Title: Should we say “Maybe I’m weak?” (Rom14,1Cor8-10)
Discussing Romans 14, Larry recently said:
I continue to believe that identifying who is “strong” and who is “weak” is irrelevant to the overall point.
The idea is that while each believes he has the mature, knowledgeable position, he should admit that he might be weak “Maybe I’m weak.” Each believes the other is likely weak and should treat him on that basis by not judging or despising.
The biggest appeal of this view is that you don’t have to call anyone weak. In another thread, Romans 14: A Presuppositional approach - “When you need it, you can’t use it.”, I explained that a major limitation to using Rom14 is that to apply it to a controversy, you have label one side as “weak,” which he will refuse to accept. This view was offered to address that limitation. Don’t call anyone weak. It’s fine if both sides think they’re strong.
#1 reason to reject this view: It sees advantage (perhaps even moral good) in not telling others that they are weak(wrong). Some argue that calling someone weak violates the rule not to despise the weak. Mark Nanos calls this Luther’s trap (Romans 14 forbids looking down on the weak, but then insults him by calling him weak).
In short, this view advises, “Don’t tell anyone they are weak. It won’t help (understatement).” But Paul neither gave nor followed that advice. He called one group weak. (Both Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8).
#2 reason to reject this view: It sees understanding who is weak as unimportant. You can still ask for a lot of what Romans 14 asks. Love and respect one another. Allow Jesus to be the Master of others.
But there are commands in this passage that are specific (As Larry said, “‘judge’ or ‘hold with contempt’ might be an indicator of who is who.”) Also, Paul says (Rom15:1) that when we are strong, we should take on the weaknesses of those are weak. That only makes sense if you know when you’re the strong one. If we allow both to consider themselves strong, then they need to obey this command. How could the meat-refusers in Rome pick up and carry the meat-eating of the meat-eaters?
- 124 views
I could ask this in the other longer Romans 14 thread, but since this thread has been started, and my question fits into it, I'll ask it here.
Does Paul use the words weak and strong in the same way in Romans 14 as he used them in Romans 4:19-20? In those verses, he talked about Abraham and said that Abraham would have been "weak in faith" if he had considered his body too old to have a child. His weakness would have been doubting God's word. Instead, he was "strong in faith" because he believed the promise of God.
Romans 14:23 makes a contrast between doubting and having faith. What was doubted in regards to eating meat? It seems that those who refused to eat it were doubting that God allowed it, and if they ate it while doubting, they would be sinning because they would be going against their conscience which considered eating it to be wrong. The strong, on the other hand, had confidence in God's word that eating it was allowed. Would that be an accurate assessment?
Dan, I can’t help but think you are throwing $100 at a $1 problem. I think it is totally fine for someone to say, “Maybe I’m weak.” I would encourage such an approach. I am not sure I have the authority to put that label on someone else.
Yes, Paul called one side weak. He was an apostle who was inspired. When we are inspired, we are free to use that inspiration to call people whatever the Spirit inspires us to call them. But I am not sure how far that extends, nor the helpfulness of it.
It still seems a whole lot better to talk about the actual issues, not the labels.
In general, it appears that the weak are those whose conscience is more restric
tive on things God allows, so they can be tempted to sit in judgment on those who differ (i.e., “You are doing something God forbids; you are in sin.”). On the other hand, the strong appear to be those whose conscience is less restrictive on things God allows, so they can be tempted to disdain or treat with contempt those who differ (i.e., “how can you be so silly and legalistic?”)
On the other hand, the strong might be the ones who are more restrictive because they can abstain and the weak might be those who are less restrictive because they do not abstain.
The one who demands he is the strong one might in fact be trapped in spiritual pride; he can’t imagine someone is so uninformed and obtuse as not to see what is so obvious. The one who admits he is weak might be exercising the humility of admitting he doesn’t know it all.
In the end, the response is essentially the same.
Dan, I can’t help but think you are throwing $100 at a $1 problem. I think it is totally fine for someone to say, “Maybe I’m weak.” I would encourage such an approach. I am not sure I have the authority to put that label on someone else.
Yes, Paul called one side weak. He was an apostle who was inspired. When we are inspired, we are free to use that inspiration to call people whatever the Spirit inspires us to call them. But I am not sure how far that extends, nor the helpfulness of it.
Haha. More like $100,000. I will look past your suggestion that I'm too interested in what Paul meant.
Paul was different in his authority. But he was still dealing with people. Opinionated people.
Recently, I sat down with a dozen pastors and ministry leaders in my hometown (one by one). I told them a story of a new church member, Fred. The short version: Fred says he has "written 8 papers on why Christmas trees are wrong." The survey was an open ended discussion, but at some point, I asked everyone: Is Fred a "weaker brother," in the Romans 14 sense? Every leader said, Yes. Then I asked them, as you discuss this with Fred, would you call him "weak?" They answered "No," as though the suggestion was crazy. Without exception, they felt that calling him weak “would be insulting,” “is not helpful,” “would derail the conversation,” and “implies I think he’s wrong.” One said, “No. Well, if I knew him really well, maybe. I might if he was judging others. But if I didn’t know him well, I would not.”
