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.
242 Kevin B. McCruden
salvation. Apart from the Gospel both Gentile and Jew languish under
sin, yet through the response of faith both Jew and Gentile share
equally in the new reality of the power of God’s salvation. Such
equality under the divine perspective is expressed by Paul in numerous
passages: Rom 1,16; 2,9-10; 3,9.29; 9,24; 10,12. Is it possible that
Romans 14,1–15,13 expresses a similar insight in the more practical
realm of ethical behavior? Certainly the divine perspective is clear in
these chapters, since Paul endeavors to show that certain types of
behavior have divine implications. But can we also discern in these
chapters the more specific theological theme of the relation between
Jew and Gentile in the context of God’s larger intentions? Although it
is true that Paul does not speak explicitly of either Jew or Gentile in
these chapters until Rom 15,8, still the description of certain members
of the community as either strong or weak might hint at these
categories on a more rhetorical and theological level as I shall attempt
to argue below.
Whether the weak are in fact Jewish Christians and the strong
Gentile Christians, or whether the weak are Gentile Christians who felt
that certain elements of the Jewish law were still binding, is a question
that can never be settled unequivocally for all its abiding historical
interest. I have attempted in this article to argue that there are certain
clues in these chapters that reveal the likelihood of the absence of any
actual conflict or community discord between rival groups. One
instead needs to read Paul’s discussion concerning the strong and the
weak in light of Paul’s rhetorical and theological situation. The
insights of P. Sampley may profitably be brought to bear here.
Sampley makes the point that Paul utilizes a rhetorical strategy of
oblique or figured speech in these passages. Reasoning that issues of
Kasrut and Sabbath observance may have been contentious issues in
this particular community, Paul generalizes in order to have the readers
reflect on their reality of living together (34). I find Sampley’s model
persuasive since it steers a middle position by recognizing that on the
one hand, differences of opinion on such issues likely existed in the
Roman community, but that Paul is not addressing an actual dispute
that he knows about on the other.
In other words, the virtue of Sampley’s model is that it combines a
(34) J.P. SAMPLEY, “The Weak and the Strong: Paul’s Careful and Crafty
Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1–15:13â€, The Social World of the First
Christians. Essays in Honor of W. A. Meeks (ed. L.M. WHITE – O.L. YARBROUGH
(Philadelphia 1995) 40-52.