As I am going to be presenting this in our Sabbath School class this Sabbath, please help me to prepare by discussing this here.

Daryl,
I'm in the same boat as you.

Nothing like being in the same boat!!!

Sunday's is about The Weak Brother.

http://www.ssnet.org/qrtrly/eng/10c/less13.html#sun

What is the practical definition of a weak brother?

It won't be easy to explain what is said in these chapters.

This is the common opinion, from a commentary:

If this passage had to do with OT clean/unclean laws, why were some abstaining completely from meat? This would not make any sense.
Besides, why does Paul mention "wine"? We know that there was no prohibition in the OT about wine, but just an instruction for a temporary abstention from it during the Nazarite vow (and the Nazarite vow was voluntary and optional, not obligatory). So this couldn't be the reason why the weak brethren were being offended.
OTOH, we know that wine was used in libations in pagan worship, so this makes things a little clearer.

Now let's examine a parallel passage in 1 Cor. 8:

"Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. ... However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 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. But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble" (1 Cor. 8:4-13).

Parallels between Rom. 14 and 1 Cor. 8:

Rom. 14:1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak
1 Cor. 8:9 Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak.

Rom. 14:21 It is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.
1 Cor. 8:13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.

Rom. 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink
1 Cor. 8:8 Food will not commend us to God.

Rom. 14:15 If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died.
1 Cor. 8:11 And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.

So, this parallel passage makes a couple of things clear:

1) Paul definitely is not speaking of OT food laws, but of foods sacrificed to idols, and
2) The weak brother is the brother who is easily offended, or who can easily stumble (abandon the faith).

So the context of Paul's discussion is this: both meat and wine were commonly offered to idols in the Roman world, with portions of those offerings then sold in the marketplace. Some Christians wondered if it was morally right for Christians to partake of such meat and wine that had previously been sacrificed to pagan gods (Rom. 14:21). In view of the impossibility to know which meats had been sacrificed to idols, some were abstaining completely from meat (Rom. 14:2).
Paul explained that "an idol is nothing" (1 Corinthians 8:4) in clarifying that it was permissible to eat meats that had been sacrificed to an idol. Paul continued: "However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled" (v. 7).
When a believer bought meat in the market or was invited to a dinner at which meat was served, it was not necessary to determine whether it had been offered to an idol (1 Cor. 10:25-27). But Paul’s concern was that the brethren be considerate of others who believed differently. He taught that in such cases it was better not to eat meat than to risk causing offense (1 Corinthians 8:13; 10:28).
It is interesting to note that in Acts 14:13, the only passage in which the type of animal sacrificed to idols is mentioned, it was oxen -clean animals- that were about to be offered.

At least it wont be easy to explain from a standard adventist point of view..

How would we respond to the following at the bottom of Sunday's?

Add me to the boat!

While I tend to believe that it is a parallel passage, I'm not convinced that this position is incontrovertible. Do we have any objective proof that Paul was talking about food sacrificed to idols in Rom 14?

But in any case, I believe 1Cor 8 gives us how "strong" people should react under all circumstances: I will never again _______, lest I make my brother stumble. The overriding concern, IMO, is not whether we eat or drink, but whether or not we have internalized Christ's attitude of sacrificING anything and everything for others.

We are not called to judge motives. However, we have the responsibility to be our brothers' keeper and keep them from harm as much as possible. So, if person A is doing something that hurts person B, I must not judge person A's motives, but I should tell him to stop hurting person B.

Welcome to the boat!

Don't you think that the repeated mention of the "weak brother" in both passages and Paul's statement in both passages that we shouldn’t eat meat if this makes our brother stumble/fall are strong evidences that these are parallel passages?

They certainly could be parallel, but I want something more than similarity in verbiage. I want something stronger to "prove" that Rom 14 is talking about food offered to idols, as opposed to food in general.

