D. THE CHRISTIAN AND SECULAR RULERS (13:1–7)

1Every soul is to be submissive to the governing authorities.1 For there is no authority except by God, and the existing authorities have been appointed by God. 2So that the one who resists the authority is resisting the ordinance of God. And those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3For the rulers are not a cause of fear to the good work but to the bad. Now do you want to avoid fear of the authority? Do good, and you will receive praise from him. 4For he is God’s servant for you, for the good. But if you do what is bad, fear. For he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is God’s servant, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices what is bad.

5Therefore it is necessary to be submissive, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience. 6For also, because of this, you are paying taxes. For they are servants of God, devoted to this very thing. 7Pay back to everyone what you owe: taxes, to whom you owe taxes; custom duties to whom you owe custom duties; respect to whom you owe respect; honor to whom you owe honor.

In contrast to the loosely connected series of exhortations in 12:9–21, we find in 13:1–7 a coherent and well-organized argument about a single topic: the need for submission to governing authorities. This argument comes on the scene quite abruptly, with no explicit syntactical connection with what has come before it2—and not much evidence of any connection in subject matter either. In fact, vv. 8–10, highlighting the centrality of love for the Christian ethic, seem to relate to vv. 9–21, which also focus on love and its outworkings. When we add to these points the allegedly un-Pauline vocabulary of the passage, we can understand why some scholars think that a redactor has added 13:1–7 to Paul’s original letter to the Romans.3 Other scholars do not go so far. They think that Paul himself included this section here but that he was quoting an already developed Christian tradition. On either view, however, Rom. 13:1–7 is viewed as an “alien body” within 12:1–13:14.4 Not only does it interrupt Paul’s elaboration of the nature and centrality of love, but it seems to give unqualified endorsement to an institution that belongs to an age that is “passing away” (13:11–14) and to which we are not to be conformed (12:2).

But Paul’s teaching about the transitory nature of this world might be precisely why he includes 13:1–7. His purpose may be to stifle the kind of extremism that would pervert his emphasis on the coming of a new era and on the “new creation” into a rejection of every human and societal convention—including the government. Paul had had to respond to such extremism before. In fact, Paul writes to the Romans from the city in which this extremism appears to have had its boldest manifestation: Corinth (cf. 1 Corinthians). One can well imagine Christians arguing: “The old age has passed away; we are ‘a new creation in Christ’ and belong to the transcendent, spiritual realm. Surely we, who are even now reigning with Christ in his kingdom, need pay no attention to the secular authorities of this defunct age.” If Rom. 13:1–7 is directed to just such an attitude, Paul may have inserted it here as a guard against those who might draw the wrong conclusions from his concern that Christians avoid conformity to “this age.” For all that is present in the world around us is not part of “this age,” or at least not part of it in the same way. To the degree that this age is dominated by Satan and sin, Christians must resolutely refuse to adopt its values. But the world in which Christians continue to live out their bodily existence (see 12:1) has not been wholly abandoned by God. As a manifestation of his common grace, God has established in this world certain institutions, such as marriage and government, that have a positive role to play even after the inauguration of the new age.5

Recognizing how Paul’s teaching about the need for Christians to respect governing authorities in 13:1–7 fits into his overall theology of the Christian’s life in this world helps explain its presence at this point in Paul’s exhortations. Submission to government is another aspect of that “good” which the Christian, seeking to “approve” the will of God, will exemplify (cf. 12:2).6 The specific contextual trigger for Paul’s teaching about government and its role in this world may have been 12:19. Forbidding the Christian from taking vengeance and allowing God to exercise this right in the last judgment might lead one to think that God was letting evildoers have their way in this world. Not so, says Paul in 13:1–7: for God, through governing authorities, is even now inflicting wrath on evildoers (vv. 3–4).7

I think these considerations are sufficient to explain why Paul includes 13:1–7 in his letter to the Romans. But many scholars are not convinced of this. They think that there must have been a situation in the church at Rome, of which Paul was aware, that led him to include this exhortation. Scholars have proposed several scenarios,8 but the most likely is that the Roman Christians had been infected by their fellow citizens with a resistance to paying taxes to an increasingly rapacious Roman government.9 It would be because of this background that Paul concludes his teaching about submission to government with a plea to pay taxes (vv. 6–7). However, evidence for a tax rebellion in Rome as early as 56–57 (the date of Romans) is sparse; and if Paul was concerned about the Roman Christians not paying taxes, it is peculiar that he would commend them for doing just that in v. 6b.10 Nor do we need to posit a situation in Rome to explain Paul’s exhortation to pay taxes. The paying of taxes was then, as now, the most pervasive and universal expression of subservience to the state. More important, Paul is probably in this paragraph continuing his allusions to the teaching of Jesus. And it was, of course, the paying of taxes that formed the basis for Jesus’ famous pronouncement about “rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Mark 12:13–17 and pars.).

Paul’s teaching also has a number of striking similarities to 1 Pet. 2:13–17.11 This suggests that Jesus’ teaching about the relationship of the disciple to the state was the basis for a widespread early Christian tradition, which Paul here takes up and adapts.12 Paul certainly casts this tradition in language drawn from Greco-Roman government;13 and submission to government was certainly encouraged in many Greco-Roman circles. But, as is usually the case, the concepts Paul teaches here have their roots in the OT and Judaism.14

The line of thought in the paragraph is as follows15:

General command: “submit to the authorities” (v. 1a)

First reason (“for”) for submission: they are appointed by God (v. 1b)

Consequences (“so that”) of resisting the authorities: God’s judgment (v. 2)

Second reason (“for”) for submission: rulers are God’s servants to reward good and punish evil (vv. 3–4)

Reiteration (“therefore”) of general command, with abbreviated reference to reasons for submission (v. 5):

“because of [fear of] wrath” and

“because of conscience”

Appeal to practice: the Roman Christians are paying taxes (v. 6)

Specific command (“because of this”): pay your taxes and respect the authorities! (v. 7)

1 Paul gets right to the point: “Every soul is to be submissive to the governing authorities.” In typical OT and Jewish fashion, Paul uses “soul” (psychē) to denote not one “part” of a human being (soul in distinction from body or spirit) but the whole person. The translation “every person” (NRSV; NASB; REB) or “everyone” (NIV; TEV; NJB) is therefore entirely justified.16 The basis of Paul’s own authority—an apostle of the gospel—as well as the audience of the letter indicates that his immediate reference must be to Christians. But we should probably not limit the reference to Christians only. Submission to governing authorities is especially incumbent on Christians who recognize that the God they serve stands behind those authorities, but it is required even for those who do not know this.17

“Governing authorities” (cf. also NRSV; NIV; NASB; NJB) translates a phrase that is central to the interpretation of the paragraph. Like our “authority,” exousia refers broadly in secular and biblical Greek to the possession and exercise of (usually legitimate) power. As an abstract noun, the word usually denotes the concept of authority. Jesus’ well-known words in Matt. 28:18 use the word in a typical way: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” But the word can also have a concrete application, in which case exousia denotes a sphere over which authority is exercised (e.g., a “dominion”; cf. Luke 23:7) or the being who exercises authority.18 The latter is clearly how the word is used in Rom. 13:1. The NT refers to two different kinds of “beings” who exercise authority: a person in government (a “ruler”)19 and spiritual “powers.”20 A few scholars have argued that Paul may be referring at least partially to spiritual beings in Rom. 13:1.21 But this is unlikely.22 As parallel terms in this context suggest (cf. “rulers” [archontes] in v. 3), the “authorities” occupy positions in secular government. Paul qualifies them as “governing” in order to indicate that they are in positions of superiority over the believers he is addressing.23

Paul calls on believers to “submit”24 to governing authorities rather than to “obey” them; and Paul’s choice of words may be important to our interpretation and application of Paul’s exhortation. To submit is to recognize one’s subordinate place in a hierarchy, to acknowledge as a general rule that certain people or institutions have “authority” over us. In addition to governing authorities (cf. also Tit. 3:1), Paul urges Christians to submit to their spiritual leaders (1 Cor. 16:16) and to “one another” (Eph. 5:21); and he calls on Christian slaves to submit to their masters (Tit. 2:9), Christian prophets to submit to other prophets (1 Cor. 14:32), and Christian wives to submit to their husbands (1 Cor. 14:34 [?]; Eph. 5:24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5).25 It is this general posture toward government that Paul demands here of Christians. And such a posture will usually demand that we obey what the governing authorities tell us to do. But perhaps our submission to government is compatible with disobedience to government in certain exceptional circumstances. For heading the hierarchy of relations in which Christians find themselves is God; and all subordinate “submissions” must always be measured in relationship to our all-embracing submission to him.26

Verse 1b gives the reason27 why we are to submit to governing authorities: “there is no authority except by God, and the existing authorities have been appointed28 by God.”29 In light of exousiai in v. 1a, “authority” will refer to the individual human ruler.30 Paul’s insistence that no ruler wields power except through God’s appointment reflects standard OT and Jewish teaching. Daniel tells the proud pagan king Nebuchadnezzar that God was teaching him that “the Most High is sovereign over the kingdom of mortals; he gives it to whom he will and sets over it the lowliest of human beings” (4:17).31 Paul’s dependence on this tradition and his all-inclusive language (“there is no authority except”) make clear that he is asserting a universally applicable truth about the ultimate origin of rulers. From a human perspective, rulers come to power through force or heredity or popular choice. But the “transformed mind” recognizes behind every such process the hand of God. Paul brings home this general principle in the last clause of the verse.32 The believers in Rome are to recognize that the specific governmental officials with whom they have dealings33—“the ones that now exist,”34 as Paul puts it—are “appointed,” or “ordained,” by God.

