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.