Weak Brothers XXVII

The word "weak" in the above text is from the Greek word "asthenōn" a word which we have had much to say. Obviously "the weak" are they who need help, whether physical or spiritual or religious. The Apostle Paul's instructions to the strong ones (healthy, able) in Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen and in First Corinthians chapters eight through ten are designed to help the weak, to gain the weak, to save the weak, and not from a mere temporal destruction or perishing, but an eternal, as we have seen. With that foreword let us return to our commentary on these verses from Romans chapter fourteen:

"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)

This is the fourth chapter of my analysis of the above verses. We have already had much to say about them and yet there is still much left to be said. It is like so many other texts in the bible that say so much in so little, or to use some metaphors, are pregnant with meaning, or have much in them to unpack. They are important in understanding what Paul's theology is relative to those who are weak brothers and those who are strong brothers. Let us begin by analyzing what Paul gives of the solution to the problems existing between each class of "brothers" or "neighbors." Let us also understand that when we say problems arise between the weak and the strong we are not to believe that there are always problems between these two classes of brothers. In many cases the problems Paul gives as examples do not come into play when both kinds of brothers interact with each other.

If a religious brother, neighbor, or friend is grieved to see you eat meat or some other food forbidden by his religious views and is offended, so that he will be less likely to dialog with or be discipled by you, and thus come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved, then you have "sinned against Christ." You have put a stumbling block in the path of the sick religious brother coming to faith in Christ and to an assured knowledge that there is "one God the Father, by whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and we by him," and coming to the knowledge that observing religious diets and holy days and abstaining from alcoholic beverages does not commend them to God since he does not require these things. In fact, it is his desire that believers have the privilege to eat all things (except for drinking blood), so long as the food is sanctified by the word of God and prayer and is received with thanksgiving to God, and are not obligated to observe holy days or religious festivals as means of obtaining God's special approval, nor commanded to abstain from alcoholic beverages, so long as one does not drink immoderately nor in the face of a weak brother who might be offended by it. 

Should Christians seek not to unduly offend those of other religions? How did Jesus deal with the polytheistic Gentiles (Greeks and Romans for instance)? How did the apostles deal with them? Did they offend them? Insult them? Castigate them? Abhor them? Show them no pity? Answering these questions might require far more elaboration. But, our subject has sort of brought us to this point. Just how do we confront those of other religions, or Christian cults? How Paul the apostle confronted them is best studied by examining his presence and apologetic sermon on the famed Acropolis in Athens, Greece in Acts chapter seventeen.

In essence, Paul challenged polytheists by: 

1. Building on common ground: He acknowledged their religious devotion and used their own cultural references.

2. Contrasting man-made idols with the true God: He explained that humans cannot create God, but rather God created humans and the world.

3. Proclaiming the reality of a single, powerful Creator: He presented a monotheistic view of God's power and sovereignty.

4. Calling for a personal relationship with this God through Jesus Christ: He emphasized the importance of repentance and introduced the concept of judgment through Jesus' resurrection.

5. Sharing his testimony and personal experience. (AI generated)

We see this in Acts chapter seventeen when Paul preaches in Athens, a city full of polytheists. In "Paul and the Classical World of His Time" Dr. Craig A. Evans (See here) writes:

"That Paul, the “apostle to the Gentiles,” frequently engaged the classical world of his time should come as no surprise at all. The Christian Church of the early centuries simply could not avoid the culture of the Greeks and Romans; it was everywhere around them...Paul collided with classical culture several times. Most of the problems for Paul lay in Greco-Roman morality and polytheism. Nowhere is this more in evidence than in his correspondence with the new Christians in the city of Corinth. Had the newly minted Gentile Christians in Paul’s churches held firmly to Jewish ideas of God and morality, Paul would have little to talk about in his letters!" (all emphasis mine)

Paul speaks to the Athenian idolaters fraternally, saying to them "we are all God's offspring." He did not speak condescendingly to them, did not chide them as Elijah did the prophets of Baal. (See I Kings 18: 25-40) Paul said to them "I see you are all very religious." He is not patronizing them as many of the Sophist lecturers did in that day. He conducts himself in the manner Paul spoke about to Timothy.

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will." (II Tim. 2: 23-26 nkjv)

"Ignorant disputes" seems to me to connect with Romans 14: 1 where Paul said "welcome the one who is sick and without strength in religious belief but not to doubtful disputations." Avoiding "ignorant disputes" is advice not only to erring brothers in Christ but also to those who are of other religions. Also, his saying that soul winners "must not quarrel" is also apropos in how to deal with those who are impaired in their religious beliefs. Paul exemplified these qualities when he confronted the Athenian idolaters, who we must say were "weak brothers." 

Also, why does Paul speak of offending, grieving, hindering, etc., the weak brethren but does not speak of the weak offending the strong ones? Perhaps we will address that later.

On Offending Others

Paul wrote to the Corinthians in his second epistle:

"We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed." (II Cor. 6: 3 nkjv)

It is sad that many Christians, including those who are in leadership and teaching positions, do not take heed to this exhortation of the great Apostle to the weak. The Greek word for "offense" (or offence) is not from skandalon as usual, but from "proskopē," though it means about the same thing, i.e. a trap or stumbling stone, an impediment or hindrance. As Christians who are not weak in faith but strong, we should be clearing obstacles, or removing stumbling blocks, from the way of sinners rather than laying them in the way! Said the same apostle:

"Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 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: 31-33 nkjv)

Notice that this exhortation is addressed to three distinct peoples, i.e., Jews, Greeks, and the church. Notice too that it concerns "whether you eat or drink," which are two things mentioned as examples in Romans chapter fourteen that divide religious people. Paul does not want to offend the lost, whether they be Jews or Pagans, or sick brothers. Why does he want to be inoffensive to all? So that he may "profit" all or "that they may be saved." Here is another verse that shows that salvation is what is at stake. By "offending" these people Paul means not merely to upset them mentally or emotionally, but to lead them into sin. Every believer should be concerned about doing or saying anything that will prejudice the minds of the lost against Christian truth, or would cause "the way of truth" to be "evilly spoken of" (II Peter 2: 2). In speaking of his arrival in the idolatrous city of Thessalonica Paul said that he "was gentle among you" (I Thess. 2: 7). He spoke about Christians "speaking the truth in love" (Eph. 4: 15).