2 In v. 1a Paul has stated a positive consequence of God’s appointment of human rulers: we are to submit to them. Now he asserts two related negative consequences35 of the same theological truth. Since God has appointed human rulers, the person who opposes them is opposing, is “in a state of rebellion against,”36 the “ordinance” of God.37 And such opposition will ultimately lead to eternal condemnation. As submission denotes a recognition of government’s position over the Christian by God’s appointment, so resistance is the refusal to acknowledge the authority of government.38 It denotes the attitude of one who will not admit that government has a legitimate right to exercise authority over him or her. Those who take up this attitude39 “will bring judgment on themselves.”40 “Bringing judgment”41 could refer to the action of the secular ruler, with the implication (spelled out in v. 4b) that God’s own judgment is present in the punishment meted out by the ruler.42 But Paul’s argument has not advanced this far. It is better to understand the judgment here to be the eschatological judgment of God: those who persistently oppose secular rulers, and hence the will of God, will suffer condemnation for that opposition.43

3–4 If “bring judgment” in v. 2b refers to a historical judgment that is mediated by the secular rulers, than vv. 3–4 could further explain this situation.44 But if the judgment of v. 2b is God’s final judgment, then we must view vv. 3–4 as a second reason why Christians are to submit to governing authorities.45 Not only has God appointed them (v. 1b), but he has also entrusted to them an important role in maintaining order in society. By punishing those who do wrong and rewarding those who do good, secular rulers are carrying out God’s purposes in the world. Christians, therefore, are to submit to the secular rulers. For “rulers,”46 Paul explains, are not a “cause of fear”47 to those who are persistent in doing good48 but only to those who do evil. Christians need only do the good that they are called to do under the gospel (cf. 12:2, 9, 17, and 21) if they want to avoid fear of the authorities.49 In fact, Paul concludes, doing good will not only bring freedom from fear; it will even result in praise from the rulers.50

Verse 4 is framed by two assertions in which Paul characterizes the ruler as a “servant of God.” The first elaborates the positive function of the ruler—praising those who do good—which Paul has described in v. 3b. The second explains the negative function of the ruler—punishing evil—which Paul touched on in v. 3 and explains in more detail in v. 4b. In both these functions, the secular ruler is carrying out God’s purposes, as his diakonos. Paul usually uses this word to refer to a Christian in his capacity as a willing “servant,” or “minister,” of the Lord and of other Christians. But people can also “serve” God, his purposes, and his people unconsciously. So it is with secular rulers, who, appointed by God (v. 1b), “administer” justice in keeping with divine standards of right and wrong.51 On the positive side, rulers, by bestowing praise (v. 3b), encourage Christians to do what is good (v. 4a).52

Paul now turns again to the negative role of the ruler, showing why he is a “cause of fear” to those who do evil (cf. v. 3a). It is because the ruler “does not bear the sword in vain.” Scholars have argued about the exact background and significance of the phrase “bear the sword,” but none of the specific connotations suggested seems to be well established.53 Probably, then, Paul uses the phrase to refer generally to the right of the government to punish those who violate its laws.54 For the purpose of his argument at this point, Paul is assuming that the laws of the state embody those general moral principles that are taught in the word of God.55 The “evil” that the civil authorities punish, therefore, is evil in the absolute sense: those acts that God himself condemns as evil.56 Only if this is so can we explain how Paul can see the government’s use of the sword as a manifestation of its role as “God’s servant.” At the same time, this suggests that the “wrath” that the governing authority inflicts on wrongdoers is God’s wrath.57 When the civil authority punishes wrongdoers, the authority, acting as God’s servant, is “an instrument of vengeance”58 through whom God is executing his wrath on human sin. For, as Rom. 1:18 shows, the final eschatological outpouring of God’s wrath on sin is even now, in the course of human history, finding expression. The “vengeance” that is prohibited to individual Christians (12:19) is executed by God’s chosen servants, the secular authorities.

5 Paul sums up his argument in vv. 1–4: “Therefore59 it is necessary to be submissive [to governmental authorities], not only60 because of wrath but also because of conscience.”61 The two “because of” phrases summarize the reasons for submission that Paul has developed in vv. 1b–4. “Because of wrath” encapsulates Paul’s reminder in vv. 3–4 about the punitive function of secular rulers. It is the Christian’s recognition of this function, and the consequent fear of suffering wrath at the hands of the secular official, that should motivate submission (cf. NIV: “because of possible punishment”). But this is only the minor reason for Christian submission, as Paul’s “not only … but also” sequence indicates. A more basic reason for Christian submission is “because of conscience.” “Conscience” refers here to the believer’s knowledge of God’s will and purposes.62 Christians know what Paul has just taught: that secular rulers are appointed by God (v. 1b) and that they function therefore as his servants (v. 4).63 The “necessity” for Christians to submit to government is therefore no mere practical expedient, a means of avoiding punishment; it arises ultimately from insight into God’s providential ordering of human history.64 Such submission is part of that “good, well-pleasing, and perfect” will of God discovered by the renewed mind (cf. also 1 Pet. 2:13, where the believer is to submit to “every human institution” “because of the Lord”). “Not being conformed to this world” does not require Christians to renounce every institution now in place in society. For some of them—such as government and marriage—reflect God’s providential ordering of the world for our good and his glory.

6 “Because of this” could be parallel to the “therefore” at the beginning of v. 5 and refer to vv. 1b–4: because God has appointed secular rulers and they are his servants, “you are paying taxes.”65 However, while it amounts to the same thing (since “conscience” summarizes these points from vv. 1b–4), it is better to see “because of this” picking up the immediately preceding phrase: “because of conscience” “you are paying taxes.”66 A few commentators think that teleite might be an imperative: “you must pay taxes.”67 But Paul’s addition of “for”68 to “because of this” shows rather conclusively that the verb must be an indicative, because Paul almost always uses this word to introduce the ground or explanation of a previous statement.69 Here Paul is suggesting that the Roman Christians should acknowledge in their own habit of paying taxes to the government an implicit recognition of the authority that the government possesses over them.

In the second part of the verse Paul reiterates the fact that this authority stems ultimately from God and that paying taxes is therefore a matter of “conscience.” Paul again calls secular rulers “servants of God” (see v. 4), but now he uses a different term, leitourgos. This word was used frequently in the LXX to refer to people who served in the temple,70 and in the NT it always refers to those who are “ministering” for the sake of the Lord.71 Paul may therefore choose to use this word to indicate that secular rulers, even if unknowingly, are performing a religious function.72 This may, however, build too much on the use of the word leitourgos since it was used widely in Greek at the time to denote public officials of various kinds (cf. our “public servant”).73 In any case, as in the case of diakonos in v. 4, the addition “of God” makes clear the ultimately sacred nature of the “secular” ruler’s “service.”74 Therefore the payment of taxes becomes a responsibility that the Christian owes to God himself. This is underscored in Paul’s additional description of the rulers as those who “devote themselves75 to this very thing.”76 Paul may think of the “thing” to which the rulers devote themselves as their promoting of good and restraining of evil (vv. 3–4),77 their collecting of taxes (v. 6a),78 or, perhaps most likely, their service itself (“servants of God”).79

7 Verse 7 has no explicit link to the context, but its call for the discharge of one’s obligations is probably intended to bring the general call for submission to rulers in vv. 1–6 to a practical conclusion. This makes it likely that the “everyone” to whom we are to “pay back” our obligations is limited by the context to secular officials and rulers.80 By using the language of the discharge of a debt,81 Paul suggests that the “service” that government renders to us places us under obligation to the various authorities. Paul spells out four kinds of “obligations” that we may owe to the authorities: “direct” taxes,82 “indirect” taxes,83 “respect,” and “honor.” Paul’s call to “give back” taxes to the secular rulers is reminiscent of Jesus’s demand that his disciples “give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17).84 Since Jesus pairs this obligation to Caesar with our obligation to God—“give to God what is God’s”—some interpreters think that Paul may do the same. They suggest that the “fear” we are to render might not be, as in vv. 3–4, terror of the punishment that the ruler might inflict, but reverence toward God himself.85 However, the parallel traditions do not provide enough basis to find here an application of the word different from that in v. 3–4.86 But dependence on the gospel tradition, along with the perennial significance of taxation as the concrete sign of the authority of a state, probably does explain why Paul brings up the subject of taxes at the end of this paragraph.