Beyond that, I don't think the two passages (Rom 14, 1Cor 8) are emphasizing the same point. The "bring it home" verse in both chapters is 13.


In both, the goal is to avoid causing a brother to stumble. But the contrast is that the problem in Rom 14 is a judgmental spirit, while the problem in 1Cor 8 is indiscretion and perhaps apathy regarding others' eternal welfare.

Even so, they could still be both talking about idol food. I just want stronger evidence specifically linking Rom 14 with idol food.

Is there not a point where adjusting society and ones personal life after the dictates of the ones who are most easily offended turns life sour?
Many in Israel were offended by Jesus performing healings on the Sabbath(Pharisees), or by Jesus attending parties with outcasts(Pharisees, Johns disciples), or by Jesus preaching that salvation would come through Him(most of the people who had been following Him in huge crowds). This did not stop Jesus from healing the sick even on Sabbath, reaching out to the outcasts of society or telling the truth about Himself.

The "bring home" point as posted by Arnold from Romans 14, "therefore let us not judge one another anymore..". If you who are weak in your faith and therefore eat only vegetables would stop judging the one who eats meat, and if you who are strong in your faith would stop judging the one who eats only vegetables..

Further, if you bring the principle that seem to be the one espoused above, that because some will fall if others eat meat, therefore no one must eat meat, to the other example given by Paul; that if some will fall because others keep the Sabbath, therefore no one must keep the Sabbath..

What about the reference to "wine"?

Although Paul's comment is not clear in Rom. 14:5, 6, the translation of the NKJV, of the RSV and others is completely misleading. Paul is not here speaking of the observance (keeping) of a day. The KJV is correct in translating the verb as "regard" and not "keep." The verb here is phroneo, whose meaning is

1) to have understanding, be wise
2) to feel, to think
2a) to have an opinion of one’s self, think of one’s self, to be modest, not let one’s opinion (though just) of himself exceed the bounds of modesty
2b) to think or judge what one’s opinion is
2c) to be of the same mind i.e. agreed together, cherish the same views, be harmonious
3) to direct one’s mind to a thing, to seek, to strive for
3a) to seek one’s interest or advantage
3b) to be of one’s party, side with him (in public affairs)

The verb used in the NT to "keep" (the law, the commandments, the Sabbath) is tereo:

1) to attend to carefully, take care of
1a) to guard
1b) metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is
1c) to observe
1d) to reserve: to undergo something

This is the verb used in Matt. 19:17, John 9:16, John 14:21, 24; 1 John 2:4, 5; 1 John 3:24, etc.

Not once in the whole NT is the verb phroneo used for the religious observance of commandments or days. So, Paul is not speaking here of the observance of days at all, but, very probably, of fast days.

What reason could there be for food in general to cause offense? As I see it, there must be some reason for the offense. Some suggest the OT food laws (but then "wine" does not fit). And the only other possible alternative I see (which, to me, is by far the most probable because it was a common problem those days for Christians living in pagan cities) is food offered to idols.

Dedicating clean foods to pagan gods before selling it at market in no way made it unfit for consumption. That was Paul's point.

I don't think anybody answered my question, therefore, I am asking it again.

What is the practical definition of a weak brother?

In the context of Romans 14 a weaker brother is someone who hasn't accepted the truth regarding clean foods dedicated to pagan idols.

And who would the weak brother be in other contexts?

It would include people who refuse to be vegetarian when their circumstances make it perfectly possible.

I've tried to define the weak brother in my post #127641. The weak brother seems to be the brother who is easily offended by the behavior of other brethren, and can easily stumble or fall (abandon the faith) because of that. He is also an overscrupulous Christian, although a sincere one.

Hey Mike, this answer seems to be in disagreement with the passage in question:

Romans 14:2 For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.

Some interesting comments which present additional evidence that Rom. 14 is probably speaking of food sacrificed to idols:





http://www.eliyah.com/romans14.html

Another interesting comment:



http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/resources/how-to-welcome-a-weak-brother

Now that's more along the lines of what I'm looking for. Thanks.