Fear of offending others should not be the sole criteria for what we say and do. Some truths must be told in every situation no matter who it offends. Jesus said: 

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" (Matt. 18: 6-7 kjv)

Though we try as much as possible not to offend others, yet we know that preaching Christ and the Gospel will offend many. Yet, such must be preached. In this sense Christ himself is a stumbling block and gives offence to some. But, this cannot be avoided nor should it. (See I Cor. 1: 23) However, we must work hard to ensure that we do not offend others needlessly. For instance, how should Christians deal with homosexuals? Some however, in violation of the principles laid down by the apostle about offending weak brothers, may begin to point out such people and angrily say nasty things in public about them or to them.

Holier Than Thou?

It seems to me that the difficulty involved one group of religious brothers thinking that they were superior in ethics and holiness with the attitude expressed in Isaiah 65:5 where some say "stand by yourself, come not near to me for I am holier than thou." Such an attitude is an irritant to God. The weak brothers thought that they were superior to the strong brothers because they thought there were more favored by God because they kept religious diets and holy days and abstained from certain things, like wine, certain foods, and even in abstaining from marriage and sex. The truth is, of course, that the strong were superior to the weak. But, that does not mean that the strong have a license to speak condescendingly to the religiously weak. 

Holiness or nearness to the heart of God is not measured by what we eat or drink or don't eat or drink, nor whether we keep holy days, or observe man made traditions, rites, and ceremonies, nor because we have superior knowledge in some tertiary matters. A Catholic who prays while giving the sign of the cross is no more holier than a Protestant who prays without it. We must remember that "God looks upon the heart":

"For the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (I Sam. 16: 7 nkjv)

God is highly interested in the attitudes of our hearts and minds. Both the weak and the strong should remember the words of the apostle who said:

"Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself." (Phil. 2: 3 nkjv)

The Love Principle

"Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love."

Not only is salvation at stake in how the strong interact with the weak, but so too is love. How do the strong ones keep from offending the weak, from leading them into sin? How do they recover them from being weak and sickly? How do they help the weak to "close the deal" with Christ and to embrace Christianity (or the gospel)?

The Bible speaks of "sound doctrine" (I Tim. 1: 10; see also I Tim. 6: 3; II Tim. 1: 13; etc.). "Sound" is from the Greek word "hygiainō" and means to be sound, to be well, to be in good health. So we read:

"And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." (Luke 5: 31 kjv)

The word "whole" is from the same Greek word and is set in opposition to "sick." To be "sound" is to be healthy and may be used in a physical sense or a spiritual, mental, or religious sense. "Sound doctrine" is healthy doctrine. The weak are sick in their religious views and practices. When we read that they are "weak in the faith" we see "unsound, or sick in the Christian faith." Of some people who Paul described as being unsaved, he wrote: "This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." (Tit. 1: 13; See also 2: 2 kjv) So we teach and admonish the religiously weak in order that they may become sound in faith, which occurs when they accept the Christian faith.

If you eat what your weak brother thinks is taboo, and you eat it knowing that it will provoke a negative response in him, offending him, then you show you do not care about winning or gaining the weak brother, and that all you want to do is to insult or ridicule him, and which only produces a stronger bias in him against the truth and keeps him in his sin. When the strong ignores the scruples of the weak and eats forbidden food in the presence of the weak who thinks it is an insult to the deity he recognizes, then it becomes a case where "it is evil for the man who eats with offense" (Rom. 14: 20). To offend such sick souls is evil and not an act of love. It shows that the strong are really not interested in the salvation or religious health of the weak. Therefore Paul concludes: "Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another." Condemning the religiously weak and ignorant by the Christian is not going to help bring the weak to salvation. For the healthy and strong to view the false religionists as irredeemable reprobates is not to walk in love towards them. It will not edify them nor make them more amenable to the Christian message. 

This makes us think of a first principle in medical care and ethics which says that all who seek to doctor the sick should "first, do no harm." If we are going to be used by God to heal the spiritually sick and weak, then we must not do any harm. So Paul wrote:

"Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed. Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord." (Heb. 12: 12-14 nkjv)

I think this text is applicable to both physical as well as spiritual infirmities. It also has two categories of patients, one is your own self, and the other stands for sick people. "Pursue peace" with the weak, sick, and strengthless, which means to be gentle with them in bringing them to spiritual and religious health. Another text bearing on this comes from the Apostle Peter who said:

"Finally, all of you be of one mind, having compassion for one another; love as brothers, be tenderhearted, be courteous; not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing." (I Peter 3: 8-9 nkjv)

To "love as brothers" is certainly applicable to how Christians are to treat fellow believers, but it must not be limited to that, no more than "having compassion for one another" or being "tenderhearted" and "courteous," for the Christian ought to show these qualities and attitude even towards those who are his neighbors, to those of other religions, yea, to all men. If those of other religions, the religiously sick, "revile" you as a Christian, do not revile in return. Denigration is out of place when the strong ones work with improving the state of the weak ones. Recall these words of the apostle Paul:

"Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Phil. 2: 3-4 nkjv)

This is the attitude and perspective that the religiously and spiritually strong and healthy ones should have towards the religiously sick.

Blog News Update

Eddie K. Garrett II

2/2/54 - 6/12/25

The past week I had an awful Urinary Tract Infection (UTI) and for at least two or three days it was hard to bear. Now I am much better though weak (I have said to myself - "I am writing on the weak brother and here I am a weak brother!"). Thankfully I have my brother Joe and my step son Andrew to help me and my wife. You don't really appreciate good health until you lose it! That is true of lots of things. 

