Weak Brothers XX

In previous chapters I raised the question of whether it would make a difference in how people interpret what is said of the weak and strong if the Greek word for "weak" were translated the way it is in other places in the new testament, such as by the word "impotent," "sick," "diseased." But let us do the same with the word "strong." Being the antonym of "weak" it means healthy, sound, wholesome, fit, potent, etc. We may then paraphrase Paul's message as: "the religiously healthy should receive the religiously sick." 

At the end of Paul's teachings on the weak and strong he concludes by saying: "We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." (15: 1) In this text the Greek word for "infirmities" is "asthenēma" (a form of the Greek word for "weak") but this time a different Greek word for "weak" is used, being "adynatos" and meaning without strength, impotent, powerless, weakly, disabled, or impaired. Such adjectives cannot possibly be appropriate for true Christians or saved people. They are fitting adjectives, however, for devout religious people who are not Christians, and even for some who are professing Christians and are hypocrites and not really saved. Therefore, to the extent that churches have such in their churches they may be said to have weak/sick Christians. When Paul refers to the "infirmities" of the religiously sick, he does not mean physical infirmities, but religious infirmity in matters of theology. 

"Infirmities of the weak" would be set in contrast to "the strengths of the strong." Here are some ways others translate the phrase:

"the failings of the weak" (niv, esv)

"shortcomings of the weak" (bsb)

"the weaknesses of the weak" (blb)

"the scruples of the weak" (nkjv)

"the weaknesses of those without strength" (nasb)

The Greek word for "strong" is dynatos and means "able" or "capable." That being so, the antonym of strong would not only be "weak" but "unable." 

In the preceding chapters we saw how the Greek word for "weak" in Romans 14 was translated in other places by "sick," "impotent," and "diseased." So, why do translators and Bible commentators not use these words in Romans or Corinthians when speaking of the "weak"? In the above text (Rom. 15: 1) the plural of the word "weak" (Greek "astheneo") is used (English "weaknesses" or Greek "asthenēmata"). In the plural we get "weaknesses," "infirmities," "scruples," "failings," "shortcomings," but why not sicknesses, or impotencies, or diseases? Especially considering that in far more instances the Greek word is so translated rather than by the word "weak"? I see a bias by translators and interpreters against seeing "the weak" of Romans and Corinthians as being unsaved people. All should acknowledge how coming to the passages dealing with the weak brothers with a presupposition about who they are has affected what English words were chosen to stand in the place of the "weak."

Combining what is said of the weak or infirmed in Romans 14: 1 and 15: 1 we may translate the latter in these ways:

"the weaknesses of the impotent"

"the impotencies of the powerless"

"the sicknesses of the incapable"

"the infirmities of those without strength"

As stated previously, if we simply translated "the weak" as "the sick" or "the impotent" in Romans and Corinthians people might have been led away from assuming that the weak are born again Christians.

Also, had people kept in mind that it is "in faith," or in religious belief or creed, that people are labeled as either weak or strong, sick or healthy, etc., then people might have questioned the common view that avers that "the weak ones" are weak Christians. Those commentators who think that Romans chapter fourteen concerns "things which the Bible says nothing about" or minor differences of opinion will say that the choice to be vegetarian is not within the context of religion; And, if that is so, then it certainly would be a matter of indifference. Likewise, if it is not in a religious context that people are weak or strong, and if food choices are outside of a religious context, and if esteeming certain days as special is not in a religious context, then why would Paul even waste time in his important letter to the Romans to speak about people's choice of food to eat or about their observing special days like birthdays? 

Religiously weak ones are inferior to strong ones. But, if keeping dietary laws and observing holy days has nothing to do with judging one as either weak or strong, not being a criteria, then why are those who observe such labeled weak and those who do not observe such are labeled as strong? It such religious observances have nothing to do with whether one is a weak or strong, being unimportant matters of opinion, then why call one weak or strong in relation to those observances? Further, is that not a judgment? Indeed it is; Therefore Paul is violating his own exhortation, as we have previously noted.  

Are The Weak Jews or Gentiles?

Are the Jews the weak ones of Romans chapter fourteen? If Jews, are they Jews who have rejected Christ or Jews who have accepted Christ but who continue to observe old testament dietary laws and holy days (including their seven annual feasts)? Many commentators say the Weak ones were Jewish Christians in Rome who were newly converted and still held onto certain Jewish customs and dietary restrictions, and observed holy days. They were "weak" in faith because they were still struggling with the transition from Jewish law to Christian freedom. The "strong," on the other hand, were those Gentile Christians or Jewish Christians who were not bound by the same dietary or ritualistic observances. One cannot exclude religious Gentiles from those who are religiously weak, sick, or impotent. In Corinthians it seems rather clear that "weak brothers" were mostly composed of those who were Gentile idol worshipers. Again, there is no reason to think that the weak ones of Romans exclude Gentiles. 

Even though what Paul says in Romans chapter fourteen is primarily directed to the heathen Gentile idol worshipers, nevertheless may be applicable to professing Christians who are not really genuine Christians (saved) or to Jews, either those who have professed Christ or those who rejected Christ. 

"Eats Only Vegetables"

One good argument against the view that "the weak" of Romans are converted Jews who were still keeping old covenant dietary laws and holy days is what Paul says about the weak being strictly vegetarians. "For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables." (14: 2 nkjv) But how can this be true of Jews who were observing the old covenant's rules since there is nothing in the law forbidding meat eating? Many commentators who are determined to see "the weak" as "the weak Jew" will say that Jews who were vegetarian were such from fear of eating meat offered to idols and not because it was what God commanded. Let us notice some commentaries on this point. 

"Eateth herbs - Herbs or "vegetables" only; does not partake of meat at all, for "fear" of eating that, inadvertently, which had been offered to idols. The Romans abounded in sacrifices to idols; and it would not be easy to be certain that meat which was offered in the market, or on the table of a friend, had not been offered in this manner. To avoid the possibility of partaking of it, even "ignorantly," they chose to eat no meat at all." (Barnes) 

This comment is made by Barnes upon the assumption that it is old covenant keeping Jews who are the weak and who, to keep from mistakenly eating meat from sacrifices dedicated to idols, chooses to eat no meat at all. That would be like a Jew who out of fear of having leaven in his house during Passover never has leaven in his house. That would not be the correct reason given the context. The reason why some of the weak eat only vegetables is because eating meat is forbidden by their religion. It seems that such a reason for why the weak eat only vegetables is an effect resulting from the presupposition that the weak are Jews who keep the law and from rejecting the idea that Paul could be describing Gentile religions (which were mostly polytheistic). 

