church." And, "can those who are  saved receive in any sense one who is unsaved?" And, "can a lost sinner be called weak in the faith?" We saw how the weak brothers in first Corinthians 1) did not embrace the Christian creed, and 2) needed to be "gained" or "saved." If that is true, and if the weak brothers of the Roman epistle are the same people, then they are also unsaved people.

We must also acknowledge that there is nothing in the text to prove conclusively that the weak is either a Christian or non Christian. It may very well be that the weak is a devout religious person who is being discipled in the Christian faith but who has not yet become convinced of it's truthfulness. This is of course my view. If that is true, then Paul is giving Christians (the strong in the faith) exhortation in how they should attempt to convert the polytheist idol worshipers, although the instructions in this regard are also in principle applicable to how Christians who are more learned in the faith should treat those Christians who are not so informed in the Christian faith.

I find that Paul's advice in Corinthians and in Romans concerns how Christians (the strong) are to relate to, or to welcome the weak brother or neighbor, and concerned 1) how to witness to such and how to win them to the Christian faith and 2) how to dissuade pagans from persecuting Christians. In this chapter Paul will have some things to say to each class of religious persons, both to the Christian and to the Pagan. 

In Paul's day religious people were mostly polytheistic idol worshipers. Should Christians speak condescendingly to them? Should they speak to them with utter contempt? Should they use the truth of monotheism and the Christian faith as a club to verbally beat the pagans? Should their discourse towards the pagan be nothing but severe denunciations? Did Paul in his encounters with the pagans speak this way? I believe that he looked upon them as "brothers," religious brothers, and this was part of what it meant to love your neighbors. When Paul was speaking in Athens he noticed all the many altars to the many gods and goddesses worshiped by the Greeks and Romans. To them he said:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" (Acts 17: 26-28 nkjv)

In the 1st century CE, the Greco-Roman world saw a diverse range of polytheistic religious fraternities and cults. The members of these fraternities frequently called each other "brother." I don't think that when some of them became Christians that they then quit using that term towards those they used to fellowship in those pagan fraternities. I have already written at length on this point for one of the arguments used to prove that "the weak" (or impotent) were Christians is because Paul refers to them as "brothers." Paul often referred to his unbelieving Jews as "brothers." Someone might argue that he does this because they are part of the nation of Israel and were brothers ethnically. Who can doubt, however, that Paul addresses the Athenian idolaters as brothers when he says "we are all God's offspring"? He even says that everyone, of every ethnicity, comes from "one blood."

In the time of Paul many Christians were once idolaters. He says to the Thessalonian believers: "how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1: 9 nkjv). To the Corinthian believers he said: "You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led." (I Cor. 12: 2 nkjv) In such a polytheistic world it was common for idol worshipers to be members of one or more of the religious cult fraternities. Often these pagan religious fraternities had group meetings and festive gatherings where there was feasting, wine drinking, and frolicking. They were a lot like we see in organizations today like the Moose Lodge or in veteran social clubs (VFW); After all many soldiers feel a sense of brotherhood with their fellow soldiers. Let us notice these words from Paul in First Corinthians:

"27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 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: 27-33 nkjv)

In this narrative the ones who are inviting Christians to dinner are religious people, polytheists who are friends of Christians and who are members of pagan fraternities, the very ones which many Christians were likely once part of. When idolaters became Christians (monotheists) they did not stop being friends with these idolaters nor from calling them "brothers" as before, nor stop loving their neighbors. In the text above it is clear that those giving invitations are unbelievers and unsaved. 

Not only did Paul encourage Christians to accept invitations to go to festive gatherings of the polytheists but he no doubt encouraged them to invite polytheist brothers to dinners of Christians. This is in keeping with the words of Jesus who said:

"Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14: 12-14 nkjv)

Surely this instruction would include inviting those who are religiously blind, i.e. the pagans. Such gatherings with unbelievers could be the means of sharing the Christian faith with their pagan friends. Though Paul forbade Christians from "eating with" Christians who had been excluded from the church, yet he did not forbid them eating with unsaved false religionists. (I Cor. 5: 11) 

Clearly Paul did not discourage Christians from associating with pagans and other unbelievers. He says it is okay to accept invitations from pagans to festive gatherings; He does however give instructions that circumscribe Christian behavior in their interactions with them at those times. If it was okay for Christians to accept invites from pagans to festive gatherings, then it was not wrong for Christians to invite pagans to their own festive gatherings. Paul saw them as opportunities to share the scriptures and the gospel with them. Paul's message to the Corinthians said: "use such opportunities to save the pagans by using such gatherings to witness to them." He says he seeks to please the pagans, not to offend them, so that he might profit them and "that they might be saved." He tells Christians not to eat meat that has been identified by the pagan as having been offered to the idol god(s) he worships. Why? So that he is not reinforced in his idolatry and so that the Christian does not give the impression that he recognizes such gods. It was in order to 1) safeguard the conscience of the polytheist and to 2) not offend the non Christian religionist.  As Solomon said: "a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city." (Prove. 18: 19) 

