The Weak

By Amie May

Paul instructed the Romans in chapter 14, to "receive the one who is weak in faith, not to judgments of your thoughts."  He said, "One indeed believes to eat all things, but being weak, another one eats vegetables."
 
This is one of my favorite chapters in the bible, because it is advice to members of the early church about living among people who were different than themselves in practice.  Some of them still held to parts of the law, possibly out of fear since Paul describes them as "weak".  However he still encourages them to see "the weak" as brothers and not to judge them for their choice of practice.
 
Jesus himself said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17).  Paul is in synch with that thinking in that he says that the law itself is not sin (Romans 7:7).  As a matter of fact, Paul would teach that love is the fulfillment of the law (Roman 13:10).  Therefore the law itself was not the issue, but the living out of the law in that the way that it was carried out then, most often overshadowed love and that was the issue.
 
Consider those who asked Jesus whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath - interested in finding fault that they might accuse him.  He answered saying, "What man of you will be who will have one sheep, and if this one fall into a pit on the sabbaths, will not lay hold of it and raise it up?  How much more, then, does a man excel a sheep!"  They might have been keeping the law to the letter, yet without love they did not know God (1 John 4:8).
 
Paul would say, "And I became as a Jew to the Jews, that I might gain Jews; to those under Law as under Law, that I might gain those under Law;  to those without Law as without Law (not being without Law of God, but under the law of Christ), that I might gain those without Law.  I became to the weak as weak, that I might gain the weak. To all I have become all things, that in any and every way I might save some.  And I do this for the gospel, that I might become a fellow partaker of it." (1 Cor 9:20-23)
 
Paul's "gain" may not necessarily mean that he convinced them to do things his way by pretending to be one of them.  Certainly, such a prospect sounds pretty underhanded and dishonest.  Somehow though, by fellowshipping with them where they were at, they would receive salvation and Paul would become a "partaker of it".
 
Matthew 16:22 tells us that Peter pulled Jesus aside to rebuke him saying, "God be gracious to you Lord; this shall never be to you."  At that moment, Peter is called out by Christ as an adversary because he was not thinking the things of God, but the things of men.  Jesus continues by explaining that anyone who wished to come after him (and his ways were thinking the things of God), would deny himself.  He said, "For whoever may desire to save his life will lose it. But whoever may lose his life for My sake will find it. For what will a man be benefited if he should gain the whole world, but forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?"  The Son of Man would be coming with his angels in the glory of his father, and would give reward to each according to his practice.  Not only that, but he tells them that some of them will not have died, until they will have seen it happen (Mt 16:28).
 
Somehow, in their lifetimes, to find life, they will have made the choice to deny it; and somehow Peter's rebuke had to do with self-interest.
 
Jesus didn't tell them to stop feeding themselves and clothing themselves, rather, he encouraged them to stop worrying and suffering over it.  His ministry was one of healing and life.  Self-interest was not about brushing their teeth at night, or even about caring emotionally for themselves.  It was about how they defined themselves.  Were they "puffed up" and filled with self-righteousness, or would they allow the righteousness of God to define them?
 
Was Peter's concern then about Jesus' life?  About saving his own skin when the mess hit the fan?  Or was it about the status that he would gain in hanging out with the King of Kings on earth?
 
In Matthew 26, Jesus would say to his disciples, "You all will be offended in Me during this night. For it has been written, "I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered." (as was written in Zech 13:7)
 
Peter says that he would never be offended in Jesus - even if everyone else was.  This affords us a clue as to how Peter saw himself.  He was above all of that, he was sure of it.  Yet Jesus would reply, "Truly I say to you, During this night, before a cock crows, you will deny Me three times."  Peter would proclaim his denial of that again, to the very person that as Son of God would know Peter better than even he knew himself.
 
We then find Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane.  He brought with him Peter and two sons of Zebedee and asks them to stay and watch with him.  He went off a bit, to be alone and pray.. and to struggle a some I think - and returns to find them all asleep.  He says to Peter, "So!  Were you not able to watch one hour with me?"
 
Certainly this could be heard in a voice of condemnation.  I wonder though, if we asked our children to stay up for the New Year's Eve celebration at midnight with us, and found them asleep, if we would use such a tone.  Even if it were our last night on earth, would we not peer down at them lovingly?
 
Jesus says, "The spirit indeed is eager, but the flesh is weak".  He recognized that within they wanted to watch with him more than anything, yet were lacking in the ability to carry it out.  Each time he went to pray and returned, he found them sleeping and would eventually say, "Sleep on, and rest for what time remains."  In my mind, I hear, "Sleep on little ones.. sleep on."
 
Peter more than once demonstrated his willingness to sit with Jesus, to follow him, and even to die with him.  Peter's falling short of his own desire and intent as the story continued, would show all the more the truth in Jesus's words of the willing spirit and weak flesh.
 
When we look at the world from the perspective of flesh and blood, our vision is limited.  Sleep is overwhelming.  Death becomes a thing to fear.  Maybe Peter didn't want it to be over and he believed that the death of Jesus meant just that.  He wasn't looking past this life and his world.  He wanted to have all of the things that he may have imagined that the Son of God would bring.  It is as if he knew Jesus as Son of God, but didn't fully understand the meaning of that.  Not until the resurrection of course, and his witnessing the entrance of a new world - and the passing of the old.
 
