Weak Brothers XVIII

In this chapter we will 1) further identify those called "weak in the faith" and 2) examine what the apostle means when he says "not to doubtful disputations" (KJV) or "without passing judgment on his opinions." 

We have already shown that the weak brothers of first Corinthians are not saved Christians, having identified them as non Christian, yet religious friends and neighbors of Christians, and who are mostly polytheists. We have also argued that the weak under consideration in Romans are the same class of folks as in Corinthians.

One should also keep in mind the fact that the polytheists in the Roman world did not object to adding Jesus and Jehovah to the lists of gods who were worshiped. It was not until the Christians promoted the idea that all the other gods and idols were not legitimate that the pagans sought to extinguish Christians. The pagan world reacted vehemently against the exclusive claims of the Christian religion. As we have already stated, Paul was in Athens, Greece, a city full of religion and having numerous altars to all the gods of the Greco-Roman world. There would have been no objection to adding an altar to Jesus and recognizing him as one of the gods. Many of these polytheists would have been open to hearing about another new god since they were always ready to hear anything new. In fact, many such idol worshipers would have been willing to be discipled in the Christian faith. Many of these were call catechumens.

A "catechumen," in the early Church, was the name applied to someone who had not yet been fully convinced of the Christian faith, but was being discipled or schooled with the hope that he would become Christian. These individuals were often converts from paganism or Judaism. This period of instruction, known as the catechumenate, involved learning about Christian beliefs and practices. I have read where special rooms in the meeting houses of Christians were set apart for such folks and for those who were visitors in the church. Paul may allude to that when he writes these words to the Corinthian church:

"Otherwise, if you bless with the spirit, how will he who occupies the place of the uninformed say “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you say?" (I Cor. 14: 16 nkjv)

So, those who are "weak in the faith" may well be an allusion to such people. In fact, anyone who is attending church but who has not yet chosen to become Christian may be called "weak brothers"; And, to "receive" them, or to "welcome" them, is what churches do regularly to those who visit their assemblies.

In earlier chapters in this series we showed how the word "weak" in both Corinthians and Romans 14 is from the Greek word "astheneō" and is translated as "without strength" (Rom. 5: 6), "impotent" (John 5: 3, 7), and "sick" in several passages. Some have "diseased" (John 6: 2). Dr. Nanos, who I cited in earlier chapters, translated the word as "impaired." Does it not alter one's interpretation of "weak brother" or "weak in the faith" to use those other words so that we have "religiously sick brother," or "religiously impotent folks"? Such terms would be far more appropriate for idol worshipers than for Christians. 

Translating μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν

One of the difficulties in interpreting Romans chapter fourteen is not only to discern who are the "sick in the faith" and what it means to receive them "but not to doubtful disputations" (KJV). First, let me cite some of the varied translations.

"without quarreling over disputable matters" (niv)

"don’t argue with them about what they think is right or wrong" (nlt)

"but not to quarrel over opinions" (esv)

"but not to doubtful disputations" (kjv)

"but not to disputes over doubtful things" (nkjv)

"but not to have quarrels over opinions" (nasb)

"yet not for decision of scruples" (asv)

"not to determinations of reasonings" (lsv)

"but not to judge his reasonings" (Anderson NT)

I find it quite interesting that many commentators fail to see how their interpretations or translations lead to the conclusion that the apostle Paul did not follow his own advice. The fact that he labeled those who held certain opinions about religious diets and holy days as weak or strong shows this to be so. By labeling those who believe in eating only vegetables or in keeping holy days as weak Paul is passing judgment on them! Paul has already identified himself and the Roman Christians as being strong and this is a judgment too. He has also reasoned with idolaters and Jews who kept the law (the weak) to show them that Christians do not believe in religious diets and in holy days. He did this in first Corinthians. Recall these words of his:

"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)

Is he not arguing against those who think that religious diets are ways to commend themselves to God? Is that not doing what he forbade in Romans 14: 1? 

Paul also, as we have previously noted, said that he was afraid of those Christians who observed days, and months, and years. (Gal. 4: 10) Why would he say that to those weak believers in Galatia who were observing holy days in lieu of what he said about receiving such without disputing with them?

We also see how those who say that Paul is exhorting the strong not to quarrel or debate with the weak concerned "disputable matters," or "doubtful things," or "things the Bible says nothing about," etc. must acknowledge that having scruples about the Christian creed (I Cor. 8: 6-7), religious diets and holy days, are not matters of opinion nor things the Bible says nothing about! 

Dr. Albert Barnes in his commentary writes (emphasis mine):

"The plain meaning of this is, Do not admit him to your society for the purpose of debating the matter in an angry and harsh manner; of repelling him by denunciation; and thus, "by the natural reaction of such a course," confirming him in his doubts. Or, "do not deal with him in such a manner as shall have a tendency to increase his scruples about meats, days, etc." (Stuart.) The "leading" idea here - which all Christians should remember - is, that a harsh and angry denunciation of a man in relation to things not morally wrong, but where he may have honest scruples, will only tend to confirm him more and more in his doubts. To denounce and abuse him will be to confirm him. To receive him affectionately, to admit him to fellowship with us, to talk freely and kindly with him, to do him good, will have a far greater tendency to overcome his scruples."

I think that is a good interpretation of the Greek text. Paul is not condemning attempts to convince the weak that he is wrong in doubting the Christian creed, or thinking diets commend them to God, or that keeping holy days does the same. Rather, he is condemning attitudes towards the weak, and wrong ways of attempting to convert them to the truth; And, the same is true with trying to help weak Christians to repent of any errors in doctrine. If this is not true, then we must say that it is wrong for Christians to discuss their differences with those of other religions or within the Christian community. 

