Click here to read today’s passage on Bible Gateway.
Today’s passage about those “weak” and “strong” in faith is a very good and important question, but also a one that can easily be misinterpreted by not understanding the issues here correctly. Moo does a great job of explaining things, so I’ll be quoting from him a lot today. First of all, on understanding work meanings, which is VITAL in this passage:
“If we are to understand the point of this section as a whole, we must recognize that the phrase “whose faith is weak” (lit., “one who is weak with respect to faith”) has a special nuance in this context. “Faith” refers not directly to one’s belief generally but to one’s convictions about what that faith allows him or her to do. The weak in faith are not necessarily lesser Christians than the strong. They are simply those who do not think their faith allows them to do certain things that the strong feel free to do. What Paul wants the strong to do is not simply extend grudging tolerance to the weak, but to welcome them (which means to receive or accept into one’s society, home, circle of acquaintance). They should not allow differences over “disputable matters” to interfere with full fellowship in the body of Christ.”[1]
Additionally, a VERY important thing to understand about the “weak”:
“Paul’s exhortation to strong believers to accept the weak makes clear that the weak are not holding a view Paul thinks is antithetical to the gospel. As we know from his other letters (e.g., Galatians), Paul can be harsh toward Christians who hold views contrary to the gospel of God. If the weak thought their obedience to the law was necessary for their salvation, Paul would do more than simply urge the strong to accept them into Christian fellowship.” [2] (emphasis mine)
It’s very important to realize this point: Paul doesn’t pull any punches if someone (or a group of people) is forsaking the Gospel or trying to earn salvation through works. Based on what Paul says, it seems like what is going on here is more than just Jews that don’t want to stop following the Law. Paul urges in people like that (in 1 Corinthians) that they should just eat meat sacrificed to idols because it is just meat – there is nothing wrong with it. So what makes this situation different? It seems like in Rome, surrounded by pagan worship, there were people that were abstaining from these things not because they necessarily wanted to keep the Law or earn salvation, but because they wanted to remain pure in a fiercely pagan society:
“The classic biblical example of such care to avoid pagan contamination is Daniel, who “resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Dan. 1:8; see also 10:3). It would not be surprising if many, perhaps most, Jews in Rome, surrounded by pagans, had decided to adopt similar practices in order to maintain their purity before the Lord.” [3]
The main problem? Not what people were choosing to do or not do, but their attitudes toward those who decide to do something different:
“Both are engaged in an activity that is God’s alone: “We will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” … he is teaching that every believer is ultimately answerable to God, not to other believers, for their conduct in this life.” [4]
This is the point of the passage: you are not fit to judge others on matters on which the Bible is neutral. It is NECESSARY that this statement include the caveat on the end. Most of the misinterpretation that occurs in this passage consists of taking the issues here and extending them out to EVERYTHING, meaning that if someone confronts you for something that is clearly wrong, you just pull the “who are you to judge” card. We NEED to make distinctions here. Moo again:
“In other words, if Christians from a Jewish background want to keep the Sabbath and abstain from meat and wine, that is fine. But if other Christians neglect the Sabbath and eat meat and drink wine, that is fine too. Both positions are “acceptable” Christian positions, and believers who hold each position should not condemn the others.
Nevertheless—and this is a vital point—we cannot extend the tolerance Paul demands here to all issues. As we have noted, he takes a different approach toward people who are violating a clear teaching of the gospel. Such people are not to be tolerated but corrected, and, if they do not repent, are to be cut off from the life of the church (see 1 Cor. 5). We must, then, be careful to apply the tolerance of Romans 14:1–15:13 to issues similar to the one Paul treats here.” [5] (emphasis mine)
It definitely takes thinking and consideration: we should never jump to judge others. We must always examine ourselves and our hearts first. But we must also never forsake our duty to correct those that are straying in order that they might be restored to fellowship.
Questions? Comments?
Today’s passage about those “weak” and “strong” in faith is a very good and important question, but also a one that can easily be misinterpreted by not understanding the issues here correctly. Moo does a great job of explaining things, so I’ll be quoting from him a lot today. First of all, on understanding work meanings, which is VITAL in this passage:
“If we are to understand the point of this section as a whole, we must recognize that the phrase “whose faith is weak” (lit., “one who is weak with respect to faith”) has a special nuance in this context. “Faith” refers not directly to one’s belief generally but to one’s convictions about what that faith allows him or her to do. The weak in faith are not necessarily lesser Christians than the strong. They are simply those who do not think their faith allows them to do certain things that the strong feel free to do. What Paul wants the strong to do is not simply extend grudging tolerance to the weak, but to welcome them (which means to receive or accept into one’s society, home, circle of acquaintance). They should not allow differences over “disputable matters” to interfere with full fellowship in the body of Christ.”[1]
Additionally, a VERY important thing to understand about the “weak”:
“Paul’s exhortation to strong believers to accept the weak makes clear that the weak are not holding a view Paul thinks is antithetical to the gospel. As we know from his other letters (e.g., Galatians), Paul can be harsh toward Christians who hold views contrary to the gospel of God. If the weak thought their obedience to the law was necessary for their salvation, Paul would do more than simply urge the strong to accept them into Christian fellowship.” [2] (emphasis mine)
It’s very important to realize this point: Paul doesn’t pull any punches if someone (or a group of people) is forsaking the Gospel or trying to earn salvation through works. Based on what Paul says, it seems like what is going on here is more than just Jews that don’t want to stop following the Law. Paul urges in people like that (in 1 Corinthians) that they should just eat meat sacrificed to idols because it is just meat – there is nothing wrong with it. So what makes this situation different? It seems like in Rome, surrounded by pagan worship, there were people that were abstaining from these things not because they necessarily wanted to keep the Law or earn salvation, but because they wanted to remain pure in a fiercely pagan society:
“The classic biblical example of such care to avoid pagan contamination is Daniel, who “resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Dan. 1:8; see also 10:3). It would not be surprising if many, perhaps most, Jews in Rome, surrounded by pagans, had decided to adopt similar practices in order to maintain their purity before the Lord.” [3]
The main problem? Not what people were choosing to do or not do, but their attitudes toward those who decide to do something different:
“Both are engaged in an activity that is God’s alone: “We will all stand before God’s judgment seat.” … he is teaching that every believer is ultimately answerable to God, not to other believers, for their conduct in this life.” [4]
This is the point of the passage: you are not fit to judge others on matters on which the Bible is neutral. It is NECESSARY that this statement include the caveat on the end. Most of the misinterpretation that occurs in this passage consists of taking the issues here and extending them out to EVERYTHING, meaning that if someone confronts you for something that is clearly wrong, you just pull the “who are you to judge” card. We NEED to make distinctions here. Moo again:
“In other words, if Christians from a Jewish background want to keep the Sabbath and abstain from meat and wine, that is fine. But if other Christians neglect the Sabbath and eat meat and drink wine, that is fine too. Both positions are “acceptable” Christian positions, and believers who hold each position should not condemn the others.
Nevertheless—and this is a vital point—we cannot extend the tolerance Paul demands here to all issues. As we have noted, he takes a different approach toward people who are violating a clear teaching of the gospel. Such people are not to be tolerated but corrected, and, if they do not repent, are to be cut off from the life of the church (see 1 Cor. 5). We must, then, be careful to apply the tolerance of Romans 14:1–15:13 to issues similar to the one Paul treats here.” [5] (emphasis mine)
It definitely takes thinking and consideration: we should never jump to judge others. We must always examine ourselves and our hearts first. But we must also never forsake our duty to correct those that are straying in order that they might be restored to fellowship.
Questions? Comments?
RSS Feed