"another who is weak eateth herbs; meaning not one that is sickly and unhealthful, and of a weak constitution, and therefore eats herbs for health's sake; but one that is weak in the faith, and who thinks that the laws concerning the observance of meats and drinks are still in force; and therefore, rather than break any of them, and that he may be sure he does not, will eat nothing but herbs, which are not any of them forbidden by the law: and this he did, either as choosing rather to live altogether on herbs, than to eat anything which the law forbids; or being of opinion with the Essenes among the Jews, and the Pythagoreans among the Gentiles, who thought they were to abstain from eating of all sorts of animals." Gill's commentary)

Though Gill also wants to believe that the weak in the chapter who restrict their diets, such as those who eat only vegetables, and who keep holy days, cannot include Gentiles, nevertheless mentions some Jewish sects who were vegetarians, but also some Gentile pagans who did the same. My view of the weak would include both Jewish and Gentile religious people. Vegetarianism is strongly encouraged and widely practiced within Hinduism, though it's not a strict requirement for all Hindus; And, Hinduism was in existence in the time of Paul. A Google search with the words "vegetarian diets in religion" gives us this AI Overview:

"Many religions incorporate vegetarianism or promote plant-based diets for ethical, spiritual, or health-related reasons. Jainism mandates strict vegetarianism, while Hinduism, Buddhism, and some Christian denominations encourage it to varying degrees. Other religions like Seventh-day Adventists and Rastafarians also have strong dietary guidelines involving vegetarianism or veganism." 

Why then exclude Gentiles from those who are religiously sick (Weak) and "eat only vegetables"? The commentators who say that the reason why the Jews under consideration only eat vegetables was out of fear that they might accidentally eat meat offered to idols is a speculation and one with little reason to support that view. If "the strong ones" includes both converted Jews and Gentiles, why would "the weak ones" also not include both Jews and Gentiles? As I have affirmed, "the religiously sick and impotent ones" in the context focuses primarily on Gentile idol worshipers but may also include Jews, either those who confess and those who do not confess Christ as Messiah. Both the Jews and Gentiles had religious diets and holy days and believed that observing such commended them to God or to the gods. Recall these words of the apostle:

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews...to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak." (I Cor. 9: 19-20, 22)

Here "Jews" are distinguished from the "weak." 

Neighbors as Brothers

As I have stated in previous chapters, the main argument of those who think that the weak are Christians who have doubts about the Christian faith but are nevertheless saved is the fact that Paul refers to the weak as "brothers" in Corinthians and in Romans. I have already answered this argument by saying that such an argument is not conclusive, especially in view of all the reasons I have offered against that view. I have shown how use of the term brother by Paul did not always mean that Paul viewed them as saved people. I affirmed that he often used the term brother for either fellow Jews who were not saved, and for all his fellow men. In the text at the top from Romans 15, in speaking of the weak brothers, Paul says "each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up," showing how he equated brother with neighbor. 

Weak Brothers XIX

In this chapter I want to begin by listing the questions Paul asks in Romans chapter fourteen. Following that we will begin a verse by verse analysis, a thing we have already done on several of the verses.

Questions

"Who are you to judge another’s servant?" (vs. 4)

"But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?" (vs. 10)

We need to discern who is designated by the pronouns "you" in these questions. Are they addressed to the strong ones or to the weak ones? Or to both? Next, we need to discern who is intended by "another's servant?" Finally, who is intended by "servant"? The first question may be addressed to either the strong or the weak, but probably is only to the weak. The second question is addressed to the strong. Let us notice the context.

"For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand." (vss. 2-4)

In this context we see two kinds of believers (religious folks). One believes he may eat all things (no religious diets). Another believes he can only eat vegetables religiously. Each of these believers are also called "servants" and have "masters," religiously speaking. The servant is the worshiper and the master is the god or lord of that servant (or slave). Thus, "another's servant" means another master's/god's servant. This shows that the master is not the same master of both weak believer and strong believer. This is very important to recognize. It is a case of one god's servants judging another god's servants.

Also the words "to his own master (god)" also says that the god of the weak is not the same god as the strong. It would not make sense to see both weak and strong having the same master. This annihilates the view that says the weak and the strong are both servants of Jesus or the same god. That is like saying to a father - "who are you to discipline another father's children? To his own father he gets praised or punished." In that case we have two fathers and children from two families.

Further, who is Paul speaking to when he says "for God has received him"? Who is the "him"? Is he saying that God has received (welcomed) the weak or the strong? Or does the language or syntax infer that both weak and strong are received by God (thus saved children of God)? 

It seems more likely that "him" refers to "him who eats" (Christians or the strong ones who observe no dietary laws) and not to "him who does not eat" (the non Christian religionist or Jew who observes dietary laws) for the words "for God has received him" immediately follows the words "him who eats"; And antecedents of pronouns are normally found near to the pronouns. So we read it this way: "let not the weak judge him who eats for God has received him who eats." If this is correct, and I firmly believe it is, then we have a case where Paul is speaking directly to pagans and addressing their denunciations and persecutions of Christians. Paul has things to say to both the weak and the strong, although his main audience is the strong ones (religiously healthy).

Commentaries disagree on who is the "him" in "God has received him," many saying that the pronoun refers to both the weak and the strong. But, that is wrong for the reasons already given. If that were true, Paul would have used the plural "them" rather than the singular "him." Or, he would have said "for God has received each."

Of course, God receives all who come to him. He invites all to come to him, both weak and strong, in the gospel. But, he actually receives into his fellowship those who have accepted his invitation and come to him through Christ. 