It is only a slight exaggeration to say that the history of the interpretation of Rom. 13:1–7 is the history of attempts to avoid what seems to be its plain meaning.87 At first glance, and taken on its own, this passage seems to require that Christians always, in whatever situation, obey whatever their governmental leaders tell them to do. Almost all Christians recoil from this conclusion. Our own sad experience of situations like the Holocaust during World War II suggests that genuine Christian devotion to God must sometimes require disobedience of the government. Moreover, this sense finds support within the NT itself. The classic text is Acts 5:29, in which Peter and John respond to the Jewish leaders’ order to stop teaching in Jesus’ name: “We must obey God rather than men” (see also Acts 4:18–20). Equally important is the book of Revelation, in which keeping the commandments of God in the face of governmental pressure to the contrary is the central demand placed on loyal believers.

Clearly, a willingness to resist the demands of secular rulers, when those conflict with the demand of the God we serve, is part of that “transformation” of life which Paul speaks about in these chapters. But how, then, can Paul apparently speak so absolutely about our need to “be submissive to the authorities”? Theologians and exegetes who have wrestled with this question have come up with several answers, which we will now survey briefly (moving from the least to the most likely).88

(1) Paul does not demand such submission at all. The text is a late addition to Romans, put in when the original radical demands of the gospel had been lost sight of and Christians were seeking accommodation with the world.89 This desperate expedient has no textual basis.

(2) Paul is naive about the evil that governments might do or demand that we do. The apostle’s experience with governmental authorities, as Acts makes clear, had been rather positive: on several occasions, secular rulers acknowledged Paul’s right to preach the gospel. Moreover, Paul was writing Romans during the early years of Nero’s reign, a period of Roman stability and good government (quite in contrast to Nero’s later bizarre and anti-Christian behavior). But Paul knew the history of the often harsh treatment meted out to Israel by pagan nations, recorded both in the OT and in intertestamental Jewish literature. And he certainly knew that it was governmental leaders who put to death Jesus the Messiah, his Lord. Moreover, many of the Christians to whom he writes in Rome had recently been forced by the Roman emperor to leave their homes and businesses and live in exile. Surely Paul was not so naive as to ignore these blunt reminders of government’s capacity to do evil.90

(3) Paul was demanding submission to the government only for the short interval before the kingdom would be established in power.91 This view assumes the “consistent,” or konsequente, view of early Christian eschatology and ethics made famous by A. Schweitzer. Such an interpretation does not do justice to the NT and must read into Rom. 13:1–7 an eschatological focus that is simply not there.92

(4) Paul demands submission to “authorities,” interpreted as both secular rulers and the spiritual powers that stand behind them, only as long as those authorities manifest their own submission to Christ. We have already argued that this interpretation is linguistically impossible (see the notes on v. 1).

(5) Paul is demanding submission to secular rulers only of the Roman Christians and only in the immediate situation they are facing. Finding in the passage a universally applicable norm for the Christian’s attitude toward government is simply an overinterpretation that fails to take into account the specific local nature of the text.93 There is, of course, some truth in this point; and vv. 6–7 are thought by many to suggest that Paul is especially concerned to address an immediate problem in the Roman community (see the introduction to this section). But even if this is the case (and it is not clear either way), vv. 1–2 are hard to get around. Paul here goes out of his way to emphasize the universal scope of his demand: “every soul” is to submit; there is “no authority” except by appointment of God. The text does not clearly teach the divine ordination of government in general; for Paul speaks throughout concretely of governmental authorities and not about the concept or the institution of government. But, in keeping with the OT and Jewish tradition (see the notes on v. 1), he does make clear that God stands behind every governmental authority whom the Christian encounters. Application to situations beyond those in Rome in Paul’s day is entirely valid.94

(6) Paul demands submission to government only as long as the government functions as Paul says it should function in vv. 3–4. The government that rewards good and punishes evil deserves Christian obedience; but the government that begins doing the reverse forfeits its divine prerogative, and Christians are free to disobey it.95 To be sure, Paul does not explicitly make our submission conditional on the way a government acts: vv. 3–4 are simply descriptive. But we must ask why Paul can describe government in such an unrelieved positive light when he knew very well that many governments do not, in fact, behave in this manner. And the answer may be that Paul is describing government as it should be. Perhaps, then, we are justified in thinking that Paul would require Christians to submit to government when it behaves in the way God intended it to behave. Thus, when a government arrogates to itself divine powers (as in the Revelation), Christians are no longer bound to it.96

(7) Paul demands a “submission” to government: not strict and universal obedience. “Submission,” as we pointed out in the exegesis of v. 1, denotes a recognition of the place that God has given government in the ordering of the world. The Christian submits to government by acknowledging this divinely ordained status of government and its consequent right to demand the believer’s allegiance. In most cases, then, Christian submission to government will involve obeying what government tells the Christian to do. But government does not have absolute rights over the believer, for government, like every human institution, is subordinate to God himself. The ultimate claim of God, who stands at the peak of the hierarchy of relationships in which the Christian is placed, is always assumed. This means, then, that Christians may continue to “submit” to a particular government (acknowledging their subordination to it generally) even as they, in obedience to a “higher” authority, refuse to do, in a given instance, what that government requires. In a similar way, the Christian wife, called on to “submit” to her husband, may well have to disobey a particular request of her husband if it conflicts with her allegiance to God.97

Balance is needed. On the one hand, we must not obscure the teaching of Rom. 13:1–7 in a flood of qualifications. Paul makes clear that government is ordained by God—indeed, that every particular governmental authority is ordained by God—and that the Christian must recognize and respond to this fact with an attitude of “submission.” Government is more than a nuisance to be put up with; it is an institution established by God to accomplish some of his purposes on earth (cf. vv. 3–4). On the other hand, we must not read Rom. 13:1–7 out of its broad NT context and put government in a position relative to the Christian that only God can hold. Christians should give thanks for government as an institution of God; we should pray regularly for our leaders (cf. 1 Tim. 2:1–2); and we should be prepared to follow the orders of our government. But we should also refuse to give to government any absolute rights and should evaluate all its demands in the light of the gospel.

E. LOVE AND THE LAW (13:8–10)

8Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another. For the one who loves the other person has fulfilled the law. 9For the series of commandments, “you shall not commit adultery,” “you shall not murder,” “you shall not steal,”a “you shall not covet”b1—and if there is any other commandment—is summed up in this commandment: “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”c 10Love does no wrong to the neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Paul cleverly uses the idea of “obligation” to make the transition from his advice about governing authorities (vv. 1–7) to his exhortation to love for the neighbor (vv. 8–10). In v. 7 Paul urges, “pay back what you owe to everyone.” Paul then repeats this exhortation in v. 8a, but adds to it a significant exception: the obligation of love for one another. In this demand for love, Paul suggests, we find an obligation that can never be discharged, a “never-ending debt” (Bengel). We will never be in a position to claim that we have “loved enough.” Yet, while joined to vv. 1–7 by means of the notion of obligation, vv. 8–10 are connected by their content to 12:9–21, where Paul expounded the meaning and outworking of “sincere love.”2 These verses therefore return to the “main line” of Paul’s exhortation after the somewhat parenthetical advice about government in 13:1–7. But these verses look forward as well as backward. In their insistence that love for others fulfills the law, Paul lays groundwork for his rebuke of the strong and the weak (14:1–15:13), who are allowing debates about the law to disturb the love and unity that they should be exhibiting.3

The obligation of love for another (v. 8b) is the key point in the paragraph. Paul highlights the importance of love in vv. 8c–10 by presenting it as the “fulfillment” of the law.4 This point also serves the larger purpose of the letter—the explanation and defense of the gospel—by guarding Paul’s gospel at a potential point of vulnerability. For the claim that Christians are “not under the law” (6:14, 15) could open the way to the assumption that Paul’s gospel leads to a “do whatever you want” libertinism. Paul rejects any such conclusion by asserting that obedience of the central demand of the gospel, love for the neighbor, provides for the law’s complete fulfillment.5

In a manner typical of the exhortations throughout Rom. 12–13, Paul fashions these verses from traditional material. The emphasis on love for the neighbor as a central obligation of the law may have its roots in the Hellenistic synagogue.6 But far more important for Paul is the fact that Jesus himself singled out the love command (Lev. 19:18) as one of the two commandments on which “all the law and the prophets hang” (Matt. 22:34–40//Mark 12:28–34//Luke 10:25–28; cf. also John 13:34–35). Paul, then, undoubtedly depends on Jesus’ teaching in these verses.7 The traditional character of the connection between love and the law is seen also in the parallel to this text in Gal. 5:13–15. Following a pattern typical of Rom. 12–13, then, Paul here reiterates in his general exhortation of the Roman Christians a point he has made before.