In Pauls case, the weak brother is someone who limits his circumstances out of fear of otherwise committing sin out of ignorance. How exactly does this compare with choosing not to be vegetarian? Can it be related unless not being vegetarian is somehow sinful? Is not being vegetarian sinful? And if so, who got the authority to rewrite the sin catalogue?

Rosangela, yes, you're right. But Thomas was asking about applying principles to other contexts. Paul said, "And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (verse 23)

Thomas, faith is based on the word of God. The SOP is a continuing source of truth. It reflects the word of God. Nowadays God requires us to be vegetarian when circumstances are favorable. Anyone who "doubteth is damned if he eat". It is a "sin".

"Greater reforms should be seen among the people who claim to be looking for the soon appearing of Christ. Health reform is to do among our people a work which it has not yet done. There are those who ought to be awake to the danger of meat eating, who are still eating the flesh of animals, thus endangering the physical, mental, and spiritual health. Many who are now only half converted on the question of meat eating will go from God's people to walk no more with them. {CD 382.1}

It is strange though, how things change. All vegetarians or vegans living in Egypt during the 10 plagues would have seen their eldest child taken by the last curse due to refusal to kill that lamb. Under the mosaic law, they could not have given thanksgiving offerings which were to be eaten on that same day as they were given. Similarly they were to eat lamb in remembrance of their delivery from Egypt at passover.

But apparently some parts of the law can change so that what was once demanded, now the very same thing is sinful. One wonders which other parts of the law are now sinful to follow..

Thomas, good point. Do you imagine the Jews eating several pounds of diseased flesh? Or, do you suspect they eat a mere morsel? And, do you view it as a dietary law? Or, it was it a ceremonial law slated to end with Jesus' death on the cross? Also, have you ever eaten kosher flesh (completely devoid of fat and blood)? Or, do you eat it dripping with blood and fat like everyone else does? And, does it matter it to you that it is infected with disease?

Eating diseased meat is foolish, just as eating diseased vegetables is foolish. But you are in your full right to make foolish mistakes. Foolishness is not a criteria which bars anyone from Gods kingdom. In fact, Paul tells us that the very pillars of faith which guides someone to that Kingdom are regarded as foolishness by outsiders.

Being a vegetarian is not a bad thing, my diet is vegetarian most of the time. Being a vegetarian for the wrong reasons can be a bad thing. If you thereby try to eat yourself to salvation, or if you have scruples which you impose on "the weak brother", then you are in the zone of sinful behaviour. But otherwise, the Kingdom is not a matter of food. The one who eats and the one who does not eat each following his or her conscience and giving thanks to God are standing by His strength. The points made above are supported by Scripture, and we presumably still stand with the following quote:

"The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. "

The bible contains the knowledge necessary for salvation, supply the standard of character and is the authoritative revealer of doctrine. This leaves no real space for overthrowing biblical teaching in favour of other sources, does it?

What do you mean by "other sources"?

I suppose that would be sources which are not within the 66 books of the biblical canon?

Thomas, yes, no one can eat their way to heaven or deserve salvation because of how they eat. However, a fully informed SDA will eventually separate themselves from the SDA church if they refuse to comply with the counsels regarding diet and health reform contained in the SOP. By the way, deliberately eating something diseased and unhealthy is a sin. Paul wrote, "He that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." And Ellen wrote:

What we eat and drink has an important bearing upon our lives and characters, and Christians should bring their habits of eating and drinking into conformity to the laws of nature. We must sense our obligations to God in these matters. Obedience to the laws of health should be made a matter of earnest study, for willing ignorance on this subject is sin. Each one should feel a personal obligation to carry out the laws of healthful living. {14MR 300.1}

