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.