I lost my older brother Eddie Garrett II to pulmonary fibrosis on June 12th. He was 71. It is the same disease I have. I was diagnosed with it five years ago. He lived about twelve years with it. His last couple years were rough on him. Eddie at one time was a musician and wrote many songs, many on his Web Page and some on Youtube. He was a worldly man until one day he supposedly had a vision of Jesus who said to him "It will be alright Eddie." Following this vision he gave up his vices, his music, and became a professing Christian. He joined the "Primitive Baptists" and was baptized by our father and ordained to preach. Later he left the Hardshells and joined the "Church of Christ" and preached for them a couple years. He left them and began to write books and go back to his music. 

Eddie and I never got along too well when he became a preacher. I tried to witness to him about how the Hardshells and Campbellites held to serious doctrinal errors. I was also skeptical of his vision. The two church groups he was with I think discouraged him from speaking of it, saying it was for his own benefit. Later, when he left the Campbellites he went into other doctrinal errors through the influence of Anthony Buzzard, a well known denier of the Trinity, a believer in soul sleep, and that Gentiles are to keep the law.

All that being said, Eddie reached out to me about three years ago and we began to talk. Eddie was at odds with his family (mostly siblings). My sister Judy would not even speak to him. He could at times be so full of himself and prideful. As I began to speak to Eddie he began to listen to me as he had never before. God used me to bring him to reconcile with his family and I believe to reconcile him to God. I taught him out of some of his errors, and some he no longer held to firmly. He could pray the sweetest prayers at times. We would talk, without arguing, for hours. In fact, the nearer he got to his dying hour, he would call me several times a day. Sometimes it took a lot of perseverance to do that but I am so glad God used me as his instrument to save his soul, for I don't believe he was really saved until the last couple years. Now I rejoice to know that he has not seen a mere vision of Jesus, but Jesus himself.

He was very anxious about having to suffer a horrible death with pulmonary fibrosis and we often prayed to God that he would give him (and all of us) a quick and easy death. God answered that prayer for when he started "transitioning" (he was under Hospice care) he died within two days. The nurses said that while he was conscious he kept saying "will you come and pray with me." 

A year ago he decided to give me his used Mercedes automobile. It was his pride and joy. But, he knew his driving days were over. My younger brother Joe and I went down to Sarasota, Florida where he lived with Barbie, his longtime companion. We stayed with him for a couple days. I will never forget pulling out of the parking lot to drive back to North Carolina and seeing him standing there watching us leave! Later we went to Eddie's this past Christmas and stayed a couple days. It was obvious that his body was shutting down. In fact, all agree that he needed 24 hour care and he went into an assisted living facility about three months ago, a thing which he was reluctant to do. But, since none of his family lived near Florida, being either in Ohio or North Carolina, it was necessary as Barbie could not, with her age, give him the care he needed. In fact, none of us could attend his funeral cremation. 

When I was there, I got terribly sick on Christmas morning, picking up a nasty bug from him or his environment. Thank God my brother Joe could drive us back to North Carolina. I was sick for over a week with that bug. 

I know I only have a short time left, having so many health issues. Besides pulmonary fibrosis, I have a heart stent, and have to watch my blood pressure, plus I have numerous other not so serious issues such as a bad back. I think the Lord will keep me alive long enough and healthy enough to take care of my wife, believing she would go first (she has been on oxygen for several years with COPD) and has been in the hospital several times the past few years. About two years ago she was on a ventilator and we were doubtful of her recovery, but she is such a super trooper that she has come through it. God has been merciful to both of us. 

I also think that God wants me to finish some writings I have plans to do, and some other reasons for him extending my days awhile. I am nearing my end to my lengthy analysis of who are the weak brothers Paul speaks about in Corinthians and Romans. I have plans to write on the history and heresies of "Two Seedism," a thing much needed. I also want to write upon "Prevenient Grace." Actually I have several hundred drafts for future articles. 

I began blogging seventeen years ago, beginning with the Baptist Gadfly blog (See here). Shortly after that (2008) I spent a whole year producing a morning and evening Bible Study under the heading "My Daily Bread" (See link on this blog). I have not been able to check my page views statistics in years on that blog as I don't remember the Blogger password). It was one of my best works and I encourage all who can to read each day's morning and evening Bible Study lessons. 

In the early days of the Baptist Gadfly I had a lot of Internet written debates via the comments sections, with others over Hyper Calvinism and Hardshellism, and over the "ordo salutis" debate or the "born again before faith" error. I was truly a "Gadfly" to some folks! Like Socrates was to the Athenians. I wrote many articles in that blog and as of today have 1119 published articles. I don't write much in that blog any more but get many page views still. Last month that blog had over twenty thousand visits from people all over the world. One thing that has helped that is because I have in my blogs a Google Translate app on each page where a reader can get a translation of the blog's articles in his own language. That blog has lots of good articles. In fact, my writings have been in the tradition of my long lost brother, editor and preacher, doctor Bob L. Ross of Pilgrim Publications, who was himself a fluent writer and published several good books. If I put many of my series into books I would have close to a hundred! If all my short articles were published in pamphlet form, I would have over a thousand I believe. My father also was a fluent writer. So, it sort of runs in the family. However, I do believe this is the ministry God placed me in. I get to study, do research, and write every day, sharing the fruits of my labors in the word and doctrine. I think this is what really qualifies a man to be called "doctor" religiously. Though I have a Master's Degree in theology yet my writings entitle Brother Ross (through his writings) and me to that title. Not that he or I coveted such. Dr. James White has said that his writings and debates, besides his "official" credentials, entitles him to be called "Dr. White." Well, same with us. I am not bragging, nor would brother Ross. In fact, I hate even writing this, but perhaps saying these things are not all bad. 

