1689 Confession & Eternal Justification

Some Hardshell Baptists have embraced the doctrinal error of what is called "eternal justification," a teaching that says that the elect were justified in eternity past since it was in eternity past that God made the decision to justify the elect through the work of Christ. This was an error that some embraced in the 17th century, such as Joseph Hussey, Samuel Richardson, and later by John Gill in the 18th century. 

The "Primitive Baptists" (Hardshells) however have historically claimed allegiance to the 1689 London Confession of faith. They had a convention in 1900 in Fulton, Kentucky where they stated that they still held to that confession. Yet, as we have seen, they began to deny many of that confession's teachings so that many of them today no longer claim what their forefathers claimed in the "Fulton Confession." This is true with the question of eternal justification, an error that is denied by the 1689 confession. Hardshells have been eager to embrace this error because they have digressed so far that they now believe that one does not have to be a believer in Jesus (have evangelical faith) in order to be saved and justified. The older divines who embraced eternal justification, however, did not go so far as to deny the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation.

Here is what the 1689 Confession says:

"God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit in time does actually apply Christ to them." ("Of Justification" chapter 11)

The Hardshells today say that "justification by faith" as taught in Romans and elsewhere has nothing to do with being eternally saved. That, however, is no minor error.

Regeneration Is Conversion

A Challenge

I dare any advocate of the born again (regenerated) before faith view to list every passage in the bible that he thinks discusses that experience and then examine each to see what the context tells us about that experience. The chief end of this procedure will be to show how in most, if not all, of these texts there is clear reference to conversion through faith and repentance. In other words, the apostles described regeneration or rebirth in terms of conversion.

What scriptures are used to support the idea that regeneration precedes faith and conversion? Which are used to show how regeneration is not conversion? 

In a previous article of mine titled "PaedoBaptist Shedd on Regeneration & Means" (See here) I cited from an article titled "Regeneration" by well known theologian William G. T. Shedd (See here) who said:

  

"The divines of the seventeenth century very generally do not distinguish between regeneration and conversion, but employ the two as synonyms. Owen does this continually (On the Spirit 3.5), and Charnock likewise (Attributes, Practical Atheism). The Westminster Creed does not use the term regeneration. Instead of it, it employs the term vocation or effectual calling. This comprises the entire work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption. Under it belongs everything pertaining to the process of salvation, from the first step of conviction of sin to the act of saving faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Fisher, On the Catechism)."

Why did these great theologians think that regeneration and conversion were the same? Is it not because the new testament demonstrates that fact?

From Bible Hub (here) we have an article titled "Regeneration and Conversion" by J. M. Frost. In that article he writes:

"Regeneration is internal, conversion external. The one is hidden except as manifested in the other. Each is a change. The one applies to character, the other to conduct; one applies to the heart, the other to the manner of life." 

I find that definition lacking and not in keeping with the scriptures nor with the "divines of the seventeenth century." How can he say that conversion is not internal as well as external? How can he say that biblical regeneration is "hidden"? If regeneration and conversion are words denoting the same change of nature and state, then regeneration is not hidden. Further, how can he say that conversion does not "apply to the heart"? How can he say that conversion does not apply to "character"? The older Calvinists would never divide regeneration and conversion in this manner.

He says further:

"Regeneration is a change wrought of God in man's heart; conversion is a change wrought by the man himself in his own life. Hence the man is turned, and turns himself; the engine is reversed, and reverses itself. These two great truths, rather two sides of one truth, should be held distinct and in their proper relation."

Conversion is a change wrought by man and not by God? Oh my, that simply will not do! It is not what one discovers when he reads the new testament and sees how the apostles spoke of them as denoting the same experience. According to these words of Frost a man is not converted by God! That simply is ludicrous, reductio ad absurdum. Why should regeneration and conversion "be held distinct and in their proper relation"? Lots of harm has come from this kind of thinking. It has led to Hyper Calvinism.

In "Reflections of a Puritan Theologian on Regeneration and Conversion" (See here) by Michael Haykin we have these words:

"When Keach defined Conversion he included what he had already said about Regeneration and thus appears to blur the distinction between the two terms." 

This confirms what Shedd said about the divines of the seventeenth century. I am also sure that the reason why Keach defined conversion as regeneration is because they denoted the same experience.

Haykin says further:

"As Keach rightly realized, this debate about the nature of Justification had immensely practical consequences. In the Antinomian schema, that style of preaching where the lost are explicitly urged to turn to Christ becomes quite unnecessary. What is needed in preaching is simply the proclamation of what God has done in Christ. God will use that to awaken the elect and show them what he has already done for them. Keach's pulpit ministry, however, was characterized by vigorous evangelism and regular calls to the unconverted to respond to Christ in faith. According to C. H. Spurgeon, in speaking to the lost Keach was "intensely direct, solemn, and impressive, not flinching to declare the terrors of the Lord, nor veiling the freeness of divine grace." 