8 The need for Christians to discharge their obligations forms the transition between vv. 1–7 and vv. 8–10. In v. 7a, Paul urged Christians to “pay back” their “debts” (opheilas) to everyone, especially (in that context) to the governing authorities. In v. 8a, Paul repeats this demand: “Owe [opheilete] nothing to anyone.”8 This command does not forbid a Christian from ever incurring a debt (e.g., to buy a house or a car); it rather demands that Christians repay any debts they do incur promptly and in accordance with the terms of the contract. Prompt payment of debts, however, is simply a transitional point in these verses. Paul’s real interest emerges in the next clause: that Christians “love one another.”9 What is the relationship between this demand for love and the preceding demand that Christians “owe nothing to anyone”? The words that connect these two commands10 could be adversative; we would then translate v. 8a, “Owe nothing to anyone; but you ought to love one another.”11 However, the words can also denote an exception; and, from early times, commentators have generally preferred this explanation, translating as in the NRSV, “Owe no one anything, except to love one another.” I also prefer this interpretation, since it gives the debated words the meaning they usually have in Paul and creates a transition between the two commands that is both natural and striking.12 As Origen put it, “Let your only debt that is unpaid be that of love—a debt which you should always be attempting to discharge in full, but will never succeed in discharging.”13

Pauline use of “one another”14 in similar contexts shows that the command to love here is restricted to love for fellow Christians.15 Nevertheless, the universalistic language that both precedes—“no one”—and follows—“the other”—this command demands that the love Paul is exhorting Christians to display is ultimately not to be restricted to fellow Christians.16 We are called to love “the other”; and, as Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan so vividly illustrates, this “other” may be someone quite unknown to us or even hostile toward us (Luke 10:25–37). As Paul has already made clear, “sincere love” (12:9) means that we are to “bless our persecutors” (12:14) and seek to do good to all people (12:17).

In the second part of the verse, Paul explains17 why love for one another is the Christian’s one outstanding debt: “the one who loves the other person has fulfilled the law.”18 By using the phrase “the other” to specify the object of our love,19 Paul emphasizes that we are called to love specific individuals with whom we come into contact. At the same time, he hints that these individuals may be people who are different from us.20 As the repetition of the point in v. 10 makes clear, Paul’s claim that the one who loves the other “has fulfilled” the (Mosaic21) law introduces a central point in this paragraph.22 What does Paul means by this claim?

(1) He may simply be highlighting the centrality of love within the law. On this view, Paul is teaching that loving other people is necessary if we are to claim truly to have “done” what the law demands. Paul’s purpose is not to minimize the importance and continuing relevance of the other commandments but to insist that love must ever be the guiding principle in our obedience to these other commandments.23 But I question whether this view does justice to the word “has fulfilled.” Paul reserves the word “fulfill” for Christian experience; only Christians, as a result of the work of Christ and through the Spirit, can “fulfill” the law.24

(2) The word “fulfill,” then, suggests that Paul is thinking about a complete and final “doing” of the law that is possible only in the new age of eschatological accomplishment.25 Christians who love others have satisfied the demands of the law en toto;26 and they need therefore not worry about any other commandment.27 We must emphasize, however, that such complete and consistent loving of others remains an impossibility, even for the Spirit-filled believer: we will never, short of glory, truly love “the other” as we should. This means that it would be premature to claim that love “replaces” the law for the Christian, as if the only commandment we ever needed to worry about was the command of love. For as long as our love remains incomplete, we may very well require other commandments both to chastise and to guide us.28 What the source of those commandments may be is, of course, another question; and this Paul touches on in the next verse.

9 Paul now supports his contention that loving others fulfills the law by arguing that the commandments of the law are “summed up” in the “word”29 found in Lev. 19:18: “love your neighbor as yourself.”30 Paul cites as illustrations of the commandments he has in mind abbreviated references to the seventh, sixth, eighth, and tenth commandments from the Decalogue.31 His addition “and if there is any other32 commandment” makes clear, however, that he includes other commandments: probably, as the context would suggest, all those commandments of the law that relate to our relations with other human beings.33 Various Jewish authors refer to the commandment to love the neighbor in Lev. 19:18, but it was given no special prominence in Judaism generally. Probably, therefore, the central position that Paul gives the commandment echoes Jesus, who paired Lev. 19:18 with Deut. 6:5 as the commandments on which “all the law and the prophets hang” (Matt. 22:34–40).34 Paul undoubtedly also follows Jesus (see the parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10:25–37) in interpreting the “neighbor” in the commandment to refer to other persons generally and not (as the original text of Lev. 19:18 might indicate) to the fellow Jew.35 The “as yourself” in the commandment does not command or give an excuse for egotism or selfishness. It simply recognizes that people do, as a matter of fact, love themselves. It is this deep concern for ourselves that should characterize our attitude toward others.

Paul denotes the relationship of the love command of Lev. 19:18 to the rest of the commandments with the verb “sum up.”36 The imprecision of this term is reflected in the contradictory theological conclusions that are drawn from Paul’s assertion. Thus, H. Räisänen claims that Paul teaches here the “radical reduction” of the law to the love command,37 while T. Schreiner concludes that the verse shows that some OT commandments are still applicable to believers.38 At issue, then, is whether, in “summing up” the OT commandments about our relations to others, the love command replaces these commandments or whether it simply focuses them by setting forth a demand that is integral to each one of them. When we remember that Paul has earlier in Romans proclaimed the Christian’s freedom from the “binding authority” of the Mosaic law (6:14, 15; 7:4; 8:4), the former alternative seems to be closer to the truth. The Christian, who belongs to the New Covenant people of God, is no longer “under the [Mosaic] law,” the law for the Old Covenant people of God; he is under a “new law,” “the law of Christ” (see Gal. 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:19–21).39 And central to this new law is a command that Christ himself took from the Mosaic law and made central to his new demand: the command to love our neighbors as ourselves (cf. Gal. 6:2 with 5:13–14).

10 While not explicitly connected with v. 9, the first statement in v. 10 clearly explains what Paul has asserted in that verse. The reason why the love command can “sum up” the law is that “love does no wrong to the neighbor.” For not doing wrong to others or, positively, doing good to others, is exactly what the OT commandments about our relationship with other human beings aims at. “Therefore,”40 Paul concludes, “love is the fulfillment of the law.” Opinions on the meaning of this assertion depend considerably on the decisions one reaches about the similar statements in vv. 8 and 9. Murray, for instance, argues that Paul is here presenting love as the virtue that brings our obedience of the law to its “full measure” (plērōma).41 But the proximity of the cognate verb plēroō (“fulfill”) in v. 8b—which matches v. 10b in a chiastic arrangement—suggests that plērōma here has the active meaning “fulfilling.”42 It is also likely that v. 10b repeats the idea of v. 8b: that the Christian who loves, and who therefore does what the law requires (vv. 9–10a), has brought the law to its culmination, its eschatological fulfillment.43

F. LIVING IN LIGHT OF THE DAY (13:11–14)

11And do this, knowing the time: that it is already the hour for you1 to rise up from sleep. For our salvation is now nearer than when we believed. 12The night is far along; the day is drawing near. Therefore put off2 the works of darkness; put on the weapons of light. 13Walk decently, as in the day, not in carousings and drinking bouts, not in sexual excesses and licentiousness; not in strife and jealousy. 14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh, to carry out its desires.

Paul brings to a close his general exhortations to the Roman Christians by focusing on the same point with which he began: a call for a totally new way of living in light of the eschatological situation. In 12:1–2, Paul urges Christians to give themselves as living sacrifices, adopting a lifestyle in keeping with the new era to which they belong. In 13:11–14, he exhorts Christians to clothe themselves with Christ himself (v. 14) and with that behavior (v. 12b) fitting for those who live already in the light of the great “day” of final salvation that is soon to dawn (vv. 11–12a).3 The earlier text encourages Christians to look at the present in light of the past: by virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, the “old age” has been transcended by a new one. The Christian is to live out the values of that new age, appropriating the power available in the gospel to renew the mind and transform conduct. The text now before us shifts the perspective, encouraging Christians to look at the present in light of the future. For, while transferred by God’s grace into the new realm of righteousness and life, Christians still await full and final salvation (cf. 5:9–10), “the redemption of the body” (cf. 8:23). The transformation that the gospel both demands and empowers flows from the work of Christ already accomplished. But it also looks ahead to the completion of the process on that day when we will be fully “conformed to the image of [God’s] Son” (8:29).4 Christians are not only to “become what we are”; we are also to “become what we one day will be.”

Verses 11–14 fall naturally into two parts: the “indicative” section, in which Paul reminds us of the nature of the “time” (vv. 11–12a); and the “imperative” section, in which he summons us to action in light of the “time” (vv. 12b–14). The imperatives occur in three pairs of contrasts:

“put off … / put on …” (v. 12b);

“walk decently … / not in …” (v. 13);

“put on the Lord Jesus Christ / make no provision for the flesh” (v. 14).

Appealing to the imminence of Christ’s return as a basis for exhortation is a common NT pattern, rooted in Jesus’ own teaching.5 And the specific parallels in wording between this paragraph and other Pauline texts (esp. 1 Thess. 5:1–10) confirm the traditional nature of what Paul is here telling the Roman Christians.6

11–12a The phrase that introduces this next paragraph, “and this,”7 might be an idiom used to create a transition—“besides this” (NRSV)8—but it is probably elliptical, with an imperative such as “do”9 to be supplied—cf. NIV: “And do this, understanding.…”10 Many commentators add an ascensive nuance to the phrase—“and do this especially as you recognize …”11—but there seems no good grammatical basis for it. The “this” could refer back immediately to the love command in vv. 8–10,12 but it probably alludes to all the exhortations in 12:1–13:10.13 All that Paul has set forth as the will of God for our sacrificial service in the new age of redemption is to be done because we understand14 the “time,” or “opportune moment,”15 in which we live.