For these reasons I affirm that Paul places two injunctions on the weak ones (religiously sick and impotent), first in the question "who are you to judge another master's servants?"; And second in the exhortation "let not him who does not eat judge him who eats." One of these is an exhortation or command and the other is a rhetorical question which has the effect of an imperative and may be said to exhort the weak not to judge the strong. I believe, therefore, that the first question is directed to the weak ones, to the religiously sick, and is designed to ask them for justification for judging (condemning) the strong ones for their not keeping dietary laws and observing holy days as they do. 

Paul asks the pagans (religiously sick): "is not each religious servant judged by the master/god/lord he recognizes?" Here Paul presumes that the pagan he is addressing will agree with this, being a common principle among the various god cults of the Roman world, and which involves forbearance and tolerance and a sense of fraternity among the various cults. He says, for example: "you servants of the god Apollo are violating your own principle in condemning the servants of the god Jesus for not observing Apollo's dietary laws and holy days, for Christians do not serve Apollo and Jesus does not command such from his servants." Paul shows he is an excellent debater, apologist, and persuader. Paul is saying that it is the right of Jesus to judge his servants and Apollo's servants cannot judge them. "To his own master he stands or falls," means that the strong ones (Christians) are subject to the judgment of Christ and the Christian God they worship, and that the weak ones (false religionists) are subject to the judgment of the masters/gods they worship.

I would translate or paraphrase the text this way: "Polytheist, who are you to judge (condemn, curse, etc.) another's (another god's or lord's) servant?" 

The latter question I believe is directed to the strong ones, to the religiously fit ones. It asks Christians why they judge and condemn, show contempt towards, and despise the religiously sick pagans rather than showing them compassion and attempting to gently persuade them. "But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother?"

The two questions that Paul asks at the head of this chapter deal with "who" and "why" (as I highlighted in the verses cited). The rhetorical "who are you" is a way of saying "who do you think you are?" And the intent of the rhetorical is to question the right, authority, or prerogative of the religious cults in Roman and Corinth to judge or condemn the Christian cult. 

"The strong despise the weak; the weak judge the strong. In the one case there is contempt for what is thought to be narrowness and pedantry. In the other case censorious judgments are passed on what is regarded as levity and irreligion." (Elliott's commentary) 

Weak Brothers XVIII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Translating μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν

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

"without quarreling over disputable matters" (niv)

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

"but not to quarrel over opinions" (esv)

"but not to doubtful disputations" (kjv)

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

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

"yet not for decision of scruples" (asv)

"not to determinations of reasonings" (lsv)

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

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

"But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse." (I Cor. 8: 8 nkjv)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One Big Question

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

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

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

 

Weak Brothers XVII

In chapter XV of this series I began a commentary on Romans 14: 5-6. In chapter XIV I dealt with Romans 14: 1-2, 4. In chapter XIII I dealt with Romans 14:1 and 15: 1. So, I have already given some commentary on this important chapter. The commentary I now write will be an addition to those chapters. I encourage all who are interested in the right interpretation of what Paul writes about the weak and strong brothers to read those chapters, yea even all the chapters I have written.

"Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things" (vs. 1).

First, we must ask what Paul means by "receiving" one who is weak in the faith, a question I addressed in earlier chapters but will now enlarge upon. In order to decide the question one must ascertain who is meant by "one who is weak in the faith." If the weak is a fellow Christian, or fellow member of the church, then "receiving" such would carry a different connotation and ramifications than if the weak was not a Christian. Does it denote officially receiving someone into church membership? If so, then we cannot say that the weak one is already a saved member of the church. Also, if the weakness is of the nature of those weak ones in first Corinthians, then it means that they are very doubtful of the truth that there is only one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, etc. But, how could any church accept into church membership anyone who was not fully assured of those truths? Or, does receiving a weak person simply mean to welcome him in some way? If so, believers may welcome lost sinners just as well as saved sinners. I have already dealt with this question in chapters thirteen through fifteen. Another question that must be ascertained is whether the exhortation is on how one kind of church member is to treat another kind. Are Christian churches by choice composed, or should be composed, of both weak and strong? 

The other thing that must be ascertained is what is meant by receiving weak (or impotent) ones "but not over doubtful things" or "but not to quarrel over opinions," etc.? We will deal with this after we speak of what is involved in "receiving" or "welcoming" those who are weak in the faith, that is, weak in their religious beliefs and in their acceptance of Christian teachings. 

We must first see how the apostle, in the words of the text, implies that the Roman Christians to whom he is speaking to are not the weak. If half the church of Rome were weak and half were strong, then Paul would not be addressing the entire membership as being strong. His exhortation is to all the members of the church in Rome and tells them to welcome religiously impotent people, which implies that the members are not such themselves. If part of the church were strong and part weak, then Paul would have worded his exhortation this way: "you who are strong ones, welcome the ones who are weak in the faith." Is Paul saying that the strong in the church should welcome the weak in the church? But, if the weak are already in the church, what does welcoming them mean? Does it mean "don't shun them"? Paul did say: "Therefore receive one another, just as Christ also received us, to the glory of God." (Rom. 14: 7 nkjv) 

Another question is whether "weak in the faith" means "weak in the church." And, "can those who are  saved receive in any sense one who is unsaved?" And, "can a lost sinner be called weak in the faith?" We saw how the weak brothers in first Corinthians 1) did not embrace the Christian creed, and 2) needed to be "gained" or "saved." If that is true, and if the weak brothers of the Roman epistle are the same people, then they are also unsaved people.

We must also acknowledge that there is nothing in the text to prove conclusively that the weak is either a Christian or non Christian. It may very well be that the weak is a devout religious person who is being discipled in the Christian faith but who has not yet become convinced of it's truthfulness. This is of course my view. If that is true, then Paul is giving Christians (the strong in the faith) exhortation in how they should attempt to convert the polytheist idol worshipers, although the instructions in this regard are also in principle applicable to how Christians who are more learned in the faith should treat those Christians who are not so informed in the Christian faith.

I find that Paul's advice in Corinthians and in Romans concerns how Christians (the strong) are to relate to, or to welcome the weak brother or neighbor, and concerned 1) how to witness to such and how to win them to the Christian faith and 2) how to dissuade pagans from persecuting Christians. In this chapter Paul will have some things to say to each class of religious persons, both to the Christian and to the Pagan. 