Divorcing conversion from regeneration leads to preaching that does not earnestly appeal to the lost.

Wrote Frost:

"Ferguson’s solution to the possible hazard of divorcing Christ from the application of salvation to the individual is not to dismantle the ordo, casting it aside as some overly speculative, logically driven theological construction from the distant past. Instead, Ferguson suggests, drawing from Calvin, that union with Christ should be the framework within which we must formulate and understand the ministry of the Spirit to the individual believer."

I have cited from Calvin many times to show that he believed that sinners were born again by faith because faith is the instrument of uniting the sinner with Christ and once this union has been effected, then spiritual life and regeneration and conversion occur or begin.

Death of Dr. John MacArthur

I learned today that John MacArthur passed away yesterday of pneumonia (same as my own father). He was 86 and had a blessed life of service to the Lord. Though I had some disagreements with him on Bible doctrine, I nevertheless found him very sound generally and an excellent teacher.

Lost Books of the Bible

The Bible refers to certain other books that have been lost and theologians often do not know how to deal with this fact. Many will say "if they were inspired, then they would have been preserved and been made part of the canon of scripture." However, I find that response untenable and the result of circular reasoning. Are we to believe that all those lost Books (see list below) were not wholly true? If we took the view that they were not preserved because they had some errors, then again that is a case of begging the question. It is a view that is forced upon those who hold some untenable views on the divine preservation of inspired writings. Let us apply this line of reasoning to this text about the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. Wrote the apostle John:

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." (John 21: 25 kjv)

Many things that Jesus taught were not preserved. Does that mean that those other things were not true or inspired facts? I know that John is speaking not of other books that had been written but were lost, but of books that were not written but which could have been written. However, the illogical reasoning used against affirming that all inspired books have been preserved is still refuted by this affirmation by the apostle John. 

Many Christians are ignorant of how we got our Bible and why certain books were either included or excluded. In discussions about canonicity we see a lot of circular reasoning. Some say, for instance, that the Book of Esther is inspired because it is in the Bible. But, that begs the question as to whether it should be in the Bible or not. As many of my readers know, I deny, as did many in the early church and among many of the Hebrew Rabbis, that Esther was inspired. Athanasius did not include it in his Biblical canon list. I have a link on this blog for my writings on the Book of Esther. I also have my doubts about the Song of Solomon being inspired. That does not mean that such books have no value. 

Lost Books Referenced in The Bible (See here)

Book of the Wars of the Lord – “Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, “Waheb in Suphah, and the valleys of the Arnon, and the slope of the valleys that extends to the seat of Ar, and leans to the border of Moab.” (Num 21:14-15)

Book of Jasher – “And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?” (Joshua 10:13)

Book of Samuel on Kingship - “Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home.” (1 Samuel 10:25)

Acts of Solomon – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?” (1 Kings 11:41)

Chronicles of the Kings of Israel – “And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned, behold, they are written in the book of the Chronicles of the kings of Israel.“ (1 Kings 14:19; etc.)

Chronicles of the Kings of Judah – “Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah?” (1 Kings 14:29)

Book of the Kings of Israel – “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written in the chronicles of Jehu the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel." (2 Chronicles 20:34). 

This is mentioned on many occasions, though under a more expanded name, as the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, see 2 Chronicles 16:11; etc.

Annals of King David – “Joab the son of Zeruiah began to count, but did not finish. Yet wrath came upon Israel for this, and the number was not entered in the Chronicles of King David.” (1Chronicles 27:24)

Book of Nathan the Prophet, Book of Gad the Seer – “Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer.” (1 Chronicles 29:29)

History of Nathan the Prophet – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the History of Nathan the prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chronicles 9:29)

Prophecy of Ahijah – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the History of Nathan the prophet, and in the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chronicles 9:29)

Visions of Iddo the Seer – “Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, from first to last, are they not written in the history of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the Visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat?” (2 Chronicles 9:29) This is also mentioned in 2 Chronicles 9:29) 

Iddo Genealogies – “Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, according to genealogical enrollment?” (2 Chronicles 12:15) 

 

Story of the Prophet Iddo – “The rest of the acts of Abijah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the Story of the prophet Iddo.” (2 Chronicles 13:22)

Book of Shemaiah the Prophet – “Now the acts of Rehoboam, from first to last, are they not written in the records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, according to genealogical enrollment?” (2 Chronicles 12:15). 