Paul then adds three statements in which he explains16 just what he means by the “time.” His first and third assertions share the metaphor of night giving way to day: “it is already17 the hour for you to rise up from sleep”18 (v. 11b) and “the night is far along19; the day is drawing near” (v. 12a). In a society governed by the sun rather than by the convenience of artificial lighting, people rose at dawn. Only slackards would keep to their beds after the first glow of daylight. Early rising was especially necessary in the Near East, where the bulk of work needed to be done before the heat of midday. Paul wants no slackards among his readers. Christians are to be alert and eager to “present their bodies as a living sacrifice.” But Paul does not use the darkness/light, night/day imagery simply as an illustration drawn from daily life. For in using these contrasts, Paul is drawing on a broad tradition in which these contrasts were used as metaphors for moral and eschatological conditions. Basic to Paul’s application is the OT/Jewish “the day of the Lord,” adapted by the early Christians to denote the time of Christ’s return in glory and the believer’s final redemption.20 “The day” of v. 12a is certainly a reference to this “day of the Lord/Jesus Christ.”21 The “night,” then, probably also hints at, by contrast, “the present evil age” (cf. Gal. 1:4).22 While not as certain, it is also possible that “the hour” in v. 11b has eschatological connotations.23 To “rise from sleep,” then, means to reject “absorption in the present night-age,” to avoid conformity with the present evil age (cf. 12:2).24

The central explanatory statement of “the time” is a straightforward assertion of what these metaphors hint at: “our25 salvation is now nearer than when we believed.”26 Some Christians might find it puzzling that Paul places “salvation” in the future for believers. But, in fact, Paul regularly uses “salvation” and its cognates to denote the believer’s final deliverance from sin and death. Some commentators argue that salvation here refers to each individual believer’s entrance into heaven at death or at the time of the parousia.27 But Paul’s imagery in this passage is not individual but salvation-historical. The “salvation” must be the completion of God’s work on behalf of the church at the time of Christ’s return.28

Many scholars think that Paul’s statement here, along with many similar ones in the NT, shows that the early Christians were certain that Christ was going to return within a very short period of time. And, since Paul’s imperatives are, to some extent, based on this premise, the failure of Christ to return as soon as Paul expected requires that we critically evaluate the continuing validity of those imperatives.29 Paul certainly betrays a strong sense of expectation about the return of Christ (e.g., Phil. 4:5) and can even speak at times as if he will be alive at that time (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:15). But nowhere does he predict a near return; and, more importantly, he does not ground his exhortations on the conviction that the parousia would take place very soon but on the conviction that the parousia was always imminent—its coming certain, its timing incalculable. “On the certainty of the event, our faith is grounded: by the uncertainty of the time, our hope is stimulated, and our watchfulness aroused.”30 Christ’s return is the next event in God’s plan; Paul knew it could take place at any time and sought to prepare Christians—both in his generation and in ours—for that “blessed hope.”31

12b The first pair of imperatives that Paul builds on the imminence of Christ’s return uses the imagery of changing clothes: “putting off” one set in order to “put on” another. This language was widely used with metaphorical associations in the ancient world, and the NT writers adopt it as a vivid way of picturing the change of values that accompanies, and is required by, conversion to Christ.32 Many scholars think that the eschatological imagery of night giving way to day that Paul has just used (vv. 11b, 12a) influences Paul’s choice of this metaphor here: Christians are to put off their “night” clothes and put on their “day” clothes.33 The connection is possible, although the metaphor is so widespread that there is no need to posit such a point of contact.34 Equally common as an image of morality is the contrast between darkness and light that Paul uses to characterize what Christians are to “put off” and “put on.” Particularly significant here is that in the OT, Judaism, and the NT, the contrast is extended into eschatology, with darkness characterizing the present evil age and light the new age of salvation.35 The darkness of night, as the time when those bent on evil and mischief are particularly active, becomes an image for the evil realm, that “old age” which continues to exert its influence and to which Christians are not to be conformed (12:2). The light/darkness contrast is, of course, a natural extension of the day/night imagery of vv. 11–12a; cf. also 1 Thess. 5:4–5: “But you, brothers, are not in darkness, that the day [the “day of the Lord”; cf. v. 2] should overtake you as a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night, neither of the darkness.” The “works of darkness” that Paul urges us to renounce are therefore those activities that are typical of that evil realm.36 In their place, we are to put on “the weapons37 of light,” weapons appropriate for those who have been “delivered from the dominion of darkness” and been “qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in light” (Col. 1:13, 12). We need such weapons both to defend and to extend the light.38 Paul switches from the term “works” to “weapons” because, as Calvin notes, “we are to carry on a warfare for the Lord.”39

13 Paul now derives a second pair of contrasted commands from his teaching about the nearness of the Lord’s return. This contrast employs the very popular imagery of “walking” as a way of speaking about one’s daily conduct.40 Our manner of life, Paul urges, is to be “decent,” a word that suggests a decorous and “becoming” deportment, a lifestyle “appropriate” to those who live in the full light of the day.41 Paul’s addition of the phrase “as in the day” may simply accentuate this metaphor,42 but the use of the same term in v. 12 with reference to the “day of Christ” strongly suggests that Paul intends more than a metaphor. But it is not clear whether Paul is also carrying over from v. 12 the futurity of the day—in which case he would be urging us to “walk decently as if we were in the day”43—or whether he has shifted to the present element of that “day”—in which case, he is exhorting us to “walk decently as those who are in the day.”44 The latter alternative is, however, more in keeping with Paul’s typical combination of the “already” and the “not yet” in his eschatological perspective. Christians eagerly wait for the coming of the day (in its final phase) even as they experience, by faith, the power and blessings of that day in its present phase.

In contrast to the “decent” conduct that we are to exhibit, Paul lists three pairs of vices that we are to avoid. It seems evident that Paul has chosen the first two pairs especially to match the metaphor of darkness/night that he has been using; for excessive drinking45 and sexual misbehavior46 are especially “sins of the night.” “Strife”47 and “jealousy”48 do not so naturally fit here; and Paul may have chosen them with a view ahead to his rebuke of the Roman Christians for their divisiveness and mutual criticism (cf. 14:1–15:13).

14 Paul’s final pair of contrasted imperatives are not so obviously related as those in vv. 12b and 13. The positive command picks up the verb “put on” from v. 12b. Now, however, what we are to put on is not a suit of armor but Christ himself. The exact meaning of what Paul intends is not easy to pinpoint. But perhaps we should view the imperative in light of his understanding of Christ as a corporate figure. As a result of our baptism/conversion, we have been incorporated into Christ, sharing his death, burial, and (proleptically) his resurrection (Rom. 6:3–6). Our “old man,” our corporate identity with Adam, has been severed (Rom. 6:6); and in its place, we have become attached to the “new man” (Col. 3:10–11; Eph. 2:16), Jesus Christ himself (cf. Eph. 4:13), whom we have “put on” (Gal. 3:27). But our relationship to Christ, the new man, while established at conversion, needs constantly to be reappropriated and lived out, as Eph. 4:25, with its call to “put on the new man” makes clear. Against this background, Paul’s exhortation to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ”49 means that we are consciously to embrace Christ in such a way that his character is manifested in all that we do and say.50 This exhortation appears to match the exhortation at the beginning of this section, “be transformed by the renewing of the mind,” suggesting that it is into the image of Christ that we are being transformed (cf. 8:29).51

As the negative counterpart to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” Paul warns us, “make no provision52 for the flesh, to carry out its desires.”53 “Flesh”54 might have a neutral meaning here, Paul’s point being that we should not pay special attention to the demands of our human nature so as to let them dominate us.55 But the term more likely lies more toward the negative end of its spectrum of meaning: “flesh” as that principle and power of life in this world which tends to pull us away from the spiritual realm.56As he does in Galatians (cf. 5:13–26), Paul implies concern that his proclamation of freedom from the law (vv. 8–10) might lead to a licentious lifestyle. Thus he urges his readers, in place of the law, to embrace Christ—who, through the Spirit, provides completely for victory over the flesh.

G. A PLEA FOR UNITY (14:1–15:13)

Paul wraps up his exhortations with a lengthy plea for mutual acceptance. The command to “receive” fellow believers begins the section (14:1) and is repeated again at its climax (15:7). Paul accentuates the theme of mutuality sounded in this last verse—“receive one another”—with three other “one another” references: “do not judge one another” (14:13); “let us pursue those matters that lead to peace and to edification for one another” (14:19); “May the God of endurance and of comfort give to you the power to think the same thing among one another according to Christ Jesus” (15:5). These exhortations to mutual acceptance and concern are directed specifically to two groups of Christians: those who are “weak in faith” (14:1; cf. 15:1) and those who are “strong in faith” (15:1). Two, and probably three, issues divide these two groups: (1) the “strong” eat all kinds of food while the “weak” eat only vegetables (14:2); (2) the “strong” make no distinction among days while the “weak” value some days more than others (14:5); and (3) the “strong” drink wine while the “weak” abstain (14:21; cf. 14:17).1

Two general issues must be cleared up before the details of Paul’s exhortation can be understood: (1) the reason why Paul includes this exhortation in his letter to the Roman Christians; (2) the underlying basis for the differences in practice between the two groups.