In Paul's day religious people were mostly polytheistic idol worshipers. Should Christians speak condescendingly to them? Should they speak to them with utter contempt? Should they use the truth of monotheism and the Christian faith as a club to verbally beat the pagans? Should their discourse towards the pagan be nothing but severe denunciations? Did Paul in his encounters with the pagans speak this way? I believe that he looked upon them as "brothers," religious brothers, and this was part of what it meant to love your neighbors. When Paul was speaking in Athens he noticed all the many altars to the many gods and goddesses worshiped by the Greeks and Romans. To them he said:

"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, 'For we are also His offspring.'" (Acts 17: 26-28 nkjv)

In the 1st century CE, the Greco-Roman world saw a diverse range of polytheistic religious fraternities and cults. The members of these fraternities frequently called each other "brother." I don't think that when some of them became Christians that they then quit using that term towards those they used to fellowship in those pagan fraternities. I have already written at length on this point for one of the arguments used to prove that "the weak" (or impotent) were Christians is because Paul refers to them as "brothers." Paul often referred to his unbelieving Jews as "brothers." Someone might argue that he does this because they are part of the nation of Israel and were brothers ethnically. Who can doubt, however, that Paul addresses the Athenian idolaters as brothers when he says "we are all God's offspring"? He even says that everyone, of every ethnicity, comes from "one blood."

In the time of Paul many Christians were once idolaters. He says to the Thessalonian believers: "how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God" (I Thess. 1: 9 nkjv). To the Corinthian believers he said: "You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led." (I Cor. 12: 2 nkjv) In such a polytheistic world it was common for idol worshipers to be members of one or more of the religious cult fraternities. Often these pagan religious fraternities had group meetings and festive gatherings where there was feasting, wine drinking, and frolicking. They were a lot like we see in organizations today like the Moose Lodge or in veteran social clubs (VFW); After all many soldiers feel a sense of brotherhood with their fellow soldiers. Let us notice these words from Paul in First Corinthians:

"27 If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.” 29 “Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? 30 But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks? 31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 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: 27-33 nkjv)

In this narrative the ones who are inviting Christians to dinner are religious people, polytheists who are friends of Christians and who are members of pagan fraternities, the very ones which many Christians were likely once part of. When idolaters became Christians (monotheists) they did not stop being friends with these idolaters nor from calling them "brothers" as before, nor stop loving their neighbors. In the text above it is clear that those giving invitations are unbelievers and unsaved. 

Not only did Paul encourage Christians to accept invitations to go to festive gatherings of the polytheists but he no doubt encouraged them to invite polytheist brothers to dinners of Christians. This is in keeping with the words of Jesus who said:

"Then He also said to him who invited Him, “When you give a dinner or a supper, do not ask your friends, your brothers, your relatives, nor rich neighbors, lest they also invite you back, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind. And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you shall be repaid at the resurrection of the just.” (Luke 14: 12-14 nkjv)

Surely this instruction would include inviting those who are religiously blind, i.e. the pagans. Such gatherings with unbelievers could be the means of sharing the Christian faith with their pagan friends. Though Paul forbade Christians from "eating with" Christians who had been excluded from the church, yet he did not forbid them eating with unsaved false religionists. (I Cor. 5: 11) 

Clearly Paul did not discourage Christians from associating with pagans and other unbelievers. He says it is okay to accept invitations from pagans to festive gatherings; He does however give instructions that circumscribe Christian behavior in their interactions with them at those times. If it was okay for Christians to accept invites from pagans to festive gatherings, then it was not wrong for Christians to invite pagans to their own festive gatherings. Paul saw them as opportunities to share the scriptures and the gospel with them. Paul's message to the Corinthians said: "use such opportunities to save the pagans by using such gatherings to witness to them." He says he seeks to please the pagans, not to offend them, so that he might profit them and "that they might be saved." He tells Christians not to eat meat that has been identified by the pagan as having been offered to the idol god(s) he worships. Why? So that he is not reinforced in his idolatry and so that the Christian does not give the impression that he recognizes such gods. It was in order to 1) safeguard the conscience of the polytheist and to 2) not offend the non Christian religionist.  As Solomon said: "a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city." (Prove. 18: 19) 

Paul has no objection to Christians eating meat that came from the sacrifices of the pagans because they knew that the idols are no gods at all. In fact he says it is okay to eat such meats when bought in the marketplace. The only time he advises not eating pagan sacrificial meat is when the pagan says to the Christian "this meat was sacrificed to a god (idol)." In itself it would be right to eat such meat. But, seeing it could be interpreted by the pagan as countenancing his god(s) it ought not to be done in the presence of the pagan. The end reason for not eating such meat in those cases is in order not to wound the conscience of the pagan and offend him so as to make it harder for him to be won to Christ. 

In Romans chapter fourteen Paul is also concerned about the conscience of the weak, and speaks similarly there as he does in the above text in first Corinthians chapter ten. In the above text it is clear that the ones inviting Christians to dinner are not saved, Paul calling them unbelievers and saying he does all things in order to save such people. The problem is, however, most Bible commentaries want to say the weak ones in Romans chapter fourteen are believers, saved and born again, even though they are impotent in the faith and believe in keeping holy days and having religious diets, and even though the way he addresses them is the same way he addresses the unbelieving polytheist in Corinthians. The words "why is my liberty judged by another man's conscience" is the same in meaning as Paul's words written earlier in Corinthians when he says "if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble." (8: 13 nkjv) They are also the same in meaning with the words of Romans chapter fourteen which exhorted the strong "not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way." (vs. 13)

It is clear to me that the unbelievers who invite Christians to dine with them are the weak ones spoke of in first Corinthians and Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen.

Some bible teachers think that Christians ought not to dine with, or fellowship with, non Christian religious people. One of the verses discussed relative to this question is this:

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (II John 1: 10-11 kjv)

Does this mean that a Christian can attend a dinner by false religious people but cannot invite them to a dinner in your house? That would be incongruous and contradictory. Does it mean that a Christian who has family members who are of a false religion cannot welcome them into his home? Surely not. So, what does the apostle John mean then? From the context I believe that receiving the one "into your house" who has not the doctrine of Christ means "receive him not in your church in order to let him teach false doctrine." That is because the church likely met in the house of "the elect lady and her children" (vs. 1) to whom John wrote this short letter. All the first churches did not have their own meeting houses but met in their houses or perhaps in a rented space. (See Rom. 16: 5; 1 Cor. 16: 19; Col. 4:15; Philemon 1:2) So the apostle is warning the church not to give a platform to teach their anti Christian doctrine in their assemblies. 