In those early years, I would get a thousand or fifteen hundred page views per month for that one Blog. Later I began to write almost extensively in the Old Baptist Test Blog and was happy that Elder Kevin Fralick, a former Hardshell as I, joined with me to create this Blog. Later I was glad that Reverend Brother Kenny Mann also joined this blog, who is a Baptist historian and Bible teacher. At one time brother Jeremy Sarber, also a former Hardshell minister (See link to his writings on this page), was a contributing editor but left to form his own place to write. The past few years have seen a dramatic increase in viewership of The Baptist Gadfly and Old Baptist Test blogs. This past month I had 40, 353 page views on the Old Baptist Test and 20, 453 on the Gadfly blog. All the blogs (14 excluding My Daily Bread blog) for the past month had 65, 952 page views. It took seventeen years to get here. 

I pray to God often about the blogs, the way I am able to use my teaching gift. I pray for every visitor that he or she will be edified by it, by either being saved, recovered from backsliding, corrected, or taught sound doctrine, or simply edified. 

I appreciate the comments I have gotten, though many of them come to me personally via my e-mail address (octoberday5@yahoo.com). I don't hear from the Hardshells much any more though I know many of them read what we write. In fact, I don't get but few comments anymore like I got on the top post of all time on The White Horse of the Apocalypse. But, I covet feedback. I desire that my learned preacher brethren would let me know if they disagree with views on something, for I do not want to be wrong. But, I think my points (propositions) are so well defended that very few want to challenge me on them.

I have had about twelve oral debates with those of the "Church of Christ" on several subjects, such as whether water baptism is essential for salvation, whether true believers may lose salvation, original sin, etc. I have also had many one on one debates informally. Several of my debates with the Campbellites are available on the Internet. Bob Ross and I did a video series on Hardshellism back around 1993. They too are available on YouTube. 

Pray for us.

Weak Brothers XXVI

The above text has been often cited by me throughout this series. It is a key text for understanding who are the weak brothers. It says the weak ones, like the other groups of people mentioned in the text, need to be "gained" or "saved." Therefore, the view that says that the weak brothers are saved, yet immature, cannot be correct. But, we must also ask them a rhetorical question: Gain or save them from what? It can't mean to save them from sin via justification by faith and rebirth of the Spirit for they have already been saved and that is why they are called "brothers." (according to the view we are combating) If the weak brothers are new converts who have doubts about several points of Christian doctrine, and who therefore need to be gained or saved from doctrinal error and false religious practices, how can they be gained if the weak are not to be disputed with in the matters pertaining to his scruples? For many believe that when Paul says "receive him who is weak in the faith but not to dispute over his opinions" he forbids trying to help the weak to see his errors and become strong and no more weak. Recall that Paul said:

"Now we that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each one of us please his neighbor for that which is good, unto edifying." (Rom. 15: 1-2 asv)

So, what are the "infirmities" (i.e. weaknesses, sicknesses, impotencies) of the weak (impotent)? If it is an infirmity to keep religious diets and holy days, and to not drink wine, or to doubt the truth of the Christian creed, is Paul advising the strong to not try to change their minds by rational argument from scripture? Does Paul not want the weak to become strong? Further, what does Paul mean by "bearing" the infirmities of the weak? Is it not what any soul winner must do in winning converts to Christ? A soul winner and apologist must put up with a lot of obstacles in the thinking of a potential disciple in trying to persuade him of the truths of the Christian religion. Read "infirmities of the lost sinner" and understand the text better. 

Also, I repeat what I have said before about Paul's use of the word "brothers" in referring to the weak ones. In the above text Paul uses the word "neighbor" instead of brother. At the end of this series I will add further thoughts on the use of the term "brothers" and show that it does not necessarily mean a genuine believer. Consider also that on one side of this debate there are numerous arguments that show that "the sick ones" are not saved believers, while on the other side is one single argument, being that Paul calls the weak ones brothers. My brothers who believe the weak are born again believers I invite to come and answer these questions and arguments. Now let us return to our commentary and observations on this part of Romans chapter fourteen.

"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)

This is the third chapter in a row dealing with the above verses. If one has read all the preceding twenty five chapters I think he will see how the "weak" or "sick" brothers are not born again believers, being at most but inquirers into the religion of Christ.

A paraphrase of what Paul advised the strong ones (the members of the church of Rome that he is addressing) to say to the weak ones would be something like this:

"if they ate food in front of a religiously weak person and offended the weak, then they should let the weak know that they meant no offense; That his religion has no dietary laws, because not eating certain foods does not effect one's relationship with God. However, dear brother, friend, or neighbor, if it offends you that I eat pork then I will not eat pork in your presence. Allow me the liberty however to eat it outside of your presence. You don't want to force the requirements of your god upon me do you?"

That is my paraphrase of Paul's advice to the strong ones. The whole guiding principle of a believer's conduct towards the religiously sick and impaired is to keep them from becoming biased against the Christian faith. I have cited the words of Solomon on this point already in this series. He said:

"A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle." (Prov. 18: 19 kjv)

We should not restrict the word "brother" in this text, and in others like it, to a physical brother or brother in Christ. "Brother" here includes your natural brother, your brother through Adam, and is all the same as your "neighbor." The "winning" of this text has often been cited as referring to converting people to Christ. That being so, we must admit then that they were brothers before they were converted (or "won"). Solomon also said: "The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, And he who wins souls is wise." (Prov. 11: 30 nkjv) In Paul's instruction to the strong (spiritually or religiously healthy ones) on how to "win" or "save" the weak brothers (I Cor. 9: 22) he is giving them wisdom to win the souls of the religiously or spiritually sick. In fact, you could put "he who wins the souls of the weak is wise" over Romans chapter fourteen and First Corinthians chapter eight. 

