In previous chapters I raised the question of whether it would make a difference in how people interpret what is said of the weak and strong if the Greek word for "weak" were translated the way it is in other places in the new testament, such as by the word "impotent," "sick," "diseased." But let us do the same with the word "strong." Being the antonym of "weak" it means healthy, sound, wholesome, fit, potent, etc. We may then paraphrase Paul's message as: "the religiously healthy should receive the religiously sick."
At the end of Paul's teachings on the weak and strong he concludes by saying: "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." (15: 1) In this text the Greek word for "infirmities" is "asthenēma" (a form of the Greek word for "weak") but this time a different Greek word for "weak" is used, being "adynatos" and meaning without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled, or impaired. Such adjectives cannot possibly be appropriate for true Christians or saved people. They are fitting adjectives, however, for devout religious people who are not Christians, and even for some who are professing Christians and are hypocrites and not really saved. Therefore, to the extent that churches have such in their churches they may be said to have weak/sick Christians. When Paul refers to the "infirmities" of the religiously sick, he does not mean physical infirmities, but religious infirmity in matters of theology.
"Infirmities of the weak" would be set in contrast to "the strengths of the strong." Here are some ways others translate the phrase:
"the failings of the weak" (niv, esv)
"shortcomings of the weak" (bsb)
"the weaknesses of the weak" (blb)
"the scruples of the weak" (nkjv)
"the weaknesses of those without strength" (nasb)
The Greek word for "strong" is dynatos and means "able" or "capable." That being so, the antonym of strong would not only be "weak" but "unable."
In the preceding chapters we saw how the Greek word for "weak" in Romans 14 was translated in other places by "sick," "impotent," and "diseased." So, why do translators and Bible commentators not use these words in Romans or Corinthians when speaking of the "weak"? In the above text (Rom. 15: 1) the plural of the word "weak" (Greek "astheneo") is used (English "weaknesses" or Greek "asthenēmata"). In the plural we get "weaknesses," "infirmities," "scruples," "failings," "shortcomings," but why not sicknesses, or impotencies, or diseases? Especially considering that in far more instances the Greek word is so translated rather than by the word "weak"? I see a bias by translators and interpreters against seeing "the weak" of Romans and Corinthians as being unsaved people. All should acknowledge how coming to the passages dealing with the weak brothers with a presupposition about who they are has affected what English words were chosen to stand in the place of the "weak."
Combining what is said of the weak or infirmed in Romans 14: 1 and 15: 1 we may translate the latter in these ways:
"the weaknesses of the impotent"
"the impotencies of the powerless"
"the sicknesses of the incapable"
"the infirmities of those without strength"
As stated previously, if we simply translated "the weak" as "the sick" or "the impotent" in Romans and Corinthians people might have been led away from assuming that the weak are born again Christians.
Also, had people kept in mind that it is "in faith," or in religious belief or creed, that people are labeled as either weak or strong, sick or healthy, etc., then people might have questioned the common view that avers that "the weak ones" are weak Christians. Those commentators who think that Romans chapter fourteen concerns "things which the Bible says nothing about" or minor differences of opinion will say that the choice to be vegetarian is not within the context of religion; And, if that is so, then it certainly would be a matter of indifference. Likewise, if it is not in a religious context that people are weak or strong, and if food choices are outside of a religious context, and if esteeming certain days as special is not in a religious context, then why would Paul even waste time in his important letter to the Romans to speak about people's choice of food to eat or about their observing special days like birthdays?
Religiously weak ones are inferior to strong ones. But, if keeping dietary laws and observing holy days has nothing to do with judging one as either weak or strong, not being a criteria, then why are those who observe such labeled weak and those who do not observe such are labeled as strong? It such religious observances have nothing to do with whether one is a weak or strong, being unimportant matters of opinion, then why call one weak or strong in relation to those observances? Further, is that not a judgment? Indeed it is; Therefore Paul is violating his own exhortation, as we have previously noted.
Are The Weak Jews or Gentiles?
Are the Jews the weak ones of Romans chapter fourteen? If Jews, are they Jews who have rejected Christ or Jews who have accepted Christ but who continue to observe old testament dietary laws and holy days (including their seven annual feasts)? Many commentators say the Weak ones were Jewish Christians in Rome who were newly converted and still held onto certain Jewish customs and dietary restrictions, and observed holy days. They were "weak" in faith because they were still struggling with the transition from Jewish law to Christian freedom. The "strong," on the other hand, were those Gentile Christians or Jewish Christians who were not bound by the same dietary or ritualistic observances. One cannot exclude religious Gentiles from those who are religiously weak, sick, or impotent. In Corinthians it seems rather clear that "weak brothers" were mostly composed of those who were Gentile idol worshipers. Again, there is no reason to think that the weak ones of Romans exclude Gentiles.