Nor is John prohibiting showing Christian hospitality to some random traveler, or to strangers. Recall that Paul wrote: "Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares." (Heb. 13: 2 esv) 

“Friendship evangelism,” says bible teachers Dr. Warren Wiersbe, "around the table is a wonderful way to win people to Christ. Christians need to be neighborly and hospitable. The apostle is admonishing us not to receive or encourage false teachers who represent anti-christian groups, people who have left the church and are now trying to seduce others away from the truth. You can be sure that apostates use every opportunity they can to secure the endorsement of true Christians." (in Bible Exposition Commentary - New Testament)

John was not saying only born-again people should enter our houses! Second John 10 does not prohibit Christians from allowing cultists into their home in order to witness to them. Rather it is a prohibition against giving cultists a platform from which to teach false doctrine.

Wrote F.F. Bruce (emphasis mine):

"2 John 10 poses a problem for Scripture readers in that it appears to contradict an important Christian virtue, that of hospitality, not to mention the virtue of love. Is it love not to welcome a person into your house, even if you do not agree with his or her beliefs? Does not hospitality extend even to non-Christians, rather than just the Christians with whom we happen to agree? Furthermore, Christians struggle with knowing how far to take this verse. Does it mean that one may not invite inside the Jehovah’s Witness (or the Mormon) who just knocked at the door? Does it mean that it was wrong to say a polite “good morning” to that person?" (As cited from Precept-Austin commentary)

In both First Corinthians and Romans Paul instructs Christians on how to relate to the polytheists with whom he once associated and who are still neighbors and friends of Christians. Paul also has some exhortations and pleas to give to the weak (I.e. polytheists). That thesis is against those who believe that in addressing the weak brothers of those two epistles Paul is addressing weak Christians, people who are saved but still not fully convinced of certain truths. 

Paul basically in these exhortations to Christians, "the strong ones," deals with how to show forbearance and long-suffering towards idol worshipers, and false religionists, so that they might not be offended and thus reinforced in their paganism and have ill will towards Christianity. 

As we will see in the next chapters, the commentators totally miss the mark in saying that the differences of opinion between the weak and strong of Romans chapter fourteen and fifteen, dealing with observing religious diets and holy days, are not to be debated or discussed, they being "things which the Bible says nothing about." We will also see how these commentators err when they say that verse one means "disputable matters" and thinks that such matters should not be discussed but rather avoided. 

Essentials of Religion (xii)

Memorial Ceremonies

Another rite in the Christian religion is what is called "The Lord's Supper," "Communion," or the "Eucharist." It is similar to the Jewish Passover. Jesus instituted it the night of his betrayal during a celebration of the Passover with the twelve original apostles. He used the same unleavened bread and "fruit of the vine" (wine) that was used in the Passover to institute his Supper. The main passages describing this institution are these: Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, Luke 22:14-20, and from 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Let us cite the latter passage.

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes." (I Cor. 11: 23-26 nkjv)

This shows that the Lord's Supper was a ritual that was ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ to be a memorial of his sacrificial death. It was also intended to "proclaim the Lord's death." Both water baptism and the Lord's Supper teach Gospel truth by symbols and figures. However, water baptism is more of an initiation ritual rather than a memorial. Jesus said:

"Jesus answered them and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.” (John 6: 26-27 nkjv)

Here Jesus speaks of eating a food that does not perish and which gives and assures the one eating of eternal life. This imperishable food is set in contrast to "the loaves" of bread that Christ miraculously fed the multitude with previously and which bread was physical. In the old testament we read of where Elijah the prophet was supplied with food by an angel and that "he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights as far as Horeb, the mountain of God." (I Kings 19: 8 nkjv) The bread of Christ however lasts forever.

The food or bread which Jesus urges the people to pursue obtaining and eating is one which is not of the same kind, being spiritual food. Said Jesus further:

"Therefore they said to Him, “What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’ ” Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” Then they said to Him, “Lord, give us this bread always.” And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst." (30-35)

Jesus says that he is the bread of life for the hungry and the superior drink for the thirsty. So, how does one eat Christ? That is the chief question. Said Jesus further:

"I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” (48-51)

This eating of Christ is not a reference to partaking of the ritual of the Lord's Supper for that had not even been instituted as yet when Christ spoke these words. A person partakes of Christ when he receives him and the story of him into his heart and mind so that he, like food, becomes part of that person. This is done when a person believes in Christ and trusts him for salvation. Christ is taken into the soul and spirit as food is taken into the stomach. Jesus continued:

"52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.” (52-58)

Yes indeed, how do we eat Christ, eat his flesh, or body, and how do we drink in Christ, drink his blood? Certainly not literally for this would be cannibalism. Rather, it is metaphorical. Christ is received with the heart and mind and not with the mouth. The Lord's Supper that would be later instituted by Christ would become a picture or symbolic representation of this receiving of Christ into the soul. "The words design a spiritual eating of Christ by faith" (Gill's commentary). 

Eating the unleavened bread in the Lord's Supper is a picture and representation of a soul partaking of the flesh and body of Christ by faith in the sacrifice of Christ. Drinking the wine of the Supper is a picture of a soul partaking of the blood of Christ by faith in the blood. So the apostle Paul says - " Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Rom. 3: 25 kjv). Faith in the blood is a receiving of the blood, of experiencing the effects of the blood, of the blood being applied and appropriated. So we read of those who have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7: 14 nkjv) This is metaphorical of course. 

Recall how I referred to this text: "For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast..." (I Cor. 5: 7-8 nkjv) We keep the feast by daily feasting in our minds upon the sacrifice of Christ for our atonement for sin and reconciliation with God. Recall also how when we spoke of the Christian altar that we cited Hebrews 13: 10 where the apostle says emphatically "we have an altar" and speaks of Christians becoming "partakers of the altar."