Paul says to the strong ones - "if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love." So, does this mean that since some are vegetarians for religious reasons and get offended when a Christian eats meat that the Christian then is forever forbidden to eat meat? That does not seem right. Recall that Paul said these words relative to how the strong should behave towards the weak relative to their religious errors and doubts:

"But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" (I Cor. 10: 28-29 kjv)

By "you" in this exhortation are the members of the church at Corinth. He addresses them as if none of them were weak ones in belief. The one who says to the strong "this is offered in sacrifice to idols" is the religiously unhealthy, or the unbeliever as we have seen. (I Cor. 10: 27-30) The weak brother has a "weak conscience." (I Cor. 8: 12) Why weak, sickly, or impaired in conscience? It is because he is still a believer in the reality of idols and other gods. 

So, what would be a good paraphrase for what Paul says about the weak ones and what they should say to the strong ones? I would paraphrase it like this: 

"Brother, do not judge the Christian for eating foods you think are forbidden by your God or gods ("let not him which eats not judge him that eats"; Rom. 14: 3 kjv). After all, "Who art thou that judges another man's servant? to his own master he stands or falls." (Rom. 14: 4 kjv) His eating all foods, all meats, is done to his Lord and God who gives him this liberty. So too with observing holy days or drinking wine or other alcoholic drinks. However, we who eat all things, and drink wine, and do not observe holy days, do not want to offend you and so we will not eat food forbidden in your presence. Likewise do not judge us for not participating in your religious feasts and observance of the holy days of your religion."

We have spoken mainly of the difficulty over religious diets as compared to the difficulty over observing religious "holy days" or "religious feasts." There are three issues that Paul brings up in Romans chapter fourteen that separate the religiously or spiritually weak from the strong. They are religious diets, keeping holy days, and wine drinking. In Corinthians the issue concerned knowledge about monotheism and polytheism, about whether the idols and gods were non entities or real beings, and about whether a Christian ought in any case to eat food that was offered to idols. Paul says that in the weak brothers there was not "that knowledge" that there "is one God of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things," etc. (I Cor. 8: 6-7) That was a far more important issue than the issue of religious diets, observing holy days, or abstinence of alcoholic beverages. 

Paul's religiously and spiritually weak, sick, and powerless brothers have a "weak or sick conscience," are easily offended when the strong ones of Christianity don't follow them in their religious beliefs and practices. They have a conscience that continues to be "defiled" due to their retaining a belief in idols. (I Cor. 8: 7) Notice what Paul said to Titus about those whose consciences are defiled.

"To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but even their mind and conscience are defiled." (Titus 1: 15 nkjv)

Here we see that it is those who are "unbelievers" who have a mind and conscience that are defiled. 

Weak Brothers XXV

In this chapter we will continue to comment upon the following verses. 

"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)

There is a lot to unpack in these verses, hence we had to cut our commentary short in the preceding chapter. In this chapter let us begin by understanding what is at stake in properly interpreting it.

Salvation of the Weak is at Stake

What is the chief concern of Paul in his exhortations to the strong ones (who I have identified as being those who are saved Christians) on how to behave towards the weak (who I have identified as being those who are not Christians but religious people who are open to giving Christians a chance to teach them)? The following verses tell us that it is the salvation of the weak.

"And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?" (I Cor. 8: 11 nkjv)

"Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (I Cor. 8: 13 nkjv)

"to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22 nkjv)

"Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14: 15)

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food." (Rom. 14: 20)

"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. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." (Rom. 14: 21-22 nkjv)

Some translations give for "is offended" the words "is led into sin." Also, "is made weak" is "asthenie" and means, as we have said, "sick" or "impotent."

When we say that Paul is concerned about the salvation of the religiously sick and weak, we do not deny that he is also concerned with the salvation of the strong ones. Likewise, just as Paul was concerned about the weak ones being "led into sin" so also he is concerned about the strong ones sinning by the way they treat the weak brothers. So Paul said to the strong ones: "But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ." (I Cor. 8: 12 nkjv) When Paul warns the strong ones about offending the sick ones he not only warns them about sinning in so doing but also about how they will have to stand before the judgment seat of Christ to be judged for such actions.

This situation brings us therefore to the debate over whether born again believers may lose their salvation. For those who believe that both the weak and the strong are born again believers, and who believe that it is impossible for such believers to be lost, the above texts will prove difficult, especially in the case of those who are styled "weak or sick brothers." Those who believe that both classes are saved spiritual brothers, and who believe that believers can lose their salvation, will see these texts as proof that their position is correct. Since my position views only the strong ones as truly saved believers, I have less difficulty in debating with those who believe that saints can lose their salvation. I believe that the eternal salvation of the weak ones is at stake, not in losing salvation however, but in obtaining initial salvation itself. In the case of the strong ones, the danger is that they will lose rewards and their Lord's commendations, not loss of salvation. That seems to be what Paul taught when he said - "If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (I Cor. 3: 15 nkjv)

Also, sinning against the weak brothers may reveal that the strong ones were not really what they profess to be, i.e. true born again believers. After all, perseverance in faith and holiness are essentials for being saved in the end. But, perseverance does not mean living a sinless life.

Paul does not use the same language when speaking of the results of the sin of the weak ones, in the above texts in Romans and First Corinthians, as he does for the sin of the strong ones. The weak ones may perish, or have the work of God upon them destroyed by their remaining unconverted. Any stumbling blocks that we as believers put in the way of sinners for coming to Christ for salvation makes us guilty of having been a contributing cause in their damnation, or failure to be saved. When speaking of the damnation of weak brothers Paul says they perish, or are destroyed. I don't think that is a temporal perishing or destruction as some of my Calvinist brothers aver. They take that view because 1) they believe that the weak ones are born again believers (mainly because they are called brothers) and 2) it is said that Christ died for them. But, before delving further into those difficulties, let me return to my assertion that Paul does not say of the strong ones that their sinning against the weak brothers results in the work of God being destroyed in them as it does in the weak brothers. That is because it is impossible to destroy God's work in preserving the believers and insuring their perseverance. It is possible however to destroy the pre-regeneration or pre-salvation work of God in the weak brothers, as in all lost sinners. That is what Paul meant when he said that he did not preach the gospel "with wisdom of words," because in that case he would be making "the cross of Christ of no effect" (I Cor. 1: 17).  