Another thing that we have shown is wrong about the interpretations of Romans 14: 1 is that the text is to be interpreted as "things not morally wrong" or "things the bible says nothing about," etc. We have argued that such an interpretation (or translation) cannot be right because the two examples he gives show it to be so. He mentions believing in religious diets and in holy days, and we have seen where Paul says that these things do not belong to the Christian religion. 

Secondly, even about things the bible says nothing directly about, can we say that these things are not to be debated among Christians? The Bible says nothing about playing cards, going to movie theaters, labor unions, etc., things which Christians debated about in the last century. In fact, truth be known, churches have often debated about things the bible says nothing about. 

Now let us notice some commentaries on Romans 14: 1.

"but not to doubtful disputations—rather, perhaps, "not to the deciding of doubts," or "scruples;" that is, not for the purpose of arguing him out of them: which indeed usually does the reverse; whereas to receive him to full brotherly confidence and cordial interchange of Christian affection is the most effectual way of drawing them off. Two examples of such scruples are here specified, touching Jewish meats and days. "The strong," it will be observed, are those who knew these to be abolished under the Gospel; "the weak" are those who had scruples on this point." (JFB)

This commentary has Paul violating his own exhortation! Did Paul not try to teach the doubters that religious diets and holy days are not part of the new covenant under which Christians operate? This commentary says the strong ones believed this truth but then says the strong ought not to try to make the weak to become strong! The commentary says it is right to try to teach them the right view on these points but only in the right way, i.e. finding "the most effectual way of drawing them off" their wrongful opinions, which way is not by debate, or by "arguing him out of them"! How else can anyone in error be convinced of his errors except by reasoned debate and by searching the scriptures? I do agree with the commentary by Barnes that condemns a certain way of dealing with the weak, but that does not mean that the weak ought not to be reasoned with about those things he has doubts about. Recall that Paul said: "to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak." (I Cor. 9: 22 nkjv) In attempting to gain (save) the weak, was any type of arguing wrong? Surely not. Therefore we see the error in many translations of the text and also of much of the commentary on it.

"but not to doubtful disputations] Lit. not to criticisms of (his) scruples. The word “but” is not in the Gr., and changes the exact point of the clause, which is q. d., “receive him, do not criticize him; let him in with a welcome, not with a call to discussion.”—The noun rendered “criticisms” (or its cognate verb) is used (e.g. 1 Corinthians 12:10; Hebrews 5:14;) for detection of differences; and again (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:31, E. V. “judge ourselves,”) for judicial enquiry and sentence, literal or figurative. “Criticism” thus fairly represents it in a context like this, where needless keenness in balancing varying convictions, and the consequent sentence of private or public opinion, is in view.—“His scruples”:—same word as Romans 1:21, (E. V. “imaginations,”) where see note. Here it is the reasoning of the mind with itself; doubt and perplexity." (Cambridge)

This commentary says that Paul says the strong are wrong to discuss the propriety of religious diets and holy days, saying Paul's words are "not with a call to discussion." But, again, this interpretation leads to the conclusion that Paul violated his own exhortation. This commentary fails to see that Paul is not condemning the strong ones for reasoning and debating with the sick ones, but the manner in which such discussions are carried on.

Some commentators agree with this conclusion and say that Paul is stating the same thing he stated elsewhere, such as when he writes to Timothy in these words:

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:4-8)

"Vain jangling" refers to idle, pointless, or trivial, foolish empty talk. However, the things involved in the weakness (impotency, sickness) of the weak are not in this category. Three of those things we have spoken of at length, such as doubts about the Christian creed (I Cor. 8: 6-7), and doubts about religious diets and holy days. Surely Paul is not condemning the propriety of showing such folks their errors on these things. Do the strong not desire that the weak become strong? Is it wrong for them to try, by sincere and meek debate, to convince the doubters? 

"BUT NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING JUDGMENT ON HIS OPINIONS: me eis diakriseis dialogismon." (Precept-Austin commentary - See here)

"Accept him, but not for the purpose of getting into arguments about opinions. Wuest says "not with a view to a critical analysis of his inward reasonings." Do not accept him in order to debate with him or argue about your differences, but "without passing judgment on disputable matters" ("without attempting to settle doubtful points.") Don't pass judgment on the weaker brother in disputable matters where Scripture is not clear." (Precept-Austin)

But, the Bible does say things about religious diets, holy days, and the truthfulness of the Christian creed; And, Paul does the very thing some think he is condemning in the text! Again, the commentary of Barnes is better and far more correct which sees Paul as not condemning reasoned discussion with the weak but being overbearing and condescending in such debate. So Paul will say later in this chapter "but why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?" Thus, he is condemning showing the wrong attitude towards the weak and the wrong way that some approach the weak in dialogue. 

One Big Question

Are the things about which the weak have scruples (doubts) "things that the bible says nothing about"? (As most claim and and give as the reason why the strong should have forbearance towards the weak?) Then why label some weak and strong if these labels simply denote differences of opinion about unimportant things, or tertiary matters? 

First, I firmly contend that the things being disputed, or the beliefs and practices that separate the weak from the strong, are not matters that are unimportant or not discussed in scripture. The very context deals with 1) keeping holy days (or religious feasts), and 2) religious diets. 

Second, if the weak and strong brothers in Romans are the same groups as in First Corinthians, then there are other beliefs about which the weak and the strong are not in agreement, or things about which the weak have doubts or scruples.