By drinking in the words of God and of the gospel message and what they declare of Christ we eat Christ. Similarly we read where the prophet Jeremiah said: "Your words were found, and I ate them" (Jer. 15: 16 nkjv). Again, this is obviously a metaphor for we cannot imagine that he means that he ate the paper upon which were written the words of God.

Though Christians eat literal bread and drink literal wine in the Lord's Supper they only analogically eat the body of Christ and drink his blood. We see this exemplified in these words of Paul:

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food,  and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness." (I Cor. 10: 1-5 nkjv)

The food and drink that the Jews who were redeemed from bondage ate and drank was literal and yet it was also "spiritual" because it was a metaphor, the natural being emblematic of the spiritual. So too when Christians literally partake of the sacrifice of Christ, of his body and blood, they also are partaking of what is spiritual and only the inner spirit and mind of a man can eat what is spiritual. 

Solomon said: "he who is of a cheerful heart has a continual feast." (Prove. 15: 15) So does the Christian for he eats the word of God and of the true bread of life. Said the risen Lord: "if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me." (Rev. 3: 20 kjv) This inner feast takes place in the heart and mind, in the thoughts of every true believer. What a blessed feast is this!

Water baptism and the Lord's Supper are the leading two rituals of Christianity. They exceed in glory and significance in comparison to the rituals of all other religions. 

Essentials of Religion (xi)

In this chapter we will focus on another essential of religion, which is number nine on our original list, i.e. "Rites and Ceremonies." 

Most religions have Rites and Ceremonies. Christianity is no exception, although it has fewer rites than other religions, including what rites and ceremonies God ordained in the old testament (Judaism). What is the purpose of these rites and ceremonies? Many religions have an abundance of rituals and ceremonies. They have so many that they have become burdensome to the worshipers, especially if we add "religious traditions" to the category. In the old covenant that Jehovah made with the Israelites through Moses in the Torah there are numerous laws, statutes, ordinances, rituals, etc. But the Jewish leadership added numerous traditions to the religion God ordained and these often served to undermine the religion. Said Jesus to these leaders:

"For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." (Mark 7: 8-9,13 nkjv)

On the other hand, there are legitimate traditions. Wrote the apostle Paul:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." (II Thess. 2: 15 nkjv)

Christianity has traditions such as praying before meals, women praying with head coverings and men praying without them (I Cor. 11), greeting fellow believers with an embrace or "holy kiss" (Rom. 16: 16; etc.), "laying on of hands" (Heb. 6: 2), giving benedictions, etc. Catholics have other traditions, such as giving the sign of the cross on their breasts when praying. The danger with any religion is that there perhaps occurs a proliferation of such traditions which leads people to think that the essence of religion consists in these things. There is also the danger that numerous regulations will lead to people becoming legalistic and nitpicking. Jesus had much to say against the Pharisees for this very thing.

"For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments...Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.  Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!" (Matt. 23: 4-5; 23-24 nkjv)

In the early church there were some who thought that the Gentile believers should be circumcised and keep the old covenant's many traditions, and there was even a church council held in the Jerusalem church over the question and Peter gave what would become the general sentiment of the assembled apostles and elders. He asked: 

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" (Acts 15: 10 kjv)

That "yoke" was the observance of all the old testament's rules and regulations, and of the numerous traditions that men added to the divine instructions. 

In Christianity there is no proliferation of rules, for that would be contrary to "the simplicity" of it, as we have previously stated. (II Cor. 11: 3) We have seen where the apostle John said that the commandments of the Lord Jesus in the new covenant are not burdensome or grievous. Christ said that his "yoke is easy and his burden light." (Matt. 11: 30) That was in contrast to the Jew's religion in the time of Christ when the religious leaders did "bind heavy burdens" that are "hard to bear" on the worshipers. 

Other more major traditions or rites are water baptism, the Lord's Supper, meeting on the first day of the week for corporate worship, and the things done when assembled, such as singing, preaching, praying, and giving, etc. Some Christians also practice feet washing.  There are also ordination ceremonies for elders, bishops, deacons, etc. 

Purification Rituals

The only purification ritual in Christianity is water baptism. In Christian doctrine there is the visible symbol of moral and spiritual cleansing and the invisible. The invisible does not depend upon the visible, that is, one may be clean in spirit and mind without having been ceremoniously cleansed in water baptism. However, there is not complete agreement among Christians about baptism, some believing that it is essential for actual cleansing from sin while others think not, believing rather that it was intended to be a sign or symbol of salvation. The debate over how water baptism purifies from sin goes back to the day when John the Baptist (baptizer) began this rite. So we read:

"Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. For John had not yet been thrown into prison. Then there arose a dispute between some of John's disciples and the Jews about purification." (John 3: 23-25 nkjv)

Baptism has something to do with purification. The question is, however, "what is that something?" Some Christians believe that water baptism is the act wherein a sinner is cleansed of sin and guilt, but that is an error. The Orthodox view, however, says that water baptism is a rite that symbolizes that cleansing, and that it occurred prior to baptism when the sinner believed and repented. However, having said this we can say that water baptism does purify penitent sinners ceremoniously. What do we mean by that? Notice this text:

"Now a leper came to Him, imploring Him, kneeling down to Him and saying to Him, “If You are willing, You can make me clean.” Then Jesus, moved with compassion, stretched out His hand and touched him, and said to him, “I am willing; be cleansed.” As soon as He had spoken, immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed. And He strictly warned him and sent him away at once, and said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone; but go your way, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing those things which Moses commanded, as a testimony to them.” (Mark 1: 40-44 nkjv)

When Jesus told the leper who he had cleansed by his word to go and "offer for your cleansing the things which Moses commanded" he obviously does not mean that the man had to do those things in order to obtain his actual cleansing for he was already cleansed when Christ gave him this exhortation. So, it was a ceremonial cleansing. So too is water baptism a ceremonial cleansing, an outward sign of what had already occurred inwardly. It was a visible representation of what had occurred invisibly in the mind, soul, and spirit. That is what is meant in Jesus' telling the cleansed leper to go and offer for his cleansing "as a testimony." We see this in the case of the conversion of persecuting Saul who became the apostle Paul. So we read:

"And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'" (Acts 22: 16 nkjv)

Baptism washes away sin pictorially and ceremonially. It is a memorial rite. The apostle Peter wrote:

"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (I Peter 3: 21 kjv)

Baptism is not a bath to cleanse the body of dirt, but is a "like figure" of the internal cleansing of the soul, mind, and spirit that occurs in "the washing of regeneration" (Titus 3: 5) when a sinner believes and repents. It is a ceremonial cleansing designed to be a memorial or outward sign of inward grace. 