As far as how a Calvinist who believes that Christ only died for the elect or for believers only deals with Paul's speaking of the weak brothers perishing "for whom Christ died" there are several solutions. Those Calvinists who believe the weak brothers are born again believers are forced to say that the perishing is not eternal, but denotes a mere loss of temporal spiritual blessings. I find that untenable and unlikely. First, that is not how the term "perishing" or "destroyed" is generally used in scripture. Others, like Dr. John Gill in his commentary on the text, says that Paul does not affirm that the weak brothers will perish but only asks the question rhetorically ("and through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died") and says that such a question does not imply that such will occur. I find that explanation also untenable. In my posting in this series title "Throgmorton on the Weak" (See here) I wrote, citing Dr. W.P. Throgmorton from his debate with Elder J. R. Daily of the "Primitive Baptist" church. Throgmorton said: 

 

"We read of one weak brother for whom Christ died that perished. I Corinthians 8:10-11 “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge, sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols? And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” In the Revised Version, American, it reads: For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whom Christ died.” It doesn’t mean a brother in Christ, because we have seen that those in Christ will never perish, but here is a brother in Adam for whom Christ died, who perishes. The Greek word apoleitai (apoleitai) is the same as in John 3:16, where the word perish occurs."

Throgmorton saw the problem with saying that the weak brothers were born again children of God in light of his belief in the impossibility of believers losing their salvation. So, he believed as I do that the weak ones are not saved. However, he believed that Christ died for all men and so he had no problem believing that many for whom Christ died will perish. Calvinists who believe that the weak brothers are born again Christians cannot avoid either problem. They have to explain how to reconcile the fact that born again believers for whom Christ died may perish or be destroyed. Since I do not believe the weak brothers are saved Christians, I as a Calvinist only have to deal with how I can believe that someone for whom Christ died may perish. As a Calvinist I have two possible answers to this problem. 

First, there is a sense in which Christ died "for" all men and a sense in which he died only for the elect (or only for believers). The death of Christ had some benefits for all men. Spurgeon said this very thing, saying that God purchased some good things for all men and all good things for some men (the elect). So, Paul may mean that Christ died "for" the temporal good of even those who are never saved, what theologians call "common grace."  

Second, Paul could simply be saying that Christ died for weak brothers in the same way he says that Christ died for sinners, without intending that he died as a sacrificial substitute and bore the penalty for every single sinner, or for those who do not believe. Every believer was once a religiously weak, sick, or impotent sinner brother and so we may say Christ died for them. The question is this: did Paul say that Christ died for every weak brother, i.e. every sinner? I think not. We may then rephrase Paul's question like this: "and through your knowledge shall the lost sinner perish?" Those who believe that the weak brothers are saved Christians has Paul asking - "and through your knowledge shall born again believers perish?" The weak brother (lost religiously sick person) will indeed perish if he falls short of accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. 

In the next chapter we will continue our examination of this section of Romans chapter fourteen.

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.

Weak Brothers XXIII

As I pointed out in previous chapters, "without strength" comes from the singular Greek word that is translated as "weak" in Romans and First Corinthians when speaking of weak brothers who observe religious diets and holy days, and who have scruples or doubts about the Christian creed. Recall that Paul said:

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7 However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8 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. 9 But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." (I Cor. 8: 5-9 NKJV)

This passage tells us that "the weak" are those persons who do not have the knowledge or conviction of the creed stated in the passage. The weak do not have "that knowledge" which is expressed in the creed which confidently confesses that there is "one God the Father of whom are all things and we for him" and that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things and through whom we live," and who denies not that the so-called gods and idols are real entities, and who believes that a proper religious diet commends one to a god.

Recall also how we showed how the Greek word "asthenēs" is rarely translated as weak, but translated mostly as sick or impotent, or its cognates such as "without strength." Being labeled as religiously sick or impotent is not a description of true Christians.

Paul uses the Greek word asthenōn as an adjective for those who are not saved. "When we were yet asthenōn Christ died for us." Thus, "the weak," the religiously and spiritually sick and powerless, are they who are not saved. We could translate the text as "when we were yet spiritually sick," or "when we were yet religiously impotent," or "when we were yet weak." When a person believes in Christ he then is no longer weak, sick, or impotent (spiritually, religiously, and morally speaking).

Notice also the similarity of these two texts which are addressed to the strong ones concerning how they are to behave towards the weak ones:

"Beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." (I Cor. 8: 9)

"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (Rom. 14: 13 nkjv)

This is another indication that the weak ones of First Corinthians are the same weak ones of Romans. With these introductory remarks, let us continue our commentary and analysis of the remainder of the chapter. 

"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (vss. 10-13)

Again, we must identify who is intended by the various pronouns in the above texts. Who is Paul exhorting when he says "you" ought not to judge or show contempt for "your" brother, and when he says "we" shall all be judged by Christ and when "each of us" give account of "himself" to God? Or, when he says "let us not judge one another anymore" or "in our brother's way"? Is he speaking to the strong ones only? Or to the weak ones only? Or to both? Or, to every man, whether saved or unsaved?

It appears that Paul is addressing the strong ones and exhorting them in regard to how they appraise and think of those who are religious and yet not saved, and how they behave themselves in their presence. He also speaks of them not putting hindrances or stumbling blocks in the way of the weak brothers so as to "cause them to fall." If the weak ones are saved people, people who are already Christian and monotheists, then putting a stumbling block in their way is to hinder them in their perseverance or preservation. If the weak ones are not saved people, then putting a stumbling block in the way of the weak ones would be a hindrance in their being converted and saved. Of course, the principle of behavior would be the same in either case. Saved people should be doing everything possible to aid the salvation of the lost or of the backsliding Christian.