 

Book of Jehu – “Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Jehu the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel." (2 Chronicles 20:34)

Sayings of the Seers – “And his prayer, and how God was moved by his entreaty, and all his sin and his faithlessness, and the sites on which he built high places and set up the Asherim and the images, before he humbled himself, behold, they are written in the Chronicles of the Seers.” (2 Chronicles 33:19)

Non-canonical books quoted or alluded to: 

Book of Enoch (Jude 1:4, 1:6, 1:13, 1:14–15, 2 Peter 2:4; 3:13, and John 7:38)

Epistle to the Laodiceans (Colossians 4:16 "read the epistle from Laodicea")

Paul's letter to the Corinthians before 1 Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:9 "I wrote to you in my letter...") 

Paul’s letter to the Ephesians before Ephesians (Ephesians 3:3 “As I wrote afore in few words...”)

1 Corinthians 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle. 

Wrote Dr. Gill (commentary:

"Not in this same epistle, and in (1 Corinthians 5:2 1 Corinthians 5:7) as some think; for what is here observed is not written in either of those verses, but in some other epistle he had sent them before, as is clear from ( 1 Corinthians 5:11 ) which either came not to hand, or else was neglected by them; and so what he here says may be considered as a reproof to them, for taking no notice of his advice; but continuing to show respect to the incestuous person, though he in a former epistle had advised them to the contrary: no doubt the apostle wrote other epistles to the Corinthians, besides those that are in being; see (2 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Corinthians 10:11) nor does such a supposition at all detract from the perfection of Scripture; for not all that were written by him were by divine inspiration; and as many as were so, and were necessary for the perfection of the canon of Scripture, and to instruct us in the whole counsel of God, have been preserved; nor is this any contradiction to this epistle's being his first to this church; for though it might not be his first to them, yet it is the first to them extant with us, and therefore so called: what he had written to them in another epistle was not."

Again, we see a case of begging the question by Dr. Gill. So, the other epistles of Paul that are lost were not inspired truth? Gill says that since those other epistles were lost, therefore they were not written by divine inspiration? What would happen if those epistles were discovered today? 

We also discover that the Corinthians wrote a letter to Paul for he says "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote" (I Cor. 7: 1). Of course, we do not claim that a letter from the church to Paul was inspired. 

In Paul's letter to the church at Collosae, he says, "And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea" (Col 4:16 ESV). What was this letter from Laodicea? What happened to it?

In summation I simply want all to understand that there is a lot more involved in the issue of canonicity and inspired writings than most realize. Most Christians do not have the time nor inclination to search out this matter. Most preachers also are not inclined to do so. They all simply trust that the books in the King James Bible are inspired simply because they are in there! 

What think ye?

Weak Brothers XXX

We are coming to the conclusion of my lengthy series on identifying who are the "weak brothers" of Romans and First Corinthians. My thesis has affirmed that "weak brothers" is not a reference to saved Christian brothers but to the religious neighbors and friends of Christians, especially those who were once of the same religious fraternities of Christians before they became Christians, when they were polytheists. As I have pointed out, it was very common for the many religious cults of the Greco-Roman world to view their fellow cult members as "brothers." When polytheists became Christians they continued to interact with their former Pagan cult brothers and no doubt continued to speak to them in fraternal terms. 

In fact, throughout history we see various groups of people who referred to those in the group as brothers. So we have "the fraternal order of police," or "the fraternal order eagles," etc. We also have "fraternities" in colleges and universities. We see group members calling each other "brother" in religious groups, political groups, cultural groups, etc. Many labor unions also use the term. When I was a young man working in a factory that made electrical components I was a member of "the international brotherhood of electrical workers." Many Communists call their fellow Communists "comrade" or "brother." Even in everyday speech I have myself said to another person - "brother, I..." Sometimes I say like Jesus "friend I do you no harm" (Matt. 20: 13), but could just as well have said "brother I do you no harm" or "neighbor I do you no harm" or some other such term. Black men often call each other "Bro." Therefore, it is not an undeniable proof to say that the weak ones are saved Christians because Paul refers to them as "brothers." I have cited other theologians who agree with me, even though my view is the minority view. But again, I insist that the majority is not always right, and all agree with this fact. 

The learned Dr. Albert Barnes in his commentary on I Corinthians 8: 11 writes:

"Shall the weak brother - The uninformed and ignorant Christian. That it means real Christian there can be no doubt. Because: (1) It is the usual term by which Christians are designated - the endearing name of "brother;" and, (2) The scope of the passage requires it so to be understood; see the note at Romans 14:20."

I totally disagree with what Barnes here says. First, "the scope of the passage" does not require it to be so understood. I have shown that to be a fact. Ironically, the context of Romans and Corinthians shows that the weak brothers are not Christians. Consider the single fact that Paul says he labors that he might "gain" or "save" the weak. (I Cor. 9: 22) That statement alone disproves what Barnes and others of his view say. That text puts the burden of proof back on Barnes and those of his view.