Water baptism serves several purposes. It is intended to symbolize and formalize a soul's salvation. It is a picture of that mystical washing of both the blood of Christ and of the word of God. Water baptism is a picture of being baptized in the spirit by the Holy Spirit. But it is also a "rite of passage" or rite of initiation. It is a way for the believer to publicly identify with Christ and his people.

Initiation Rites

Baptism represents a new beginning. Jesus himself was baptized, which fact shows that water baptism was not intended to wash away sins nor to make someone a child of God. Christ was already the Son of God before his baptism, but baptism did openly manifest or declare this fact. Baptism marks the formal beginning of the Christian life and is therefore an initiation rather than a graduation ceremony. With only a very few exceptions, such as with the Quakers, water baptism is practiced. 

Got Questions web page (See here) says this (emphasis mine):

"Historically, baptism has been used as a rite of initiation, showing the inductee’s entrance into a new belief or observance. Baptism in the church is also a token of the forgiveness of sins we experience at salvation—in much the same way that Pilate attempted to show his innocence by washing his hands with water (Matthew 27:24), Christians show they are cleansed by Christ when they are baptized by water."

Water baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, which is the core teaching of Christianity and of the Gospel. (Rom. 6: 3-6) When a believer is baptized he makes public the fact that he identifies with Christ, and believes in, the good news. This is why infants are not to be baptized. They are not able to publicly believe, repent, or confess their sins or their faith. There is not a single instance or command in the new testament for baptizing any but believers, certainly no infants. 

The Jews in the old testament had many purification rituals and baptisms. So Paul in Hebrews speaks of the ritualistic religion of the old testament, saying that it was "concerned only with foods and drinks, and various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation." (Heb. 9: 10 nkjv) These purification rituals are no longer practiced under the new covenant. However, Paul does speak of the Christian faith as including a plurality of baptisms. Wrote Paul:

"Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits." (Heb. 6: 1-3 nkjv)

Barnes' Notes on the Bible writes the following on the words "Of the doctrine of baptisms": 

"This is mentioned as the third element or principle of the Christian religion. The Jews made much of various kinds of "washings," which were called "baptisms;" see the note on Mark 7:4. It is supposed also, that they were in the practice of baptizing proselytes to their religion; see the note on Matthew 3:6. Since they made so much of various kinds of ablution, it was important that the true doctrine on the subject should be stated as one of the elements of the Christian religion, that they might be recalled from superstition, and that they might enjoy the benefits of what was designed to be an important aid to piety - the true doctrine of baptisms. It will be observed that the plural form is used here - "baptisms." There are two baptisms whose necessity is taught by the Christian religion - baptism by water, and by the Holy Spirit; the first of which is an emblem of the second."

I also think that by "the doctrine of baptisms" is a reference to the fact that in Christianity and in the new covenant is the reality to which all old covenant baptisms and washings and purification rituals pointed to. All external washings, whether of the old covenant or the new, are pictorial representations of internal washings. This internal cleansing is effected by "the washing of water by the word" (Eph. 5: 26), and by the mystical application of the blood of Christ, or an invisible baptism in blood. John the apostle spoke of confessing sinners and saints being cleansed from sin by the blood of Christ. (I John 1: 7) 

There are few rites and ceremonies in Christianity so that we may say that it is not a highly ritualistic religion. It has more than Islam, but far less than in Hinduism and many polytheistic religions. 

In the next chapter we will look at other rites and ceremonies in Christianity.

Essentials of Religion (x)

In this chapter we will speak of the seventh and tenth items in our original list of the essentials of religion, which are related, dealing with Religious Rules and Regulations and Oracles and Sacred Writings and will show how Christianity has the preeminence in this area. This would include a set of core beliefs or doctrine, inspired writings or holy books, and instruction concerning God and how to please him and how to find salvation and eternal life. It seems appropriate that in concluding this series that we should also lump together the other essentials of religion along with the two mentioned above, for again, they are all related. Those other essentials were Sacrifices, Rites and Ceremonies,  Holy or Feast Days, Religious Duties (religious life), Creed or Confession of Faith, and Belief and religious feelings. This will take a few chapters to address.

Such rules and regulations contain a moral code of conduct, statutes and laws, with their prescribed punishments. Included also is each religion's theology, or body of divinity, derived from accepted holy scriptures and from the teachings of the founders or representatives of each religion. For instance, in Christianity the ten commandments of the old testament form the basis of the new testament's code of conduct. On top of this are the teachings of Christ and his apostles. The Quran, the holy book of Islam, and the Hadith, which contain the Prophet Muhammad's sayings and actions, serve as foundational texts for Islamic ethics and morality. 

"Hindu codes of conduct, or ethics, are drawn from a wide range of sacred texts, with the Vedas, Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, and Ramayana being among the most prominent. These texts provide guidance on various aspects of life, including moral behavior, social practices, and spiritual principles." (AI) 

We could expand on the survey of the world's leading religions, but will focus on the Christian religion and on seeing how again Christianity is superior in its ethics, philosophy, theology, knowledge, wisdom, doctrine, laws, ideals, hopes and promises, and its visions of a better world.

Christianity is superior because it recognizes only the one true God, known in the old testament as Elohim, Yahweh (or Jehovah or "I Am That I Am"). In the Greek new testament he is more commonly known as "Father" ('pater'), "God" ('theos'), "Lord" ('kurios') or as the "Almighty," "Creator" or "Maker," etc. But God is also known as the "Son of God," and in a sense which makes him equal with God, or one with the Father. He too is called "God" in the new testament. (John 1:1; 20:28; Matt. 1: 23; 2 Peter 1:1; Heb. 1: 8) That does not mean, however, that Christianity believes that the Father and Son are two distinct gods. Just like a man and a woman are two and yet one, so too is Christ and the Father two and yet one. Christ said "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), which statement provoked many of the Jews to want to stone him for supposed blasphemy. The Christian creed confesses: "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." (I Cor. 8: 6 nkjv)

Christianity is superior in its beliefs because God has spoken to men through his Son.

