Kevin B. McCruden, «Judgment and Life for the Lord: Occasion and Theology of Romans 14,1–15,13», Vol. 86 (2005) 229-244
This article explores Paul’s discussion
concerning the strong and the weak in Rom 14,1–15,13. My thesis is that Paul’s
comments in this section of the letter function neither completely as a response
to an actual problem in Rome, nor as entirely general paraenesis. Rather, Paul’s
comments function simultaneously on both a situational and non-situational level.
Considering that specific concerns over food were likely operative in the Roman
congregation, Paul employs non-specific language in this section in order to espouse
a larger theological vision of the essential unity of Jew and Gentile under God’s
salvation in Christ.
Judgment and Life for the Lord 233
demonstrate below. What is immediately striking in Rom 2,1-11 is the
preponderance of vocabulary indicative of judgment. The verb krivnw
occurs four times (Rom 2,1a.b.c.3) and the noun krivma two times
(Rom 2,2.3). One also finds related judgment vocabulary in the
occurrence of the verb katakrivnw (Rom 2,1) and the noun dikaio-
krisia" (Rom 2,5). All of these words indicative of judgment occur in
v
the relatively short space of the first five verses. The setting of Rom
2,1-11 is the hypocritical person who judges another and yet practices
the very things that are repudiated. Paul endeavors to rebuke this
fictive Jew and enlighten him to the fact that such behavior provokes
the judgment of God (22). The deeper religious and cultural presup-
position behind Rom 2,1-11 can be found in Rom 1,18-32, where Paul
echoes the standard Hellenistic Jewish critique against gentile
religiosity and immorality. For Paul, as for the authors of the intertesta-
mental literature in general, the verdict against such gentile wick-
edness is one of divine wrath (23).
If we grant the instructional character of the diatribal style, Paul’s
aim then appears as one of instructing and enlightening the Roman
Christians with regard to one of the central theological features of his
gospel: namely, God’s impartial judgment (24). This same motif of
God’s impartial judgment recurs again in the encounter with the fictive
Jew in Rom 2,17-29. What Paul endeavors to teach his audience by
means of these dialogical encounters is the equal status of Jew and
Gentile under the all encompassing reality of God’s judgment.
When we turn to Romans 14 we see a suggestive parallel to Rom
2,1-11 in terms of both rhetorical structure and vocabulary. As in Rom
2,1-11 a heavy preponderance of judgment words is in evidence:
krinetw (Rom 14,3); krivnwn (Rom 14,4); krivnei (Rom 14,5); krivnei"
v
(Rom 14,10); krivnwmen (Rom 14,13); krivnwn (Rom 14,22); kata-
kevkritai (Rom 14,23). Moreover, the entire passage has a distinctly
general and indefinite tone, just as Rom 2,1-11 does. For instance, Paul
(22) Most commentators see the implied interlocutor as a Jew. See: FITZMYER,
Romans, 297; J.D.G. DUNN, Romans 1–8 (WBC 38A; Dallas 1988) 79; C.E.B.
CRANFIELD, The Epistle to the Romans (ICC; Edinburgh 1985) I, 138; BYRNE,
Romans, 80.
(23) See T.H. TOBIN, “Controversy and Continuity in Romans 1:18-3:20â€,
CBQ 55 (1993) 304; see also J.D.G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle
(Grand Rapids 1998) 115-116; for texts see Wis 11–15; Pss. Sol. 15,8-12.
(24) Keck notes this instructional intention: See L. KECK, “What Makes
Romans Tick?†Pauline Theology (ed. D.M. HAY – E.E. JOHNSON (Philadelphia
1991) III, 3-29, here 23.