Consider also the fact that the evidence against the view of Barnes is cumulative. In other words, as I have previously stated, there are a dozen solid arguments to prove that the weak brothers are not true born again believers and yet there is only one argument to prove that the weak brothers are truly saved. This fact is clear and undeniable and I am amazed that so many learned men have failed to see it. Thankfully there are others who like I see how the weak brothers cannot possibly be saved believers. Recall also the fact that Paul says that the weak brother may perish (one for whom Christ died). (I Cor. 8: 11) At the end of this series or book I will list those arguments and set them over against the one single argument that the other view has.

Another thing to reiterate is how Paul uses the term "brother" to mean "neighbor." For instance, what Paul says about the weak brothers is sandwiched between the following two verses:

"Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13: 10 nkjv)

"Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, leading to edification." (Rom. 15: 2 nkjv)

By neighbor is not meant your fellow Christian as Barnes indicated. Your neighbor is every other human being as Jesus taught when he conversed with a lawyer who asked Jesus - “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10: 29 nkjv) Jesus then told the story of the good Samaritan who helped a wounded man, a man that a priest and a Levite walked by without helping him. Jesus then asked the lawyer - "So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?” And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.” (vs. 36-37) The scribes and Pharisees, like this lawyer, esteemed no one a neighbor except they who were their friends and benefactors, or were of their own nation or particular sect. Jesus said the second greatest commandment was to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Mark 12: 31) That includes every human being; And, every person is to be shown brotherly love. 

There are several new testament texts which speak of "brotherly love." (Rom. 12: 10; I Thess. 4: 9; Heb. 13: 1) Though this is especially true of those who are children of God by a new birth, it is also true in regard to those who are naturally the children of God. Recall that Paul said to the Athenian idolaters - "we are all God's offspring as your own poets have said." (Acts 17: 28) Peter speaks of showing "brotherly kindness" to others.

"But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love." (II Peter 1: 5-8 nkjv)

Again, though brotherly kindness is especially applicable to the relationship of believers towards other believers who are in the family of God, yet it cannot be limited to that. Surely believers are to show brotherly kindness to all men. The following verses cannot be limited to saved members of the family of God nor to brothers in the flesh.

"None of them can by any means redeem his brother, Nor give to God a ransom for him." (Psa. 49: 7 nkjv)

"A brother offended is harder to win than a strong city, And contentions are like the bars of a castle." (Prov. 18: 19 NKJV)

"But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire." Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." (Matt. 5: 22-24 nkjv)

"Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye?" (Matt. 7: 4 nkjv)

"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psa. 133: 1 kjv)

Solomon also speaks of the "brethren of the poor" (Prov. 19: 7). He could have also spoken of those who are "brothers in arms," or of the brotherhood that is evident among soldiers. 

Paul also spoke of "false brethren" (II Cor. 11: 26; Gal. 2: 4), which I take to denote those who have professed Christ and been baptized but who were not genuine believers. Jesus referred to these kinds of Christians in the parable of the sower and the seed (or of the four soil types). The shallow or stony ground hearer is a temporary believer who is a mere professor of Christ but whose faith was not genuine. Of these Jesus said:

"But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles." (Matt. 13: 20-21 nkjv) 

These temporary believers never believed out of a "good and honest heart" as did the good ground hearers. Their faith did not endure, which revealed that they never had true faith to begin with. The seed that was sown in their hearts did not take DEEP root, which it always does in those who are truly born again by the word. The apostle John said that true saving faith does not only endure for a little while, but endures all the way. He wrote:

"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (I John 5: 4-5 nkjv)

If what John here says is true (and it is), then the shallow ground hearer who stumbles and falls away from his professed faith, cannot be a true believer, for his faith was overcome by trials and persecutions. His faith being temporary was not "born of God." 

Jesus said to Peter when he foretold of Peter's denial of Christ: "But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren." (Luke 22: 32 nkjv)

The shallow ground hearer did not have a faith that did not fail. Judas Iscariot had this shallow kind of faith. He never was saved but was a devil from the beginning. Yet, he was called "brother" by Christ and the other apostles. Paul also, when writing to the Galatian churches, and speaking of "false brothers," and of the fact that some in the church had shown that they were never truly saved, nevertheless still calls them "brothers" (Gal. 6: 1). It is a common belief among Bible teachers that many who are members of Christian churches have never been truly saved for they did not believe with the whole heart, but with half a heart. Their faith was shallow and dead. Paul calls such professing Christians "false" (Greek pseudo) meaning "fake." Paul spoke of Timothy's faith as being "unfeigned" (II Tim. 1: 5), meaning it was genuine. 

Notice also how it is the stony ground hearer who "stumbles" just as the weak brothers.