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul called them "weak" 5 times. No effort to avoid it. Why do we think we should avoid this term when Paul didn't? I think it’s because we understand "weak" differently than Paul did.
Does Paul use the words weak and strong in the same way in Romans 14 as he used them in Romans 4:19-20?
Probably. There are several key words that show up in both passages. Doubt, judge, weak(weakened), strong(strengthened). A couple commentators use that passage and others in Romans to claim that Paul's primary purpose in writing Romans was to write Romans 14. (I think Rom14 was very important to Paul. The whole book seems to drive at Jew-Gentile unity and Rom14 is a big part of that.)
These phrases: (4:19)"weaken in faith," (4:20)"grew strong in his faith," and (14:1)"weak in faith" to all use a dative form of the noun "faith." I take them all as Datives of Means. So "weaken by means of faith," "grew strong by means of faith," and "weak by means of faith." The same as Hebrews writer about Sarah: "By faith Sarah herself received power(strength,ability) to conceive." I'm not alone in that.
Probably. There are several key words that show up in both passages. Doubt, judge, weak(weakened), strong(strengthened).
Thanks for answering the question. The aspect of the question that I felt was on topic was related to the negativity of being considered weak. Romans 4 seems to put much more negativity on weakness than what I see in Romans 14, even to the point of describing the weakness as unbelief. That's why I wanted to check if the word "weak" was being used in the same way or if the difference was just in the different situations being dealt with.
That's why I wanted to check if the word "weak" was being used in the same way or if the difference was just in the different situations being dealt with.
In a sense, the meaning is the same: “weak”=unable.
However, there are differences. Inability to do what? In ch.4, it’s inability to conceive. In ch.14, it’s inability to eat meat, drink wine, or treat all days alike.
In ch.4, faith brings ability. In ch.14, faith brings inability.
I will look past your suggestion that I’m too interested in what Paul meant.
I don’t think that is a fair representation of what I said.
In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul called them “weak” 5 times. No effort to avoid it. Why do we think we should avoid this term when Paul didn’t? I think it’s because we understand “weak” differently than Paul did.
As you said, “Paul was different in his authority.” Maybe we understand “weak” differently than he did. Or maybe we don’t. We also don’t see Paul having individual conversations but writing apostolic letters to the body. And we don’t know other places where he might have avoided it. Wouldn’t you agree that at times, you can say things publicly that you should say differently in private?
Why aren’t your ministry friends correct on this?
Perhaps you are the weaker brother here, holding a position that Scripture does not require. :D Can you allow me to differ with you on this without judging me as unfaithful to Scripture?
Seriously. how is a conversation with Fred helped by “You are a weaker brother.” I agree if you knew him really well you could suggest that. But the goal is not to put a label on Fred, but to help Fred see that believers of equal good conscience can differ with him on this.
However, there are differences. Inability to do what? In ch.4, it’s inability to conceive. In ch.14, it’s inability to eat meat, drink wine, or treat all days alike.
Wait. I don't see the weakness in chapter 4 as "inability to conceive." Their weakness was their inability to believe God's promise that they would conceive. They were weak if they considered their bodies to be dead and unable to reproduce instead of believing God. Verse 20 says that Abraham's strength was that "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief."
So the weakness in Romans 4 is flat-out unbelief. Isn't it? You could call it "inability to believe," but it's still referred to as unbelief.
Kevin: So the weakness in Romans 4 is flat-out unbelief. Isn't it? You could call it "inability to believe," but it's still referred to as unbelief.
Here's how William Sanday () put it:
ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει. τῇ πίστει is here usually taken as dative of respect [Sphere], ‘he was strengthened in his faith.’ i.e., ‘his faith was strengthened or confirmed.’ In favor of this would be μὴ ἀσθενήσας τῇ πίστει above; and the surrounding terms (διεκρίθη, πληροφορηθεὶς) might seem to point to a mental process. But it is tempting to make τῇ πίστει instrumental or causal like τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ to which it stands in immediate antithesis: ἐνεδυναμώθη τῇ πίστει would then = ‘he was endowed with power by means of his faith.’ . . . And we can hardly doubt that the passage was taken in this way by the author of Heb., who appears to have had it directly in mind: comp. Heb 11:11,12.
I am not sure whether Romans 4 employs a dative of sphere or means. And I'm unsure whether Paul really wrote it with anticipation of what he wanted to say in ch14.
I don’t think that is a fair representation of what I said.
Sorry, I meant that to be funnier than it came across.
...Maybe we understand “weak” differently than he did. Or maybe we don’t. We also don’t see Paul having individual conversations but writing apostolic letters to the body. And we don’t know other places where he might have avoided it. Wouldn’t you agree that at times, you can say things publicly that you should say differently in private?