On the other hand, some might argue that the words "cause to fall" implies that the weak are saved, for to fall means to fall from a state of grace and salvation. In reply we say that the Greek word translated "cause to fall" is "skandalon" from which we get our word "scandal." It means a trap or a snare. It refers to anything that is put into a person's path that would likely cause a person who is walking to stumble and fall. But, this could occur to those who are lost and who are being led to Christ. Notice another passage where the skandalon is used.

"As it is written: “Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, And whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom. 9: 33 nkjv)

The ones who stumble at the word are those who do not believe the word, and so such stumbling is not what believers do. Peter is even clearer, writing these words:

"Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling And a rock of offense.” They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people..." (I Peter 2: 7-9 nkjv)

"Rock of offense" is "skandalou." But notice that the ones who stumble at the word are not born again children of God but unbelievers. They are the disobedient in the text, the ones who stumble and are offended against Christ, and who are not of that "chosen generation" nor "his own special people." So, the argument that "cause to fall" can only apply to the saved is false. 

The problem Paul sees in the attitude of the strong ones against the weak ones is seen in the several words he uses to describe it, such as "judging" or "showing contempt," or putting stumbling blocks in the way of religious brothers coming to see their error in worshiping false gods and thinking that dietary laws and observing holy days are ways to gain the favor of the gods. We actually see religious condemnation and contempt throughout history and even in our day to a large extent. We see where some Muslims have the attitude that says all who will not submit to Allah and the Quran should be persecuted or even put to death. Some cite verses that seem to say such and many Islamic terrorist organizations agree. We see this attitude in some Christian organizations, such as in the Catholic church of the Dark Ages when they killed Protestants for heresy and were behind the Crusades and the Inquisition where thousands were killed in the name of religion. We see it in the hatred of many against the Mormons in this country in the 19th century.

Defaming those who are religiously sick (the weak), and doing nothing but condemning them, and viewing them as irredeemable and hopeless "reprobates" shows that the one doing those things cares not about the spiritual condition of those he is denouncing. Christians are the only religiously healthy and strong ones. But, they are not to boast about this in an arrogant manner. 

Putting a stumbling block in the way of people so as to keep them from salvation is a serious matter and the Lord will not deal lightly with such professing Christians who do this. Said the Lord Jesus:

"Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17: 1-2 nkjv) 

Here the offending or placing stumbling blocks in the way is in respect of those who have not yet come to Christ. We see this being done also by the Pharisees in these words:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in." (Matt. 23: 13 nkjv)

So, we see how putting an obstacle in the way of sinners coming to Christ is what Paul is talking about when he says that believers should not put stumbling blocks in the way of religiously sick and impotent brothers.

So, who is included in the judgment seat of Christ? When Paul says "we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ" does he say this to both the weak and the strong or only to the strong? If said to both then his warning is to all men, for all are either saved or lost. Some translations say "judgment seat of God" rather than "of Christ." Of course the judgment of believers is of a different nature than the general judgment of unbelievers before the great white throne (See Rev. chpt. 20). 

Paul's exhortation in Romans chapter fourteen which says "resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way" is similar to his exhortation to the weak in First Corinthians where he says: 

"And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (I Cor. 8: 11- 13 nkjv)

Christ died for sinners and we may be either hindrances to their salvation or assistants. Will we be a means in their salvation or in their damnation? Paul says that when we hinder the lost, the religiously sick and impotent, then we "sin against the brethren" or "sin against Christ" and will be judged by God for it. 

Paul believes that weak brothers may "perish" but if they were strong in the faith of Christ there would be no possibility of that happening. 

Notice the parallel in the words above that say "because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish" with the words of Paul in Romans chapter fifteen that says "Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died" (14: 15). This again suggests that the weak ones are the same in both Corinthians and Romans. 

Jesus Married A Whore

I titled this posting "Jesus Married A Whore" because the story of Hosea the prophet and his marriage to Gomer is an illustration of God's love for sinners, or of God's love for his people Israel. The Book of Hosea begins this way:

“The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.” (Hosea 1: 1-2)

The story of Hosea and Gomer in the Bible is a symbolic marriage used to depict God's love for Israel and the consequences of their unfaithfulness. God instructed Hosea to marry Gomer, who was unfaithful to him, just as Israel was unfaithful to God by worshiping other gods, which was a case of spiritual adultery. Hosea eventually bought Gomer back from slavery, representing God's redemptive love for Israel. The story of Hosea's love for the whore Gomer is a picture of God's love for depraved sinners. 

"And the LORD said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love cakes of raisins.” (Hosea 3: 1)

We are Gomer. We are spiritual adulterers. We want to have it our way, and we are willing to reject God’s covenantal faithfulness for fleeting one-night stands with idols. While it’s hard to admit that we are no different than Gomer, it’s a truth that we can embrace with humility and comfort. The story of Hosea and Gomer reminds us that God loves us not because of our faithfulness, but because of his. 

Got Questions Web Page says (See here):

"God wanted to provide an illustration of His relationship with the people of Israel, who had been unfaithful to Him by practicing idolatry...The story of Hosea and Gomer is an unforgettable picture of God’s strong, unending love for His covenant people." 

"In Hosea 3:1, after Gomer had left Hosea and was living in immorality, the Lord commanded Hosea to find her and buy her back. God was continuing His illustration, except now He wanted to show the greatness of His grace: “Even as the LORD loves the children of Israel, though they turn to other gods.” Hosea’s faithful love of Gomer was an illustration of God’s faithfulness to wayward Israel. Just as Gomer had been unfaithful to her husband and had to be redeemed, Israel needed God’s initiative to restore their relationship."