I have given several examples for why the weak are called "brothers" by the apostle. I have suggested that the Romans and Corinthians who became Christians were once polytheists and regular attendees of the religious festivals of those various Pagan cults and fraternities and as such called their fellow idol worshipers "brother." I believe that once they became Christian that they still called their former Pagan cult members "brother." I have also suggested that those Pagans who were being discipled by Christians, or who were attending the meetings of Christians, were often called "brothers." These were the catechumens. I have also spoken of how all who are members of the church are called brothers even though they are hypocrites who were never saved. 

Many Christians view those of certain Christian cults as not really saved. Many think Mormons are not really Christians. Many think Catholics are not really Christians. Etc. Yet, we still out of charity call them "brothers." 

The Cumulative Proof

As I have stated already, there are a number of good arguments for viewing the weak brothers as not truly born again believers and that there is only one argument for viewing them as truly saved people. So, in concluding this series let me now list those several arguments for my thesis which says that the weak brothers are not true born again believers.

1. The weak need to be saved, therefore they are lost brothers

2. "Weak" means sick, impotent, or unsound and are not adjectives for Christians

3. The weak may eternally perish and this cannot be true of real Christians

4. The weak are sick in faith, in religion and this cannot be true of real Christians

5. The weak still think that idols are real deities and this cannot be true of real Christians

6. The weak think that observing religious diets and holy days are essentials for salvation

7. The weak are sick and defiled in conscience and in religious knowledge

8. The weak judge slaves of another Lord (Christ); not fellow servants their own idol lord

9. The weak's religious regulations are from "self-imposed religion" and not Christianity

10. The weak condemn the strong for insisting that there is one God and one Lord alone

11. The weak condemn the strong for not observing dietary laws or holy days

12. The strong are the saved and therefore their opposites (the weak) are not saved

Weigh those arguments against the singular argument of the counter thesis which says the weak brothers are true Christians simply because they are called "brothers." I rest my case.

Weak Brothers XXIX

Let us return to our commentary of Romans chapter fourteen. We will cite the remainder of chapter fourteen along with verses one and two of chapter fifteen.

"21 It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin. (15) 1 We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. 2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification."

All this is applicable in those cases where a religiously impaired sinner is offended by some Christian practice to the point where he will not listen to the Christian message. This is not always the case, however. In fact, I suspect that in most cases the weak brothers are not so offended (led into sin) that they become hostile towards the religiously healthy Christian. Rarely does a Christian's eating forbidden food, such as pork, prove to be a stumbling block to the religiously sick being discipled in the Christian faith. Yet it does happen, especially among the religiously intolerant.

In Corinthians and Romans the weak Brothers are distinguished by their scruples and doubts. In Corinthians they are wavering between a belief in trinitarian monotheism and a belief in polytheism. However, in Romans they are in doubt about Christian liberty relative to various kinds of abstinence. Ironically they don't seem to be in doubt, however, about observing religious diets and holy days. Are the weak brothers in doubt (or have scruples) about dietary laws and holy day observances? If so, then how can they legitimately condemn the strong ones for not believing in dietary laws and holy days? More situational irony.

If I am talking about religion to a polytheist or idol worshiper (discipling), or a brother from some other non Christian religion, or even one who is a member of a Christian cult, and being one who has a religious diet and observes holy days, should I argue with him over that issue or should I first dialogue with him about polytheism versus monotheism? If you have to pick your battles with such religiously sick folks, do it over what is the most important issue and not over secondary issues. I think that is what Paul is saying to the strong ones in the Christian faith.

For a Christian to drink wine (or any alcoholic beverage) is not forbidden in scripture. Getting drunk is condemned. Christians have the right or liberty to drink wine moderately. However, if a Christian thinks it may hurt his Christian witness to drink in the presence of someone who thinks it is sin, then it may be better not to drink in the presence of such. On the other hand, having a beer with a lost sinner may be a way to develop repertoire and good hospitable feelings with a religiously sick soul and be a good vantage point to begin speaking of Christ and talking religion. The same may be said about such things as cigarette smoking, playing the lottery, watching certain movies, etc.

The one designated as "he who doubts is condemned if he eats" is the weak, sick, and impotent religionist. He who doubts whether it is right to eat all kinds of food will be "condemned" in his conscience if he eats what he thinks is forbidden by his lord or god. Also, his self condemnation in conscience is due to not eating from proper faith. He violates the principle that says "whatever is not of faith is sin." The weak brother sins when he eats food he thinks is forbidden by God and this is because he does not act in true belief, in keeping with the faith of Christians. When Paul says the weak brother eats not out of faith he is identifying him as not a man of the Christian faith. A true new testament Christian does not have doubts about keeping dietary laws and observing holy days, or in his being involved in all kinds of man-made religious rituals and regulations, for he understands that all God requires for salvation is faith in God and his Messiah, and a turning away from all other gods. A professing Christian who doubts Christian liberty manifests that his faith is defective, and if defective, then lost.