With respect to the first issue, the most natural explanation for this extended plea for mutual acceptance is that Paul knew of a division between “strong” and “weak” in the Roman church and writes what he does to heal that division. But many scholars reject this explanation. They argue three points. (1) Rom. 12:1–15:13 is general parenesis, an outline of the gospel ethic that is engendered by the gospel itself and not by the needs of a particular community. (2) The impressive number of verbal and conceptual parallels with 1 Cor. 8–10 confirms that 14:1–15:13 is, like the rest of this section, general parenesis. Paul is here giving a generalized version of his advice to the Corinthians about their disputes over idol meat. (3) The difficulty in pinning down the precise religious motivations for the practices of the “weak” suggests that Paul is not describing an actual state of affairs but an idealized situation.2

However, these arguments are not sufficient to overturn the natural presumption that Paul is addressing a real problem in the Roman community. (1) Romans 12:1–15:13 is not simply general parenesis; Paul chooses themes and adds nuances with at least one eye on the situation in Rome (see the introduction to Rom. 12:1–15:13). (2) The parallels with 1 Cor. 8–10 are clear and extensive.3 But the degree of similarity causes the equally obvious differences to stand out all the more.4 Karris and others argue that the differences reveal that Rom. 14:1–15:13 generalizes from the specific situation Paul addressed in Corinth.5 But Paul’s focus on abstention from all meat—which was not a major issue in the early church—suggests rather that the differences are occasioned by the different situations that Paul is addressing.6 (3) Identifying the religious reasons for the practices of the “weak” that Paul notes is admittedly not easy. But I think it is possible to suggest a scenario that would explain the data (see the next paragraphs). Romans 14:1–15:13, therefore, while naturally picking up themes from throughout the letter, is occasioned specifically by Paul’s need to address a current problem in the Roman community.7

Explanations of the root issue in Rom. 14:1–15:13 fall into six major categories.

(1) The “weak” were mainly Gentile Christians who abstained from meat (and perhaps wine), particularly on certain “fast” days, under the influence of certain pagan religions.8

(2) The “weak” were Christians, perhaps both Jewish and Gentile, who practiced an ascetic lifestyle for reasons that we cannot determine.9

(3) The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who observed certain practices derived from the Mosaic law out of a concern to establish righteousness before God.10

(4) The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who followed a sectarian ascetic program as a means of expressing their piety. This program may have been the product of syncretistic tendencies.11

(5) The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who, like some of the Corinthians, believed that it was wrong to eat meat that was sold in marketplace and was probably tainted by idolatry.12

(6) The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds of food and observed certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic law.13

Four considerations make the sixth alternative the most likely.

First, there is abundant evidence that the dispute between the “weak” and the “strong” was rooted in differences between Jews and Gentiles. The relationship between these two groups has been a leitmotif of Romans since chap. 1; and the conclusion of this section, in which Paul emphasizes the inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles in the one new people of God (15:8–13), brings this motif into Paul’s plea for reconciliation between the “strong” and the “weak.”14 Confirmation of a basically Jewish origin for the position of the weak comes from Paul’s use of the term koinos, “common,” “unclean,” to describe (implicitly) the “weak” Christians’ attitude toward food (14:14). For this term had become a semitechnical way of describing food prohibited under the Mosaic law (see Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14). Moreover, the NT provides abundant evidence that the OT food laws constituted a prime issue in the early Christian communities.15 This consideration rules out alternatives 1 and 2. It also create difficulties for alternative 4 since those sectarian Jews who abstained from meat and wine usually did so not primarily because of concern about violating the Mosaic law but under the influence of ascetic religious principles derived from non-Jewish sources (and often, indeed, antithetical to the OT/Jewish worldview).16

Second, Paul’s plea for understanding and acceptance of the “weak” within the community makes clear that they were not propagating a view antithetical to the gospel. This makes it impossible to view them as Jews who believed that observance of the law was necessary for salvation. It also makes it unlikely that the “weak” were sectarian Jews who adopted an ascetic regime under the influence of other philosophical and/or religious tendencies.17 This consideration rules out alternative 3 and creates difficulties for alternative 4.

Third, Paul’s failure to mention “food sacrificed to idols” (eidōlothyta; cf. 1 Cor. 8:1) and his reference to the observance of special days and abstention from wine make it unlikely that the dispute in Romans can be confined to the issue of food offered to idols.

Fourth, positively, the practices Paul attributed to the “weak” can be explained as a result of concerns to observe certain requirements of the Mosaic law. Abstention from meat and wine is, of course, not required by the Mosaic law.18 But scrupulous Jews would sometimes avoid all meat in environments where they could not be sure that the meat had been prepared in a “kosher” manner.19 And Jewish Christians in Rome, who were perhaps ostracized from the Jewish community because of their faith in Christ and had been forced to settle in strange parts of the city after their exile (by the decree of Claudius), may have been in precisely this kind of environment.20 Similarly, Jews would sometimes abstain from wine out of concern that it had been tainted by the pagan practice of offering the wine as a libation to the gods.21 Finally, of course, the Mosaic law stipulates the observance of many special religious days: the weekly Sabbath and the major religious festivals. And many first-century Jews also observed weekly fasting and prayer days.

These considerations suggest that the “weak” were Jewish Christians (and probably also some Gentile “god-fearers”22) who believed that they were still bound by certain “ritual” requirements of the Mosaic law. Paul’s exhortation in 14:1 to the Roman community to “receive” these who are “weak in faith” makes clear that this group was in the minority. And, typical of such scrupulous minorities, these “weak” Christians were “condemning” those other Christians who did not follow their rules (14:3). This other group, who perhaps called themselves “the strong,” was probably composed mainly of Gentile Christians, along with some more “liberated” Jewish Christians, such as Paul himself (cf. 15:1). They believed that the coming of Christ had brought an end to the ritual requirements of the Mosaic law; and, like many such “enlightened” majorities, they tended to “despise” and look down on the “weak” (14:3). It is possible that the “strong” and the “weak” occupied rival congregations and that Paul’s purpose in this section is to unify the two groups into one congregation.23 But the degree of mutual recrimination and the real power of the “strong” to harm the “weak” suggest rather that Paul writes to bring unity to an existing congregation, or, more likely, to a number of “house” congregations.24

Paul agrees in principle with the “strong”: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself” (14:14a; cf. also 14:20; 15:1). But he spends no time developing this point. His concern is not so much with the “rights” and “wrongs” of this particular issue but with the “peace” and “mutual edification” of the body of Christ (cf. 14:19). And he makes clear that those who pride themselves on being the “strong” have a special responsibility toward this end. It is they, those who truly sense their liberty on these matters, who are to put their exercise of that liberty in perspective and to subordinate it to the far more important “good” of their fellow believers’ edification and salvation (14:15–21). In this they are to imitate their Lord, who subordinated his own interests for the sake of those—both circumcised and uncircumcised—that he came to redeem (15:3, 8–12).

Those who think that Paul writes Rom. 14:1–15:13 without specific knowledge of such a problem in Rome are right to note that the general situation we have sketched in the last three paragraphs is one that would have been found in many of the early Christian communities. It is also true that this section is internally consistent with the theme and development of the letter. For the division between the “strong” and the “weak” is a practical example of the problem of the relationship between Jew and Gentile, law and gospel, OT and NT, that is basic to Romans. We find worked out in detail in these chapters the exhortation of Rom. 11:17, that Gentile Christians should not “boast over the natural branches.” And some of the exhortations of chaps. 12–13 have at least a general relationship to what Paul teaches in 14:1–15:13. The diversity within unity of the body of Christ (12:3–8) undergirds Paul’s call for tolerance between “weak” and “strong”; the importance of love for the “neighbor” (13:8–10; cf. also 12:9–21) informs Paul’s call to the “strong” to restrict the exercise of their liberty for the sake of their “neighbor,” the “weak” Christian (15:2; cf. 14:13–23).25 We do not think these connections are numerous or specific enough to justify the thesis that Rom. 1–13 (or even 12–13) has as its main purpose preparing the ground for Rom. 14:1–15:13. But they do show that Rom. 14:1–15:13, without diminishing its specific application to a problem in Rome, also fits naturally into Paul’s exposition and defense of the gospel. We find even in this hortatory section, therefore, further confirmation of our thesis that Romans is a general exposition of the gospel occasioned by specific needs in the Roman community (see the introduction to the commentary).

Paul’s call for mutual acceptance in the Roman community falls into four larger sections. Each combines exhortation with theological rationale.

14:1–12—Both “strong” and “weak” Christians need to stop condemning each other because it is the Lord, and he alone, who has the right to assess the believer’s status and conduct.

14:13–23—The “strong” Christians must be careful not to cause the “weak” Christians to suffer spiritual harm by their insistence on exercising their liberty on disputed matters. For such insistence violates the essence of the kingdom, which is to manifest love and concern for one another.

15:1–6—The “strong” Christians should willingly tolerate the tender consciences of the “weak” Christians, seeking thereby to foster unified praise of God in the community. Christians should exhibit such concern for others because of the example set for them by their Lord.

