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 243
situational with a non-situational interpretation of the strong and the
weak (35). I would like to build on Sampley’s insights by offering a
more theological suggestion. Quite apart from historical considera-
tions, I think these chapters show clearly enough Paul’s reflection on
the relationship between Jew and Gentile on a theological level, i.e.,
the relationship between Jew and Gentile in the eyes of God. Perhaps,
on just such a theological level, the one who eats vegetables and
observes one day more than another functions as a literary theological
model for both ethnic Jewish Christians and conservative Gentile
Christians, while the one who eats all things and makes no distinction
with respect to days functions as a literary model for both Gentile
Christians and more liberal Jews like Paul (Rom 14,1-5). When the
strong and the weak are viewed in this way, as literary theological
models for Jews and Gentiles conceived as a whole, then Rom
14,1–15,13 emerges as the concrete theological explication of the
theme of God’s gracious and impartial call of salvation for Jew and
Gentile alike (Rom 9,24) (36).
It is important at this point to say where I stand in relation to
Karris’ now classic non-situational approach to the discussion of the
strong and the weak. Unlike Karris, I do not think Paul’s discussion of
the strong and the weak is simply a kind of canned general instruction
designed to address possible situations that might arise in any
Christian community (37). Such a non-situational view is contrary to the
fundamentally practical cast of the uncontested Pauline letters (38).
Building once again on Sampley, I would contend that Paul’s argument
combines situational as well as non-situational elements in the service
of a larger theological vision in the following way. First, Paul’s use of
a highly traditional Christological statement in the prescript of Romans
(Rom 1,3-4), his uncustomary use of sacrificial imagery (Rom 3,21-
26), and finally his concern to stress the ethical force of his Gospel
(Rom 6,1) all reveal that although this community is primarily
comprised of gentiles, the Roman church is also strongly motivated by
Jewish concerns. This Jewish cast suggests that Paul knows that in the
unique social environment characteristic of Roman Christianity in the
(35) A.J.M. WEDDERBURN, “The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Againâ€,
Romans Debate, 195-202, here 202.
(36) F. LEENHARDT, The Epistle to the Romans (London 1961) 346.
(37) KARRIS, “Romans 14:1–15:13â€, The Romans Debate, 84.
(38) SAMPLEY, “The Weak and the Strongâ€, The Social World of the First
Christians, 52.