So, what about Christians who observe Christmas and Easter? What about Catholics who observe many more such holy days and advocate for religious diets? Are they weak brothers? Are those not the very kind of things Paul has in mind in Romans chapter fourteen? Does my thesis force me to say that those professing Christians are really not saved? Does it force me to say that they are religiously and spiritually sick? No, first of all because those who keep those religious holidays do not all say that such is a necessary requirement for pleasing God or being saved. If, however, they claim that it is sin to not observe those holidays religiously and claim that eating certain meats on certain holy days is sin, then they show that they are sick brothers and have little understanding of the true faith of Christians. The fact is, a Christian who keeps such holy days is not spiritually better than those who don't, and vice versa. The same thing may be said about Sabbath keeping. Many Christians believe that they are still obligated to keep a weekly Sabbath (holy day), and some think the Sabbath is the seventh day (Saturday) while others say it was changed to Sunday. The truth however, as we have seen from the writings of the apostle Paul, that Christians are no longer under the laws of the Sabbath. (See Col. 2: 16) The old testament had several Sabbaths, and all of them are fulfilled in Christ who is the Christian Sabbath. Every day is a holy Sabbath for the Christian for he rests in Jesus everyday. It is the weak who think that observing days commends one to God.

Notice Paul's conclusion in Romans 15: 1-2. As I have said before, Paul uses the term "brother" not as a Christian brother, but as a brother in Adam. He says in his conclusion "let everyone of us please his neighbor for his good to edification." Notice that he did not use the term "brother" but used the word "neighbor." I think that is further proof that by "brother" he means your neighbor, especially your religious neighbor. It at least shows that what Paul says about the weak is applicable to people who are simply your neighbors. In commenting upon this verse Barnes has the following to say in his commentary:

"Please his neighbour - That is, all other persons, but especially the friends of the Redeemer. The word "neighbor" here has special reference to the members of the church. It is often used, however, in a much larger sense; see Luke 10:36."

I find this comment to reveal the bias of Barnes and others who say that the weak brothers are fellow Christians who are very immature in Christian doctrine. He gives a different take on Paul's use of the term "neighbor" than is warranted. Why does he say that "neighbor" in this text "has special reference to the members of the church"? He is saying this because he has taken the position that the use of the word "brother" denotes a true born again child of God. Yet, he does say the word "neighbor" "is often used in a much larger sense." So too is the word "brother" used in a larger sense! Other commentators also follow this lead of Barnes and try to equate "neighbor" with "brother" and therefore limit "neighbor" to mean spiritual "brother" and yet neighbor is not equated with those who are spiritual or Christian brothers. Rather than being forced to limit "neighbor" to born again believers because of their false view on who are the weak brothers, they should rather see "brother" as denoting your neighbor and therefore means your brother in Adam.

The above words of the text may be applied to Christian conduct generally, as exhorting that they are not to make their own happiness or gratification their standard of conduct, but are rather to seek the welfare of others. "Love seeks not her own" said Paul (I Cor. 13: 5); Also, "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth (or enrichment)" (I Cor. 10: 24). We are to seek to please everyone and yet in such a way as not to be a "man pleaser." (Gal. 1: 10) When pleasing men involves doing things that are forbidden by scripture, then Christians are not to please men. Recall that Paul said:

"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." (I Cor. 9: 22 kjv)

What does Paul mean by himself becoming weak? Recall that he had just said that to the Jews he became a Jew in order that he might more easily save the Jew. To those not under law, he acted as if he were not under law. First, let us speak of what he does not mean. He certainly does not mean that he changed his beliefs in each instance. He also does not mean to endorse the erroneous views of unbelieving Jews or Gentiles by becoming as they. Barnes in his commentary writes:

"I complied with their customs. I conformed to them in my dress, habits, manner of life, and even in the services of religion. I abstained from food which they deemed it their duty to abstain from; and where, if I had partaken of it, I should have offended them. Paul did not do this to gratify himself, or them, but to do them good. And Paul's example should teach us not to make it the main business of life to gratify ourselves, and it should teach us not to lacerate the feelings of others; not to excite their prejudices needlessly; not to offend them where it will do no good. If truth offends people, we cannot help it. But in matters of ceremony, and dress, and habits, and customs, and forms, we should be willing to conform to them, as far as can be done, and for the sole purpose of saving their souls."

I don't think that this is quite what Paul had in mind by becoming like his audiences. I can't imagine that Paul changed his clothes when he went from one area to another! I also don't think that he "complied with" the "customs" of the various peoples he came among, for many of those customs would be contrary to his own principles and beliefs. Paul is not saying that a good soul winner and evangelist must be a kind of cultural or religious chameleon. He is not saying that missionaries should abide by the maxim that says - "when in Rome do as the Romans." I think Paul was Paul wherever he went. 