15:7–13—Both “strong” and “weak” Christians should receive each other as full and respected members of the Christian community, for God himself has shown, in fulfillment of Scripture, that he accepts both Jews and Gentiles as his people.

1. Do Not Condemn One Another! (14:1–12)

1Receive the one who is weak with respect to faith, and not for the purpose of quarrels over disputed matters. 2One person believes he can eat all things, while another eats vegetables. 3Let the one who eats not despise the one who does not eat; and let the one who does not eat not judge the one who eats, for God has received him.

4Who are you who is judging the household servant of another? It is to his lord that he stands or falls. But he will stand, for the Lord26 is able to cause him to stand. 5For27 one person judges one day to be more important than another day, while another judges each day to be the same. Let each one be thoroughly convinced in his own mind. 6The one who observes the day, observes it to the Lord. And the one who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat, does not eat to the Lord, and he gives thanks to God. 7For no one of us lives to himself, and no one dies to himself. 8For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. Therefore whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9For it is for this reason that Christ died and came to life,28 in order that he might be Lord over both the dead and the living.

10Now why are you judging your brother? Or you also: why are you despising your brother? For we all must appear before the judgment seat of God.29 11For it is written,

As I live, says the Lord, to me every knee will bow

and every tongue will praise God.a

12Therefore each of us will give account of himself to God.30

This paragraph divides into three sections: vv. 1–3, 4–9, and 10–12. The divisions between the sections are marked with similar rhetorical questions, each using the second person singular: “Who are you31 who is judging the servant of another?” (v. 4a); “Why are you judging your brother?” (v. 10a). It is evident, then, that Paul has arranged the three sections in a classic “ring composition.”32 The first (vv. 1–3) and the third (vv. 10–12) state in almost identical language the main point of the paragraph: the “strong” are not to “despise” the “weak”; the “weak” are not to “judge” the “strong” (cf. vv. 3a and 10a). In the central section, vv. 4–9, Paul provides the theological foundation for these commands: every Christian is a servant of the Lord; and it is to that “master,” and not to any other fellow servant, that the believer must answer.33

1 Paul concludes his exhortation to the “strong” and the “weak” with a plea for mutual acceptance (15:7). But he begins by urging that the community “receive the one who is weak with respect to faith.” By making the “weak” in faith the object of this command, which appears to be directed to the community as a whole, Paul implies that the “strong” were the dominant element in the Roman church.34 This fits with our identification of the “strong” as mainly Gentile Christians, since Paul treats the church in Rome as predominantly Gentile (see the introduction). To “receive” the “weak” is not simply to accord them official recognition as church members. The verb means “receive or accept into one’s society, home, circle of acquaintance” (BAGD), and implies that the Roman Christians were not only to “tolerate” the “weak” but that they were to treat them as brothers and sisters in the intimate fellowship typical of the people of God.35

Paul’s description of those who are to be received, “the weak with respect to faith,”36 obviously carries a pejorative connotation: it is certainly better to be “strong” than to be “weak”!37 It was probably the “strong” in Rome who described those with whom they disagreed in this way.38 Yet the phrase is not as negative as it may seem at first sight. Crucial here is the meaning of the word “faith” in this description. Paul uses the language of faith to describe the dispute between the two groups at both the beginning (vv. 1, 2) and end (vv. 22, 23) of chap. 14.39 The words certainly have some reference to that basic response to God in Christ demanded by the gospel which “faith” and “believe” have denoted throughout Romans.40 Yet this distinctively Christian notion of faith has (at least implicitly) the person of Jesus Christ as its object: to “believe” is to entrust oneself to a person. Explicitly in v. 2, however, “believe” has the notion “believe that something is legitimate.” Paul is not therefore simply criticizing these people for having a “weak” or inadequate trust in Christ as their Savior and Lord.41 Rather, he is criticizing them for lack of insight into some of the implications of their faith in Christ. These are Christians who are not able42 to accept for themselves the truth that their faith in Christ implies liberation from certain OT/Jewish ritual requirements. The “faith” with respect to which these people are “weak,” therefore, is related to their basic faith in Christ but one step removed from it. It involves their individual outworking of Christian faith, their convictions about what that faith allows and prohibits.43 Paul’s decision to use the pejorative phrase “weak in faith” makes clear where his sympathies lie. We cannot avoid the impression (though his pastoral concerns lead him to keep it implicit) that Paul would hope that a growth in Christ would help those who were “weak” become “strong.”

In the meantime, however, Paul is concerned with the unity of the church. This is why he not only urges the “strong” to “receive” the “weak” but to receive them with the right motivation and in the right spirit. Don’t, Paul says, welcome the “weak” simply “for the purpose44 of quarrels over disputed matters.”45 The “disputed matters” are those differences of opinion respecting the eating of meat, the observance of days, and the drinking of wine that Paul mentions later in the chapter (vv. 2, 5, 21). Paul wants the “strong” to receive the “weak” into full and intimate fellowship, something that could not happen if the “strong,” the majority group, persist in advancing their views on these issues, sparking quarrels and mutual recrimination.46

2 Paul now cites one of the “disputed matters”: “One person believes he can eat all things, while another eats vegetables.”47 In light of v. 21 (“it is good not to eat meat”) “eats vegetables” must mean “eats only vegetables,” that is, is a “vegetarian,” a person who eats no meat. As we have suggested in the introduction to 14:1–15:13, the “weak in faith” probably decided to avoid meat altogether out of a concern to maintain OT laws of purity in a pagan context where “kosher” meat was not easily obtained. Other believers, however, did not share this concern to maintain purity, no doubt because they were convinced that, as New Covenant Christians, they were no longer obligated to the OT laws involved. When Paul therefore says that these Christians “believe to eat all things” (a literal translation), he is using “believe” in an unusual way. It may mean simply “have confidence,”48 but the probable connection with the word “faith” in v. 1 (cf. also vv. 22–23) suggests that we should not eliminate all connotations of specifically Christian believing. The word probably, then, combines the connotations of “believe” and “believe that”: this Christian, Paul is saying, has the kind of (“strong”) Christian faith as to lead him or her to think that it is legitimate to eat anything. REB captures the sense well: “one person may have faith ‘strong’ enough to eat all kinds of food” (cf. also NIV; TEV).49

3 Paul has begun by urging the “strong” to accept the “weak” (v. 1). But he is well aware that both groups are at fault. He therefore rebukes each side in the dispute, continuing to use the generic singular as a way of particularizing his concern. “The one who eats” (that is, “the one who eats all things” [v. 2] = the “strong”) is not to “despise” the one who does not (the “weak”). And the “one who does not eat” (the “weak”) is not to “judge” the one who does (the “strong”). Paul’s choice of verbs to describe the attitudes of each group is no doubt deliberate. “Despise” connotes a disdainful, condescending judgment,50 an attitude that we can well imagine the “strong” majority, who prided themselves on their enlightened, “liberal,” perspective, taking toward those whom they considered to be foolishly “hung up” on the trivia of a bygone era. The “weak,” Paul suggests, responded in kind, considering themselves to be the “righteous remnant” who alone upheld true standards of piety and righteousness and who were “standing in judgment”51 over those who fell beneath these standards. Paul calls on each side to stop criticizing the other.

At the end of the verse Paul states the ultimate reason why such mutual criticism is out of place: “God has received him.” Here we find Paul’s theological “bottom line” in this whole issue, one that he elaborates in vv. 4–9 and states again at the climax of his argument (15:7). Christians have no right to reject from their fellowship those whom God himself has accepted. They must “receive” those whom God has “received.”52 In 15:7, Paul uses this principle to urge both the “weak” and the “strong” to “receive one another.” Here, however, he uses the principle specifically to undergird his command that the “weak” stop standing in judgment over the “strong.”53

4 Paul elaborates this critical theological foundation of his exhortation to the “strong” and the “weak” in vv. 4–9. “God has received him”; it is God to whom each believer must answer, and God whom each believer must strive to please. This point is obviously applicable to both the “strong” and the “weak”; the “you” whom Paul directly addresses in diatribe style in v. 4a may, then, represent both “weak” and “strong” believers.54 But the description of this person as “the one who judges” picks up the language Paul used to rebuke the “weak” believer in v. 3. Moreover, the beginning of v. 4 sounds a great deal like Paul’s rebuke of the self-satisfied Jew in 2:1—“Therefore you are without excuse, O human being, whoever you are, who is judging” (cf. also v. 3).55 This makes it likely that Paul in v. 4a is addressing the Jewish-oriented “weak” believer, whose attitude toward Christians who do not follow the law’s ritual guidelines is similar to that of many Jews toward “law-less” Gentiles.56

The very wording of the opening of the rhetorical question reveals the heart of Paul’s concern: “Who are you who is judging … ?”; that is, “Who do you think you are, you who are putting yourself in the position of judge over another believer?” No one has the right to judge a fellow believer because each believer is a “household slave,”57 one who belongs to “another.”58 It is “with reference to”59 that “other,” “his own master [kyrios],” that he must “stand or fall.” The slavery imagery makes clear that kyrios has its normal secular meaning of “master.”60 But Paul undoubtedly expects his Christian readers to see also an allusion to their ultimate Lord (see Rom. 10:9). This title, indeed, is central to the theological argument of vv. 4–9.61 The use of “stand” and “fall” metaphorically elsewhere and the application of the terms here to the relationship of slave to master suggest that they refer to approval/disapproval; we may compare the English “stand in favor with”/“fall out of favor with.”62 It is the Lord, not the fellow Christian, whom the believer must please and who will ultimately determine the acceptability of the believer and his or her conduct.

