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 231
with pagan sacrifices (13). This reconstruction, however, is far from
certain; and indeed the passage may be functioning within a larger
context of promoting a more general ethical message of tolerance to
be practiced within the community (14).
More recently, M. Reasoner has added a decidedly sociological
dimension to the debate. Reasoner argues that Paul’s terminology of
strong and weak pertains to social status classifications current in
imperial Rome (15). According to Reasoner, the terminology of weak
and strong indicates two separate groups at odds with one another (16).
In particular, Reasoner contends that the strong are calling the weak
superstitious because of the latter’s scruples regarding food and
observance of days (17).
Despite such considerations, it remains the case that the text of
Romans bears tenuous support for such a hypothesis of a community
hampered by discord. It is precisely here that we arrive at the issue of
the ambiguous occasional character of Romans. Paul certainly speaks
often in this letter about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles.
Indeed, this of itself might seem to lend support to Reasoner’s
reconstruction of two groups at odds in the Roman congregation.
However, it must be emphasized that Paul invariably couches this
relationship in generalized terms, reflecting on the relationship
between Jews and Gentiles as a whole and seldom in terms of
individual Jews and Gentiles (18).
Moreover, the manner in which Paul reflects on this relationship
bears a marked theological concern. Thus, after the description of both
Gentile and Jewish sinfulness in Rom 1,18–2,11, Paul arrives at the
conclusion in Rom 3,20 that everyone (pa'sa savrz) is under God’s
judgment. Rom 3,23 further clarifies this idea of radical inclusiveness
with the conclusion that “all have sinned†(pavnte" ga;r h{marton). A
(13) The presence of the technical term koinovn in itself does not prove an
unambiguous situation wherein ethnic Jewish Christians took offense at lax
Gentile Christian practices, as if the strong must refer to Gentiles and the weak to
Jews. Paul, after all, is certainly to be reckoned among the strong despite being
ethnically Jewish. .
(14) BYRNE, Romans, 406.
(15) REASONER, The Strong and the Weak, 45-63.
(16) REASONER, The Strong and the Weak, 58.
(17) REASONER, The Strong and the Weak, 159-174. See also Theophrastus,
Characters 16.
(18) W. MEEKS, “The Polyphonic Ethics of the Apostle Paulâ€, The Annual of
the Society of Christian Ethics (1988) 17-29, here 25.