I rather think what Paul had in mind is how he dialogued and reasoned with those of other religious beliefs. He did what any wise soul winner will do. He first found common ground, things he could agree with among the various peoples he mentions, and made that his starting point for further discussion. He certainly did this very thing in speaking to the religiously devout polytheists in Athens, as we have seen. On this point we have these observations from Google AI:

"In a debate, establishing common ground is a crucial first step for productive discussion and potential persuasion. It involves identifying shared values, beliefs, or areas of agreement, even if those areas are narrow, as a foundation for building arguments and rebuttals. By focusing on what is shared, debaters can create a more respectful and collaborative atmosphere, making it easier to engage with opposing viewpoints and potentially influence the other person's perspective." 

I think Paul is saying that he puts himself into the mindset of Jews, Gentiles, and other religiously impaired folks and then conducts himself like Socrates by asking questions of those folks, and just such questions as are apt to make them defend their views and to see the weaknesses of their religious views. I also think he informed those folks about things they knew nothing about, such as the life and death and resurrection of Christ, and of God's Oracles. 

Interesting are the following comments by Ellicott on the above text (emphasis mine):

"To the weak.—We can scarcely take this (as some do) to refer to weak Christians, of whom he has spoken in 1 Corinthians 8. The whole passage treats of the attitude which the Apostle assumed towards various classes outside the Christian Church, that he might gain them as converts...The word “save” means “win over to Christianity,” as in 1 Corinthians 7:16, and is used here instead of the previous word “gain,” being repeated to prevent any possible perversion of the Apostle’s meaning as to “gaining men.”" (Ellicott's Commentary)

On the other hand we find these words by Meyer in his commentary:

"To understand the phrase as denoting non-Christians from their lack of the higher powers of Christian life, especially of strength of conscience (Rückert, de Wette, Osiander, Hofmann), is against the formal use of οἱ ἀσθενεῖς, and cannot be justified by Romans 5:6." (Meyer's commentary)

So, here we see the disagreement over who are intended by those Paul calls weak or sickly brothers. Meyer does not prove that the weak are saved folks and what he says about the Greek word "astheneis" is not correct as we have previously shown. When Paul says that the weak need to be gained or saved he shows that the weak are not Christians. I believe Ellicott is correct and Meyer is not.

JFB's commentary says:

"gain the weak—that is, establish, instead of being a stumbling-block to inexperienced Christians (1Co 8:7) Ro 14:1, "Weak in the faith." Alford thinks the "weak" are not Christians at all, for these have been already "won"; but those outside the Church, who are yet "without strength" to believe (Ro 5:6)." (JFB commentary) 

So, we may add Dean Alford to those who agree with my own view.

Weak Brothers XXVIII

"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)

One of the errors of the religiously weak and sickly is that they believe that observing religious diets and holy days are essentials for finding favor with God. Paul says this to them: "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) Jesus also said: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.” (Matt. 15: 11 nkjv) In the above text in Romans Paul says "for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who serves Christ in these things is acceptable to God and approved by men." So, the issues separating the weak from the strong are doctrinal and have to do with what God requires for salvation, for being "acceptable to God." We have already shown how the things that Paul discusses relative to the religiously sick ones has to do with salvation. Recall that he said "through your knowledge shall the weak brother perish for whom Christ died" (I Cor. 8: 11) and in the above text he speaks of "destroying the work of God for the sake of food." So, those commentators who say that the "disputable" things of Romans chapter fourteen are mere opinions dealing with minor, tertiary, unimportant matters are wrong. If that were so, then why would salvation be at stake?

Paul's Message to the Weak

 

1. Religious diets and observing holy days avail nothing.

2. Nothing is unclean in itself, all food being pure in themselves.

3. Do not judge and condemn the Christian for not observing diets and holy days.

4. Who are you to judge another Lord's servants? Only his Lord may judge him.

5. The idols are not real, there being but one God

6. There is but one Lord and he is Jesus Christ

7. Be fully persuaded of your beliefs

Paul's Message to the Strong

1. Receive kindly the religiously weak

2. Do not offend the weak ones

3. Do not put stumbling blocks in the way of the weak coming to true faith

4. Seek the good and salvation of the weak above all things

5. Be sensitive to the infirmities of the weak and lead them gently to truth

6. Do not wound the religious conscience of the weak

7. Show the love of Christ toward the weak

8. Do some religious things in private and not in the presence of the weak

9. Do not provoke the weak to sin but provoke to love and good works

10. Be fully persuaded of your beliefs

The Solution

The solution is simple. The weak are not to utterly judge the religiously strong for eating all meats and for not observing holy days, allowing the Lord of the strong (Jesus) to judge his own servants. The strong are not to show contempt for the weak but should be concerned with them being saved from destruction. If the weak are offended by seeing the strong eat meat he thinks is forbidden, then the strong should not eat meat in their presence. Paul makes these summary statements:

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

"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." (Rom. 14: 21 nkjv)

"Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God." (vs. 22)

"Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil."

