Who’s Invited?
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. Romans 14:1 NASB
But – The first thing we should notice about this verse in the NASB is that “but” and “the purpose” are both in italics. This means they are not in the original Greek text. In fact, there are several other issues with this particular translation. We could start with “Now accept.” The Greek syntax does not begin the sentence with the verb. The priority of this Greek sentence is “the one weak in faith.” That comes first. What do we usually think about people who are “weak in faith”? Perhaps we need to remember that weakness is a vital element of God’s approach to men. In fact, God Himself is described by terms like this. Paul makes it perfectly clear that weakness is cause for rejoicing and that Yeshua demonstrated faithfulness in weakness. That should correct our automatic assumption that weakness is always something bad. Here, of course, it represents an aspect of character that needs improvement. These are people who are on the growth curve—like all of us. They are learning obedience—like all of us. They haven’t arrived yet—like all of us. You get the idea. We are the ones who are weak in faith from someone else’s perspective.
How are we to treat these people? Our translation says “Now accept,” but the Greek is quite a bit stronger. The verb is proslambano, literally, “to take toward,” that is, to deliberately act in such a way that these people are carried into your circle. This verb is usually translated, “welcome.” What is the difference between “accept” and “welcome”? If you reflect for a moment on your own experience, you will probably recognize that being accepted is not quite the same as being welcomed. Acceptance often implies tolerance. Welcome is much more inclusive. Accepting you sometimes means that I consider myself superior and I allow you in my circle in spite of your inferiority. But welcome means that I need you and am glad that you have arrived. I suggest to you that Paul is of this opinion. Those who are weak in faith are essential to the group. They are to be sought after and welcomed because without them we become arrogant.
This helps us see why the second part of the verse doesn’t need the glosses of “but” and “the purpose.” The ESV is better (except it also includes the gloss “but”). It reads, “not to quarrel over opinions.” What would be the point of welcoming someone just to have a verbal sparring partner? Is that welcoming? Of course not! Welcoming another is an invitation to positive relationship. Quarreling is its opposite. We welcome those who are different because we need differences in order to grow. The spiritual gene pool must be refreshed from the outside. Being unequally yoked is not a prohibition against spiritual diversity.
Here’s this lesson: How do you respond to those who do not agree with you? Are you welcoming those who are weaker (in your view, of course) because you need them? Or are you accepting them so you can convert them to your way of seeing things?
Topical Index: weak in faith, welcome, accept, proslambano, Romans 14:1
Skip, this gives me a vital check to use daily in all my affairs. It puts the focus back on me, which is to say I can use this litmus test with all my relationships, and not just those I consider primarily within the Body. If my identity is a sum total of where everybody else ALREADY IS, then I need where they already are! Where we go from there can, and will, necessarily change as a side effect of how successful we are at establishing relationship. The relationship, then, would be the function that subsequently determines the form of identity for all concerned. In other words, who I am is determined by how I am related.
How I am related, then, should never be considered as something that is defined by who i, as well as the other considered party, already ARE. That would be exactly backwards because who we are as individuals is a function of how we relate to each other. But our society is absolutely filled with this. backwardness, so to speak. From what church we go to to our political affiliation, we constantly seek to project who we are to the world, who is constantly asking. If I were to reply to the question “who are you?” by saying “well, that would be up to you!” I think people would walk away believing I must not be anybody, but my identity is determined by the sum total of my relationship with all around me.
Someone who has no relationship with anybody or anything is the real nobody. Just ask anybody on death row. In essence, they have already ‘died’ to (been fractured from) society. They might as well already be dead. Solitary confinement is the worst of punishments, of which actual death could be considered a relief from, but our modern emphasis on isolating the establishment of identity to a solitary person (which could be considered an ‘ideal form’ for identity) which THEN – and only then – interacts with others based on who they ALREADY ARE could be considered as an already dead person, as there is no room to change based on that interaction.
Wait. In my third grade biology assignment where I was required to list the characteristics of a living entity, I remember things like “ability to change” being listed. If my identity is a static, solitary ‘form’ there already is no room to change (function as an interaction with all that is NOT me). Hmm, may be time to go back and read Paul again in the whole chapter of Ephesians 2, where it talks about us being “aliens from the commonwealth” and “dead in trespasses and sins” by that “middle wall of partition” by which we were fractured from that Body. Life is only going to be found in the place where Christ is the “chief cornerstone”. The last time I checked, you had to be alive first before you could be an identity, but the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, seems to consider my very life to be determined by my connection with others. Maybe I need to go back and rework that identity thing!
Miss Hayes when you rethink use the other side of alien and foreigners. Those who are accepting the foreigners and aliens. And bringing those people into the promises and the covenants of Israel the task is not that different. One cannot be overbearing we must accept the others opinion and most of all prayer so that the Lord can intervene because we have the same Messiah and Lord and he is our peace that breaks down that wall. Hallelujah
Could this welcoming not be way some Christian groups prosper by showing that family reunion bond whenever they get together…
Given this has also been the reason why some gatherings fall apart… They she deep insightful messages but are only lip talk….
This fits in with the Torah instruction to include in certain feasts and activities…
Back to that spiritual movement referred to on earlier blogs, being led by the spirit… Where brethren live together David proclaimed God instructed his blessings.
As Laurita said where we go…
That is what Paul referred to as from one truth to another until we arrive at the full measure of Christ. Not an easy fellowship, but definitely a progressing one…
Thank you for the reminder Skip
BB aren’t we all aliens en route to a new beginning…
What a confusing misspelled comment, seeker. Why not way. Share not she.
Rockefeller’s view… Bringing together is a beginning, keeping together is progress, growing together is success. Maybe this is what needs to be adapted in gatherings for us to become brethren as explained in Acts…
Growing with you, Seeker.
How does anyone measure “where” they are in their faith?
Some will always “know” more. Some less.
Yeshua establishes the norm with a big dose of humility:
“unless you change and become like little children you will
never enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Then Paul establishes the hospitality line: “Serve wholeheartedly,
as if you were serving the Lord, not men.”
Hmmm. Looks like we’ve been put in our place!
I believe so Rich – Indeed put in our place