As Paul would say, "For now we see through a mirror in dimness, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will fully know even as I also was fully known." (1 Cor 13:12)
 
More and more a spiritual knowledge was being unveiled, that the limited perspective of flesh and blood might gain a new sight.  Not everyone was as ready for that though - like to accept that all things were clean for example.  Something might enter their body and defile it, they thought, and so they would continue to keep food laws.  They would continue to believe that what they did would define them in the eyes of God.  They were unable to see that God had already called everyone clean (Acts 10).
 
Peter, with the only world that he had ever known in view, would rebuke Jesus.  The fulfillment of the coming Kingdom, in Peter's eyes, was supposed to be literal.  Jesus was supposed to rule the world from Jerusalem, yet Jesus would openly be coming to terms with his death - as if he were giving up or abandoning them.  I can't imagine how his audience will have understood his saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven does not come with observation;  nor will they say, Lo, here! Or, Lo, there! For behold the kingdom of God is in your midst." (Luke 17:21)
 
Not only will they have understood the Kingdom in terms of flesh and blood (things that could be seen and experienced like riches, power, genetic inheritance..), but they will have continued to understand cleanliness and worthiness in those terms.  Each were in their own level of learning, and so there were many sects of Christians.
 
Some believed that worth was defined by monetary gain, some believed that rituals would make them clean, some believed that if you just keep from the meats of animals sacrificed to animals that was enough.. it varied.
 
This reminds me very much of what we see today.  Some believe that ritually every hair must be under the water, some believe that water is not needed at all.  Some believe that prayer must be in Jesus name, some believe in a constant commune with God.  Some are surer than others, some are fearful without whatever it is that they feel is necessary to gain approval and love of God.
 
Those in the old world were utterly defined by what they did.  Evidence of righteousness, even to themselves privately, was going to temple when they were supposed to and generally keeping the religious observances that they were supposed to.  The difference between then and now might have been that Christ had not yet come on the scene to claim everyone, even the lost, as his.
 
Paul said, "The one minding the day, he minds it to the Lord. And the one not minding the day, he does not mind it to the Lord. The one eating, he eats to the Lord; for he gives thanks to God. And the one not eating, he does not eat to the Lord, and gives thanks to God. For no one of us lives to himself and no one dies to himself.  For both if we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. Then both if we live, and if we die, we are the Lord's." (Romans 14:6-8)
 
How can that be?
 
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee, and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee was standing, praying these things to himself: God, I thank You that I am not as the rest of men, rapacious, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. I fast twice on the sabbath; I tithe all things, as many as I get.  And standing at a distance, the tax collector would not even lift up his eyes to Heaven, but smote on his breast, saying, God, be merciful to me, the sinner! I say to you, This one went down to his house having been justified, rather than that one. For everyone exalting himself will be humbled. And the one humbling himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)
 
Certainly this is a great parable speaking against self-righteousness.  We might even recall that to search for life is to loose it.  We could understand that then, that was about their holding onto things as they understood them and seeking to prove that they had God's approval whether to themselves or to others.  They sought their life - they actively worked to define themselves as "good" and "righteous".  Those who would open their eyes and see past their limited perspective, might recognize the love that may have been missing within their law keeping.
 
The parable here in Luke 18, describes just that.  The Pharisee does everything like he is supposed to do it, so he concludes that he is in good with God and certainly above those who are not.  Yet the tax collector who has never gotten it right in action, cried out for the mercy of God.  He recognized his short-comings and rather than working to disprove that reality, humbled himself before God.
 
Beautiful, isn't it?  So many quote this passage to rebuke those who boast, yet do you hear the voice in the silence?  Yes, we often say it:  "I'm so glad that I am not that Pharisee."  Above that, aren't we?  Oh how quickly the weakness of the flesh begins to dictate reality!  Because we see with our flesh and blood in front of us that we have not boasted as others have.. we are okay to boast?  How are we able to find life if we continue to seek it?
 
I think that is exactly what Paul was meaning in 1 Corinthians 9:20-23.  He relieved himself of any identity at all, completely casting off the perception of flesh, and joined people where they were at.  How could they even recognize acceptance past what their own eyes were seeing, if they had never experienced it?  How might he have been able to keep that spiritual sight, had he not let go of what his own eyes were telling him (the evidence of his own righteousness)?
 
Paul says, "Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather judge this, not to put a stumbling-block or an offense toward a brother." (Romans 14:13)  "Judge this."  That would make a great bumper sticker, wouldn't it?  What if one person believes that we must pray in Jesus name and the other not?  Shall we then convince them not to do it that their own conscience be pierced?  Or should we call that one "common"?
 
Paul continues, "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing by itself is common; except to the one deeming anything to be common, it is common. But if your brother is grieved because of your food, you no longer walk according to love. Do not by your food destroy that one for whom Christ died.." (vs 14, 15)
 
If they are unable to pray in good conscience, it is truly no different than eating in good conscience.  Should we by attacking traditions destroy that one for whom Christ died?  Paul taught that the Kingdom of God was not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  He encouraged his company to then pursue the things of peace, and the things for building up one another.  It is good, he says, NOT to do a thing by which another would stumble, or is offended, or is weak.  Your faith is your own, he would say, and "blessed is the one not condemning himself in what he approves."
 
Who then is the weaker?  The one keeping the laws because they just aren't seeing past the sight of flesh and blood?  Or, is it the one judging them, who would seek their own life?