The apostle Paul wrote:

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (I Thess. 5: 22 kjv) I think this is the basic message to the strong ones (saved people) in their behavior towards the religiously sick, to those in false belief. Some might think this is hypocrisy, to eat pork for instance in private but not in public. Some also might think it is a case of living in fear of the weak. But, that is not the apostle Paul's perspective. He thinks that it shows love towards the spiritually sick to not do anything to hinder a sinner's coming to Christ and embracing the Christian faith. A companion text of Paul for the above text would be these words:

"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. Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations— “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using—according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh." (Col. 2: 16-23 nkjv)

This text should be studied in conjunction with the following text, one which we have already cited more than once.

"But then, indeed, when you did not know God, you served those which by nature are not gods. But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain." (Gal. 4: 8-11 nkjv)

Both of these texts are addressed to Gentile Christians who had once been polytheists and worshiped other idols and gods. Though they may have some application to Christian Jews, they are not the chief subject. Paul says to the Galatian believers "you served those which by nature are not gods." They also refer to false religion, i.e. "self-imposed religion." They also mention the keeping of various religious rules and regulations, such as keeping religious diets and observing religious holy days and feasts, or a religious calendar, all which are summed up in the words "do not touch, do not taste, do not handle." These represent man made religious rules in three categories. Some things are forbidden to touch, such as the Jews had about touching the bodies of the dead and becoming unclean. (Numb. 19: 13) Further, once a Jew touched a dead body, either human or animal, everything he touches likewise becomes unclean. (Hag. 2: 13; Lev. 11: 24-38; Isa. 52: 11) Some things are not to be tasted or eaten. Finally, some things are not to be handled. False religion, and even the religion of God for the Jews under the old covenant, has numerous regulations about such things. 

The above texts which describe false religion are applicable to those called "weak brothers." When Paul says "let no man judge you in food or drink or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths" we see this clearly. In Romans chapter fourteen it is the weak and sickly brothers who are judging the strong brothers for not observing such rules and "regulations" which are "according to the commandments and doctrines of men" and part of their "self-imposed religion" intended to "neglect of the body" and defeat the "indulgence of the flesh." However, keeping those various regulations are "of no value" in combating the flesh. It is the weak brothers who "turn again to the weak and beggarly elements" and involve themselves in "observing days and months and seasons and years." These are descriptions not of saved people, but of lost religious people. It will also include professing Christians who enter the church without having been born again or truly saved.

Yes, Christians do have things that they are not to touch, taste, or handle. For instance, the scriptures mention "touching" a woman in sexual intercourse (I Cor. 7: 1) and they forbid touching any woman in this sense outside of marriage. Christians are also not to touch the evil world, morally and spiritually. That is the way for them to "keep unspotted from the world." (James 1: 27) So Paul cites the Oracle of God, saying: "Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” (II Cor. 6: 17 nkjv)

Wrote Gill in his commentary:

"and touch not the unclean thing. The allusion is to several laws under the former dispensation, which forbid touching many things which were accounted unclean, whereby pollution was contracted, and the persons were obliged to a ceremonial cleansing; see Leviticus 5:2 Numbers 19:11. It has no regard to touching, tasting, and eating any sort of food, which was forbid as unclean by the ceremonial law; for the difference between meats clean and unclean was now removed; but if anything is particularly designed by the unclean thing, it seems to be idolatry, and to be a prohibition of joining with worshippers of idols in their idolatrous practices, whereby a moral pollution is contracted; since in the beginning of the former verse it is said, "what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?" though it is rather intended in general, to forbid all communion and fellowship with unclean persons and things, not to touch them, to come nigh them, or have anything to do with them."

The saints at Colossae were being told that it was wrong to eat certain foods, etc. They were told that keeping these man-made rules was the key to spirituality. The practices Paul is alluding to appear to be forms of asceticism and legalism. Spirituality is not the result of keeping a multitude of man-made religious rules and regulations. Many religions, and some Christian cults, are full of such man-made ordinances. 

The things which the Christian is not to involve himself in are mentioned by the apostle Peter when he writes:

"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles--when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (I Peter 4: 3 nkjv)

These are unclean things which the Christian is not to "touch, taste, or handle" in coming out from among false religionists and coming to the Lord. Involvement in such things is to walk no more according to the principles of the world, or of "self-imposed religion." Some things have the appearance of being spiritual, religious, or holy, but in reality are but facades. Paul mentions that some of the religious rules to which Christians are no longer subject dealt with abstinence of various kinds, and of ways to "neglect the body." 

The weak and sickly brothers are they who are still bound to these man-made religious rules and traditions. They think that holiness and nearness to God is measured by how many such rules a man keeps.

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.