Paul has no objection to Christians eating meat that came from the sacrifices of the pagans because they knew that the idols are no gods at all. In fact he says it is okay to eat such meats when bought in the marketplace. The only time he advises not eating pagan sacrificial meat is when the pagan says to the Christian "this meat was sacrificed to a god (idol)." In itself it would be right to eat such meat. But, seeing it could be interpreted by the pagan as countenancing his god(s) it ought not to be done in the presence of the pagan. The end reason for not eating such meat in those cases is in order not to wound the conscience of the pagan and offend him so as to make it harder for him to be won to Christ. 

In Romans chapter fourteen Paul is also concerned about the conscience of the weak, and speaks similarly there as he does in the above text in first Corinthians chapter ten. In the above text it is clear that the ones inviting Christians to dinner are not saved, Paul calling them unbelievers and saying he does all things in order to save such people. The problem is, however, most Bible commentaries want to say the weak ones in Romans chapter fourteen are believers, saved and born again, even though they are impotent in the faith and believe in keeping holy days and having religious diets, and even though the way he addresses them is the same way he addresses the unbelieving polytheist in Corinthians. The words "why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience" is the same in meaning as Paul's words written earlier in Corinthians when he says "if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (8: 13 nkjv) They are also the same in meaning with the words of Romans chapter fourteen which exhorted the strong "not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (vs. 13)

It is clear to me that the unbelievers who invite Christians to dine with them are the weak ones spoke of in first Corinthians and Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen.

Some bible teachers think that Christians ought not to dine with, or fellowship with, non Christian religious people. One of the verses discussed relative to this question is this:

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 1: 10-11 kjv)

Does this mean that a Christian can attend a dinner by false religious people but cannot invite them to a dinner in your house? That would be incongruous and contradictory. Does it mean that a Christian who has family members who are of a false religion cannot welcome them into his home? Surely not. So, what does the apostle John mean then? From the context I believe that receiving the one "into your house" who has not the doctrine of Christ means "receive him not in your church in order to let him teach false doctrine." That is because the church likely met in the house of "the elect lady and her children" (vs. 1) to whom John wrote this short letter. All the first churches did not have their own meeting houses but met in their houses or perhaps in a rented space. (See Rom. 16: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2) So the apostle is warning the church not to give a platform to teach their anti Christian doctrine in their assemblies. 

Nor is John prohibiting showing Christian hospitality to some random traveler, or to strangers. Recall that Paul wrote: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Heb. 13: 2 esv) 

“Friendship evangelism,” says bible teachers Dr. Warren Wiersbe, "around the table is a wonderful way to win people to Christ. Christians need to be neighborly and hospitable. The apostle is admonishing us not to receive or encourage false teachers who represent anti-christian groups, people who have left the church and are now trying to seduce others away from the truth. You can be sure that apostates use every opportunity they can to secure the endorsement of true Christians." (in Bible Exposition Commentary - New Testament)

John was not saying only born-again people should enter our houses! Second John 10 does not prohibit Christians from allowing cultists into their home in order to witness to them. Rather it is a prohibition against giving cultists a platform from which to teach false doctrine.

Wrote F.F. Bruce (emphasis mine):

"2 John 10 poses a problem for Scripture readers in that it appears to contradict an important Christian virtue, that of hospitality, not to mention the virtue of love. Is it love not to welcome a person into your house, even if you do not agree with his or her beliefs? Does not hospitality extend even to non-Christians, rather than just the Christians with whom we happen to agree? Furthermore, Christians struggle with knowing how far to take this verse. Does it mean that one may not invite inside the Jehovah’s Witness (or the Mormon) who just knocked at the door? Does it mean that it was wrong to say a polite “good morning” to that person?" (As cited from Precept-Austin commentary)

In both First Corinthians and Romans Paul instructs Christians on how to relate to the polytheists with whom he once associated and who are still neighbors and friends of Christians. Paul also has some exhortations and pleas to give to the weak (I.e. polytheists). That thesis is against those who believe that in addressing the weak brothers of those two epistles Paul is addressing weak Christians, people who are saved but still not fully convinced of certain truths. 

Paul basically in these exhortations to Christians, "the strong ones," deals with how to show forbearance and long-suffering towards idol worshipers, and false religionists, so that they might not be offended and thus reinforced in their paganism and have ill will towards Christianity. 

As we will see in the next chapters, the commentators totally miss the mark in saying that the differences of opinion between the weak and strong of Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen, dealing with observing religious diets and holy days, are not to be debated or discussed, they being "things which the Bible says nothing about." We will also see how these commentators err when they say that verse one means "disputable matters" and thinks that such matters should not be discussed but rather avoided.