Gomer was born into adultery, into a family of prostitutes. So too we are all born in sin (Eph. 2: 3). She also practiced the sin of adultery as her family. We too practice sin as did our father Adam. There is nothing about us that is attractive or worthy of God's love. So Paul wrote:

"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Eph. 2: 4-7 nkjv)

What great love is this! In the story of Hosea and Gomer we see exemplified this truth: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1st John 4:10) And, “But God commended his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) 

Hosea's love and care for Gomer was unmerited. Gomer was not chosen because she was morally superior to all other women, for she was not. So too is it with us. We don't deserve to be loved by God. So wrote the apostle John:

"Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!" (I John 3: 1)

What love indeed!

Weak Brothers XXII

As we have seen so far in our examination of Romans chapter fourteen Paul has something to say to both the weak and the strong, although he has more to say to the strong. He speaks to each class of religious persons relative to the attitude and behavior that each shows towards the other. The above chart illustrates this narrative. We have also seen how certain things that Paul says in this chapter are crucial in arriving at a right interpretation and in discerning whether the weak brothers are Christians who hold to errors about religious dietary laws and observance of holy days and religious feasts and such like. My thesis has affirmed that the weak ones of Romans chapter fourteen are the same class of individuals as the weak ones of first Corinthians chapters eight through ten and that they are not Christians or truly born again children of God. They are rather devout religious folks who are generally polytheistic, although they would include Jews who have not yet believed in Jesus but who are willing to listen to the Christian message. 

We have given extensive commentary on the first six verses of Romans chapter fourteen and on Paul's conclusion as given in the first verse of chapter fifteen. From verse seven to the end of the chapter will now command our attention, although as will be seen, there is less need for elaboration on these verses as there is on the first six verses. 

We Are The Lord's

"For none of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore, whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and rose and lived again, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living." (vss. 7-9)

Many Bible teachers have said something that I have also often stated to Bible students. It is not the big words in the bible that give a student the most difficulty in interpretation but the little words and this is true in regard to discerning who is intended by pronouns in a text. We have already observed this problem in this chapter, such as interpreting who is the "him" in the words "for God has received him." The same is true in the above verses. Sometimes in Romans chapter fourteen Paul will speak directly to the strong and sometimes directly to the weak and sometimes to each class of persons at once. Obviously some things Paul says to each group of religious folks will not be appropriate or applicable to the other group. So then, who is intended by the pronouns in the above verses, by the pronouns "us" and "we"? When Paul says "none of us" does he mean "none of us Christians, i.e. none of us strong ones," or "none of us human beings, whether weak or strong"?  

Another thing to discern is who is "the Lord" in the text? As we saw in our analysis of verses 5-6 there was no definite article before "lord" and showed that this was important and saw how the lord of the weak was not the same lord of the strong, just like we saw how the "master" of the weak and strong was not the same, for that is deducible from Paul's question to the weak which said "who are you to judge another Lord's servants?" So, it is important to discern to whom Paul is addressing in the verses above.

It is clear to me that Paul is addressing the strong ones, which I have identified as being believers in Jesus and they who are under the new covenant. What he says to them is not applicable to the weak ones. In these verses we see how the definite article "the" precedes "Lord," unlike verses 5-6 that omitted the definite article. This indicates to us that the Lord of the strong ones is the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Wrote Dr. Albert Barnes in his commentary:

"No man - No "one," the same Greek word οὐδείς oudeis which is used in the former part of the verse. The word is used only in reference to "Christians" here, and makes no affirmation about other people."

That is true, but are the religiously sick and impotent Christians? My thesis says not, although it is a minority view. Of course, that is no proof that it is wrong for the majority is often wrong. 

What does Paul mean when he says "none of us lives to himself and no one dies to himself"? When Paul says "none of us" Christians he is asserting something that is true of everyone who is a true believer. What is it that is universally true about every believer? Is he saying that none of us are hermits? Does he mean that none live in isolation from the world? No, that is not what he means. It is impossible to live in total isolation. Wrote Paul:

"I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world." (I Cor. 5: 9-10 mkjv)

Paul says that as long as we live in this world that we must have dealings with unsaved people. Further, it is not the Lord's will that his people become monks, to withdraw from the world. Rather, Jesus said "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15 nkjv)

Paul also means that the Christian has a law written on his heart which forbids living selfishly. He emphasized this more than once. He wrote:

"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Phil. 2: 4 esv)

"Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor." (I Cor. 10: 24 esv)

Christians have the mind of a servant. Repentance denotes a change of mind and occurs when the person who once desired lordship over others becomes one who desires to serve others, especially in the sense of winning others to Christ. Said Jesus:"Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant." (Matt. 20: 26 nkjv)

For the strong ones (Christians) not to be desirous of, and not doing all they can for, the salvation of the religiously sick (i.e. the lost), is totally out of place. Recall that Paul said:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more...To the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 19, 22 nkjv)

Throughout Romans chapters fourteen and fifteen and First Corinthians chapters eight through ten, Paul has much to say to the strong ones (true believers) about their attitude towards the weak and how to act towards them so that they too might become strong Christians. Notice his summation in Romans:

"We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.” (Rom. 15: 1-3 esv)

We have already commented on these words to some extent. We pointed out how those who Paul called weak "brothers" he here calls neighbors.

I can see how some of the first Christians had an attitude similar to the Pharisees in looking down on those of other religions, thinking themselves superior to those who worship idols and other gods.

The phrase “holier than thou” generally refers to an attitude of spiritual superiority or self-righteousness. It conveys an air of condescending moral high ground, in which someone views himself as being more pious, more faithful, or more deserving of God’s favor than others. The English expression often traces its roots to Isaiah 65:5 in older translations, though the essence of the concept-presuming a lofty moral or spiritual position-runs throughout Scripture. The Isaiah passage speaks of those "Who say, ‘Keep to yourself, Do not come near me, For I am holier than you!’" This is disgusting to God. This attitude is seen in Jews who looked upon Gentiles as dogs and as unclean. Even the apostle Peter had this attitude when he refused to associate with Gentiles. The Lord had to show him how Christians are to have another attitude and behavior towards the religiously sick.