"1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." (Heb. 1: 1-4 nkjv)

The books of the new testament are the result of this coming of Christ and of the giving of new divine oracles, either by himself or through the Holy Spirit via the apostles and new testament men of God. Jesus said:

"No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you." (John 15: 15 nkjv)

Luke the physician and historian wrote:

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen." (Acts 1: 1-2 kjv)

What greater source of faith, doctrine, ethics, and of the way of salvation is there? Muslims, though they confess that Jesus was a prophet, yet believe that Muhammad was greater and left a greater revelation. Also, though they believe Jesus revealed God's truth and will, accepting some of what is in the new testament, yet they pick and choose what they accept. Anything in the new testament books that contradicts Muslim teachings is cast aside under the pretense that the things they say that Jesus said are not actually his words, but additions to the new testament by uninspired men. They say this even though there is little historical evidence to prove their claims. There is far more reliability to the Gospel records than there is for the Quran. 

Islam, it may be argued, is but an offshoot of Christianity and has much in common with Arianism, a false doctrine that denies the deity of Christ the Son of God, and which error is believed by certain "Christian" sects such as the Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses. Muslims stumble at the idea that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, and that God is a Trinity of persons. They stumble at the idea that Jesus died on the cross, and that it was as a sacrifice for sin. They also deny the bodily resurrection of Christ, although they believe in a general resurrection of all men.

If you do a Google search with the words "Islam is a schism from Christianity" you will get "no" for an answer. But, this is because AI sees in the literature that Islam does not see itself as a schism from Christianity. But, many historians will affirm that it is such. However, we may similarly ask whether Mormonism and Catholicism are not also schisms from Christianity. Though these sects have cast off several new testament teachings, yet they still hold to some of them, and were once a part of the Christian community.

Islam believes that Jesus was a prophet and yet they do not have any way to know where to find his teachings, for everything that claims to be his teachings, such as the new testament, are to them suspect and unreliable. Why would God, however, preserve Muhammad's teachings but not Jesus' teachings? When a Muslim reads the four Christian Gospels (that give the direct teachings of Jesus), whatever he thinks is in agreement with Islam he claims was really spoken by Jesus, but whatever contradicts Islam is rejected. Just because Islam rejects the idea of being an offshoot of Christianity does not mean that it is not, and the same may be said in regard to Mormonism, Catholicism, Unitarianism, etc. 

So, what are the core beliefs of Christianity? Do they practice all that was commanded in the old testament? Do they follow the ten commandments? What parts of the old testament's laws do they practice?

The ten commandments are accepted by Christians except that the way of observing the Sabbath as a holy day has changed. The apostles taught that it was no longer binding on Christians of the new covenant to keep the weekly Sabbath, yet many Christians do observe the weekly Sabbath, some on Saturday, and some on Sunday, believing that the Sabbath day was changed from the seventh day to the first day of the week. But the apostles taught that the old testament Sabbath or Sabbaths (for there were other kinds) now became something to be enjoyed and observed by the Christian every day. This is because Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath. He said: “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. Therefore, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” (Luke 6:5) He also said "come unto me all you who labor and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11: 28), that is, give them Sabbath rest. This rest is enjoyed every day. This is the true Sabbath of which the old covenant weekly Sabbath was but an inferior type. Wrote Paul to the Hebrews: "There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God." (Heb. 4: 9 niv) This Sabbath rest however is not the weekly Sabbath, as the context shows, but is what the Christian celebrates every day. 

In fact, Christians have no holy days, nor any animal sacrifices, nor any feasts, nor any special religious diets. Said Paul to the Galatians who were being tempted to go back under the old covenant: "You observe days and months and seasons and years...I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (Gal. 4: 10-11 nkjv) To the Colossians he said: "So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ." (Col. 2: 16-17 nkjv) 

Though many Christians keep a weekly Sabbath, and observe holy days such as Christmas and Easter, these are done without any commandment to do so. Paul said that Christians have something better, affirming that those who observe such holidays only have a "shadow" of things, but do not have "the substance." Those who have the antitype (literal reality) are superior to those who only have the type (symbol). For the Christian every day is a holy day. Only the weak religionist observes days and dietary laws, the strong ones, i.e. Christians, see every day as the same. (Rom. 14: 5) This is also true in regard to religious feasts. We have already spoken of how Christians are exhorted to "keep the Passover feast" (I Cor. 5: 8) when he partakes of Christ in his inner spirit, soul and mind, when he enjoys God's presence and his Gospel. All the seven feasts God ordained to be observed by his ancient people are no longer observed for they have been superseded by the reality to which they pointed. 

In addition to keeping the ten commandments Christians believe that they are summed up in two commandments. So we read of this encounter by a lawyer with Christ:

"Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying,  "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"  Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 22: 35-40 nkjv)

Jesus also summed up the old testament law and Prophets with what is called the "golden rule," given in these words:

"Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." (Matt. 7: 12 nkjv)

As we will see, Christians do have a superior moral code as summed up in these words of Christ. They are not onerous either, although a man's depravity may make a man think they are such. The apostle John said: "For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome." (I John 5: 3 nkjv) 

The new testament does condemn various vices and promotes various virtues. For instance, it values humility and denounces pride and hubris. It promotes heavenly wisdom and condemns worldly or devilish wisdom. It promotes knowledge, but condemns "knowledge falsely so called." (I Tim. 6: 20) It also says that knowledge without love is useless. (I Cor. 13: 2) It affirms that the knowledge of God is to be prioritized above all other knowledge. It promotes love to God and neighbor as we have seen, but it also gives us a clear definition of love. Wrote Paul by the Spirit:

"Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails." (I Cor. 13: 4-8 nkjv)

The Christian code of conduct and system of belief are not complicated but simple. So the apostle Paul warned Christians about having their "minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" (II Cor. 11: 3 nkjv)

We also see the superiority of Christ's moral code in what are called the "beatitudes." These are given in Christ's first sermon in Matthew chapter five.

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (vs. 3-12 nkjv)

What an excellent and superior code of conduct does Christianity have!