Even though what Paul says in Romans chapter fourteen is primarily directed to the heathen Gentile idol worshipers, nevertheless may be applicable to professing Christians who are not really genuine Christians (saved) or to Jews, either those who have professed Christ or those who rejected Christ.
"Eats Only Vegetables"
One good argument against the view that "the weak" of Romans are converted Jews who were still keeping old covenant dietary laws and holy days is what Paul says about the weak being strictly vegetarians. "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." (14: 2 nkjv) But how can this be true of Jews who were observing the old covenant's rules since there is nothing in the law forbidding meat eating? Many commentators who are determined to see "the weak" as "the weak Jew" will say that Jews who were vegetarian were such from fear of eating meat offered to idols and not because it was what God commanded. Let us notice some commentaries on this point.
"Eateth herbs - Herbs or "vegetables" only; does not partake of meat at all, for "fear" of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even "ignorantly," they chose to eat no meat at all." (Barnes)
This comment is made by Barnes upon the assumption that it is old covenant keeping Jews who are the weak and who, to keep from mistakenly eating meat from sacrifices dedicated to idols, chooses to eat no meat at all. That would be like a Jew who out of fear of having leaven in his house during Passover never has leaven in his house. That would not be the correct reason given the context. The reason why some of the weak eat only vegetables is because eating meat is forbidden by their religion. It seems that such a reason for why the weak eat only vegetables is an effect resulting from the presupposition that the weak are Jews who keep the law and from rejecting the idea that Paul could be describing Gentile religions (which were mostly polytheistic).
"another who is weak eateth herbs; meaning not one that is sickly and unhealthful, and of a weak constitution, and therefore eats herbs for health's sake; but one that is weak in the faith, and who thinks that the laws concerning the observance of meats and drinks are still in force; and therefore, rather than break any of them, and that he may be sure he does not, will eat nothing but herbs, which are not any of them forbidden by the law: and this he did, either as choosing rather to live altogether on herbs, than to eat anything which the law forbids; or being of opinion with the Essenes among the Jews, and the Pythagoreans among the Gentiles, who thought they were to abstain from eating of all sorts of animals." Gill's commentary)
Though Gill also wants to believe that the weak in the chapter who restrict their diets, such as those who eat only vegetables, and who keep holy days, cannot include Gentiles, nevertheless mentions some Jewish sects who were vegetarians, but also some Gentile pagans who did the same. My view of the weak would include both Jewish and Gentile religious people. Vegetarianism is strongly encouraged and widely practiced within Hinduism, though it's not a strict requirement for all Hindus; And, Hinduism was in existence in the time of Paul. A Google search with the words "vegetarian diets in religion" gives us this AI Overview:
"Many religions incorporate vegetarianism or promote plant-based diets for ethical, spiritual, or health-related reasons. Jainism mandates strict vegetarianism, while Hinduism, Buddhism, and some Christian denominations encourage it to varying degrees. Other religions like Seventh-day Adventists and Rastafarians also have strong dietary guidelines involving vegetarianism or veganism."
Why then exclude Gentiles from those who are religiously sick (Weak) and "eat only vegetables"? The commentators who say that the reason why the Jews under consideration only eat vegetables was out of fear that they might accidentally eat meat offered to idols is a speculation and one with little reason to support that view. If "the strong ones" includes both converted Jews and Gentiles, why would "the weak ones" also not include both Jews and Gentiles? As I have affirmed, "the religiously sick and impotent ones" in the context focuses primarily on Gentile idol worshipers but may also include Jews, either those who confess and those who do not confess Christ as Messiah. Both the Jews and Gentiles had religious diets and holy days and believed that observing such commended them to God or to the gods. Recall these words of the apostle:
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews...to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak." (I Cor. 9: 19-20, 22)
Here "Jews" are distinguished from the "weak."
Neighbors as Brothers
As I have stated in previous chapters, the main argument of those who think that the weak are Christians who have doubts about the Christian faith but are nevertheless saved is the fact that Paul refers to the weak as "brothers" in Corinthians and in Romans. I have already answered this argument by saying that such an argument is not conclusive, especially in view of all the reasons I have offered against that view. I have shown how use of the term brother by Paul did not always mean that Paul viewed them as saved people. I affirmed that he often used the term brother for either fellow Jews who were not saved, and for all his fellow men. In the text at the top from Romans 15, in speaking of the weak brothers, Paul says "each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up," showing how he equated brother with neighbor.
No comments:
Post a Comment