Many turn away from the light, offended because a word of caution is given, and ask, "May we not do as we please with ourselves?" Did you create yourselves? Did you pay the redemption price for your souls and bodies? If so, you belong to yourselves. But the Word of God declares, "Ye are bought with a price," "the precious blood of Christ." The Word of God tells us plainly that our habits are to be strictly guarded and controlled. "Abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul." Shall we do this? The Word of God is perfect, converting the soul. If we diligently heed its precepts, we shall be conformed, physically, spiritually into the image of God. [Romans 12:1, 2; 3:17; 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20, quoted.] {14MR 300.2}

Men and women cannot violate natural law by indulging depraved appetite and lustful passions, and not violate the law of God. Therefore He has permitted the light of health reform to shine upon us, that we may see our sin in violating the laws which He has established in our being. All our enjoyment or suffering may be traced to obedience or transgression of natural law. Our gracious heavenly Father sees the deplorable condition of men who, some knowingly but many ignorantly, are living in violation of the laws that He has established. And in love and pity to the race, He causes the light to shine upon health reform. He publishes His law and the penalty that will follow the transgression of it, that all may learn and be careful to live in harmony with natural law. He proclaims His law so distinctly and makes it so prominent that it is like a city set on a hill. All accountable beings can understand it if they will. Idiots will not be responsible. To make plain natural law, and urge the obedience of it, is the work that accompanies the third angel's message to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord. 362 {CCh 214.3}

So, Mike, you are a pastor arent you? When was the last time you held a sermon saying that everyone who is obese due to lack of modesty at the table, let alone at the dessert table, is a sinner?

Here is something interesting from Wednesday's section:

Seems to me this is still an issue today amongst some members of the SDA Church.

Daryl, yes, there are SDA's who believe God requires us to observe certain feast days. However, I'm not sure that's what Paul is addressing. I suspect he's referring to fasting days. Seems people weren't agreed on which day was best. It probably corresponded to the days of the week things were dedicated to pagan idols. A simple solution would have been to fast on the days things were dedicated to pagan idols. Personal, I like the solution Paul recommended.

Thomas, do you think preaching a sermon on such a subject is a good idea? We always have visitors, some of them are non-SDA. It has never occurred to me preach such a message. I totally agree with the SOP on the subject of diet and sin, however, I also agree with her on the importance of preaching appropriate messages on Sabbaths when visitors are in attendance.

Mike, I think the answer to your question depends on certain other qualifications. For instance, do you preach sermons on the sinfulness of meat-eating? If you do, you are already insulting the visitors and adding gluttony to the list would not be much of an issue. But if you do not preach sermons on these sins, why not? Do you really regard them as sins? Will people be lost due to your negligence of informing those entrusted to you about this issue? Maybe you have chosen not to preach on sin at all, in which case picking any one would merely make it your personal pet peeve.

What is your favourite sermon topic, by the way?

Thomas, no, I do not use the Sabbath sermon time to slam sin. Instead, I use it to make living a victorious life in Christ seem wonderful and desirable. Every once in awhile someone criticizes me for dwelling on victorious living rather than focusing on Jesus Himself. Have you ever tried focusing on Jesus while preaching a sermon without including what Jesus was saying and doing while He was here in the flesh? Jesus didn't focus on Himself; instead, He worked very hard to help others live victoriously. That was His focus, His mission, His message. Focusing on Jesus, therefore, must necessarily include what He focused on, namely, victorious living.

PS - I talk to people about overcoming unholy habits and embracing holy ones in private or during small group discussions. Do you think that's a good idea? Or, do you think preachers should slam sin during the Sabbath sermon?

I think your approach seems sound.

I do not think Jesus teaching was exclusively on how to live victoriously, but equally to preach the good news that it is available. Also, at some point His focus became soundly set on the cross. Thus no longer merely talking about victorious living or preaching that it is now available, but actually sealing that availability in blood.

Amen! Preach it, brother.

I also think this is more plausible.