I agree public & private are different. It is easy to come across wrong in writing and accidentally insult others (see above). Wisdom tells us to be more careful in letters or emails than in person. In live conversation, we can see it if we accidentally insult someone and deal with it. Yet, this was Paul in a letter, where wisdom would suggest he should be most cautious not to insult--and he's using a word that many think is insulting enough that they don't want to use it.
Also, a close relationship tends to allow for more frank speech, not less. The remainder of 1 Corinthians (which teacher is best?, apostolic defense, etc.) suggests that Paul had a somewhat questionable relationship with them. Most believe that Paul had never been to the church in Rome when he wrote Romans. If anything, that should make him more cautious to use a potentially insulting word for half of a group he was trying to unite.
Why aren’t your ministry friends correct on this?
Lots of reasons. Here, I simply want to point out that Paul did NOT choose the "let everyone think they're strong" path. And many today do. That should (IMHO) raise questions about whether Paul is saying something different that we suppose.
Perhaps you are the weaker brother here, holding a position that Scripture does not require. :D Can you allow me to differ with you on this without judging me as unfaithful to Scripture?
I guess I'll allow it. :D
Seriously. how is a conversation with Fred helped by “You are a weaker brother.” I agree if you knew him really well you could suggest that. But the goal is not to put a label on Fred, but to help Fred see that believers of equal good conscience can differ with him on this.
This question is where I was hoping we would go. But I was hoping it would be more like, "Ok - that's interesting that Paul ventured boldly by saying what we all think would be insulting and of no benefit. Now that I look at it, that's weird. Is he using 'weak' in a way we don't? How would the conversation with Fred (or Rajesh) be better if we could call them 'weak'?"
Sorry, I meant that to be funnier than it came across.
Fair enough. My apologies.
I agree public & private are different.
I have always found it easier to be more direct in a public address (such as a message or a group talk, even in coaching sports) than in a private conversation. I find it both easier to do and easier to take.
Here, I simply want to point out that Paul did NOT choose the “let everyone think they’re strong” path.
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting we do that.
How would the. conversation with Fred (or Rajesh) be better if we could call them ‘weak’?”
We must also consider how it would be worse if we called them “weak.” There are so many variables and it is hard to give a blanket answer.
My position remains that it is unnecessary either way for our purposes.
Go back to COVID where there was legitimate divergence among Christians on things like masks, masks in church, gathering together, gathering in smaller groups, etc.
Was labeling one side strong and one side weak the key to church unity? I don’t think so. And I don’t think there was a particularly clear answer on which was which. So even if I were inclined to label them, which would I have labeled? My burden was to demonstrate that Christians of equal good will could differ and live together in respect without judgment and without contempt.
We might do the same if Rajesh ever answers the question about Sunday activities. Can Christians shop on Sunday? Can they play sports or exercise on Sunday afternoon? Can they eat out at a restaurant? What are the limits of “regarding the day above the others”?
Your last two paragraphs are built on the idea that "weak"=immature or wrong. I do not believe that.
"Weak" for Paul meant to be unable [to eat, to drink, to x,y,z] or to believe one is unable. "Strong" meant to believe one is able to do x,y,x without being/feeling guilty.
So at the end of Paul's anti-temple-eating passage (1Cor10:1-21), Paul says to the temple-eaters (v21), "You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons." In Greek, it says, "οὐ δύνασθε τραπέζης κυρίου μετέχειν καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων" ("Not you are strong to partake in the Lord's table and the table of demons.")
Arguing against eating in the Corinthian temple meant telling them they are "not strong" or "not able." Sometimes, the right position is the weak one.
That's my view: "I am weak" does not mean "I'm not a very good Christian." It means "I can't."
-----
IF (that's a big if, I know) people like Rajesh understood this meaning of weak, they would welcome being called weak. Rajesh, you're weak. "Yeah, of course I am. I can't treat every day alike."
Re: COVID: Do you believe you can't sit close with a mask? You're weak. Do you believe you can't forgo meeting as a body because of a cold? You "can't"--you're weak. No immaturity should be implied or inferred by such statements. They're just what you can't do--sometimes because of your faith.
Re: COVID: Do you believe you can't sit close with a mask? You're weak. Do you believe you can't forgo meeting as a body because of a cold? You "can't"--you're weak. No immaturity should be implied or inferred by such statements. They're just what you can't do--sometimes because of your faith.
Would this mean that we also can't see "infirmities of the weak" in Romans 15:1 as negative either? We usually think of an infirmity as something negative, but with your logic, it would just be "inabilities of the unable." Correct?
Well, look at it in Greek. https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/15/1/s_1061001
"Infirmities" is not a great translation. "Weak" can indeed refer to physical illness/handicap. But in this passage, it clearly doesn't.
NASB translates Rom15:1: "Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength, and not just please ourselves."
"Bear" doesn't mean tolerate, it means "pick up and carry." He means, "take on the weaknesses of the weak."
Discussion