In the last clause of v. 4, the “secular” meaning of kyrios gives way to its theological use: the believer whose behavior is being judged “will stand,63 for the Lord is able to cause him to stand.” “The Lord” may here refer to Christ,64 although this is not certain. Paul here expresses confidence that the “strong” believer will persist in the Lord’s favor. Perhaps Paul’s intention is to suggest to the “weak” believer that the Lord’s approval is attained not by following rules pertaining to food but by the Lord’s own sustaining power: “is able”65 “points both to the possibility and the power of grace.”66

5 Paul interrupts67 his theological argument to cite another point on which the “weak” and the “strong” disagree: the evaluation of “days.” Paul does not explicitly relate this dispute over days to the “strong” and “weak.” But we may be relatively certain that the “weak” believer was the one who was “judging”68 “one day to be more important than69 another day,” while the “strong” believer was “judging each day to be the same.”70 Pinning down the exact nature of this disagreement over “days” is difficult since Paul does not elaborate. Some expositors trace the problem to the influence of the pagan environment, which might have led some Roman Christians to distinguish “lucky” and “unlucky” days,71 or to practice days of abstinence in accordance with certain Greco-Roman religious cults.72 But we have seen good reason to trace the root issue between the “strong” and the “weak” to Jewish concerns about the law. And the observance of days was, of course, important in the OT and in Judaism. Whether the specific point at issue was the observance of the great Jewish festivals, regular days of fasting,73 or the Sabbath is difficult to say. But we would expect that the Sabbath, at least, would be involved, since Sabbath observance was, along with food laws (cf. vv. 2–3), a key Jewish distinctive in the first century, and surfaced as a point of tension elsewhere in the early church (see Gal. 4:10 [?]; Col. 2:16).74 It is typical of Paul’s approach to the dispute in Rome that he does not commend, or command, one practice or the other, but exhorts each believer to be “thoroughly convinced in his own mind.”75

6 Paul now uses this dispute about days to launch back into the theological rationale for his rebuke of judgmental attitudes. Verse 4, where Paul began this rationale, came in a context where Paul was criticizing the “weak” believers. Now, however, by citing examples of the behavior of both the “weak” and the “strong,” Paul makes clear that his argument applies equally to both. The first example Paul cites could refer to both the “strong” and the “weak,” if we were to give the verb phroneō a general or neutral meaning: “The person who holds an opinion about the day, holds that opinion to the Lord.”76 But the word probably here means “to be concerned about,” “observe,” in which case the reference will be to the “weak” believer.77 Paul then returns to the issue with which he began, referring first to the “strong” believer—“the one who eats”—and then to the “weak” again—“the one who does not eat.” In each of these instances, Paul notes, the believer—whether “strong” or “weak”—does what he or she does “to the Lord,” that is, “in the interest of,” “for the benefit of,” the Lord.78 The believer who sets aside certain days for fasting, or who observes the Sabbath, does so because he or she sincerely believes this honors the Lord. Similarly, both the believer who eats anything without discrimination and the believer who refuses to eat certain things “give thanks” to God at their mealtimes79 and are motivated in their respective practices by a desire to glorify the Lord.

7 In v. 4 Paul compared the Christian to the slave who is dedicated “to his or her own master (or lord).” He applies this comparison to specific activities of “strong” and “weak” Christians in v. 6—observing days “to the Lord”; eating and abstaining “to the Lord.” Now, in vv. 7–9, Paul gives a general theological explanation for this comparison.80 Christ’s death and resurrection have established him as Lord over all believers; and believers must therefore recognize that all their activities are done “for the benefit of” that Lord—and not for the benefit of any other Christian who may presume to judge us or any of our actions. These verses are therefore the heart of Paul’s rebuke of the Roman Christians for their judgmental attitudes (vv. 1–12).81

Paul begins with a negative point: “For no one of us lives to himself and no one dies to himself.” Paul probably uses both “live” and “die” to make the point as comprehensive as possible: nothing at all that a Christian does is done “with reference to himself alone” or “for his own benefit.” The implicit comparison is not with other human beings—as if Paul were thinking, in the words of John Donne, “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main.…” Rather, as the context makes clear, the comparison is with the Lord. Paul develops this point in v. 8, the positive counterpart to v. 7.

8 That no Christian lives or dies “to himself” is clear82 from the truth, which Christians confess, that “if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord.” We can easily understand how Christians “live to the Lord”: all parts of believers’ lives—their thoughts, actions, ambitions, decisions—are to be carried out with a view to what pleases and glorifies the Lord. But what does it mean to “die to the Lord”? A few interpreters think that Paul might be using “die” in a spiritual sense, as in Rom. 6:3–6.83 But nothing in the context would suggest such a nuance. Paul must be referring to physical death. In this regard, he probably has in mind the fact that the circumstances of the believer’s death, as of his life, are determined not by his will or in consideration of his own interests, but are wholly in the hands of the Lord, who sets the time for death in accordance with his own interests and purposes.84 The last sentence of the verse summarizes: “Therefore whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s.” The change in grammatical construction (from “to the Lord” to “of the Lord”85) broadens the idea: not only does the believer live and die “in the Lord’s interests”; in both life and death he or she also belongs to the Lord. The union with the Lord Christ,86 with all its benefits, that the believer enjoys in this life will continue after death with, indeed, an even fuller measure of blessing (cf. 8:18, 31–39).

9 Paul’s theological reasoning continues: whether we live or die, we “belong to the Lord,” because it was this for very reason87 that Christ died and “came to life,”88 namely, to “become lord”89 of both the dead and the living. Paul is reminding the Roman Christians of a well-known truth; see 2 Cor. 5:15: “And he died on behalf of all, in order that those who live might live no longer to themselves90 but to the one who died91 on their behalf and was raised.” Here also Christ’s death and resurrection stimulate Christians to live “for the Lord” rather than “for themselves.” But Paul tailors the tradition for its particular function at this point in Romans. For one thing, he departs from the more customary “Christ died and was raised” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:14; 1 Cor. 15:3–4; Rom. 8:3492) to use a formula unique in the NT: “Christ died and came to life.” Presumably Paul does this in order to forge the closest possible link between Christ’s redemptive acts—his death and “coming to life”—and the two most basic parts of Christian experience—life and death.93 The same purpose explains the unusual word order “the dead and the living” at the end of the verse: Paul simply maintains the order that he used in depicting Christ’s work on behalf of Christians (v. 9a).94 This is not to say, however, that Paul intends Christ’s death to have particular relationship to his lordship over the dead and his “coming to life” over the living.95 It is Christ’s death and resurrection together that establish his lordship over all people, including especially here Christians, whether they are living or dead.96 In teaching that Christ’s redemptive work established his lordship, Paul is not of course denying that Christ has eternally exercised lordship. But, as usual, Paul’s focus is on that unique exercise of “kingdom” power and rule that were established only through Christ’s death and resurrection and the appropriation of the benefits of those acts by individual persons in faith.97

10 With the emphatic return to the second person singular diatribe style—“you”98—Paul signals his return to exhortation after the theological rationale of vv. 7–9. He first rebukes the representative “weak” Christian in the same terms he used in v. 4a (and cf. also v. 3b): “Who are you who is judging99 your brother?”100 He then adds, for the first time, a direct rebuke of the “strong” Christian, again duplicating the language he used to describe the “strong” Christian’s attitude in v. 3: “Or you also, why are you despising101 your brother?” Paul’s direct and lively style creates the picture of the apostle shifting his gaze from the “weak” to the “strong” as he publicly chastises these representative Christians from the Roman community.102 Each, Paul suggests by using the term “brother” (which becomes central to the argument of vv. 13–23), is guilty of casting doubt on the status of a fellow member of the spiritual family. No believer has such a right. For, in an extension of the central theological argument of vv. 7–9, Paul reminds the Roman Christians that “we all must appear103 before the judgment seat104 of God.” Paul may be warning the believers that they stand in danger of suffering God’s judgment for their sinful criticism of one another. But, in light of vv. 7–9, we think it more likely that he is reminding them that it is God, and not other Christians, to whom each believer is answerable. In “judging” and “despising” others, therefore, they are arrogating to themselves a prerogative that is God’s only. He will pronounce his judgment over every believer’s status and actions on that day when “each will receive good or evil according to the things that he or she has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5:10).105

11 In confirmation that God, and God alone, will judge all people and their actions on the last day, Paul cites Isa. 45:23: “As I live, says the Lord, to me every knee will bow and every tongue will praise106 God.” The appropriateness of the application of this text to the matter discussed in 14:1–12 is enhanced when we note that it is surrounded by statements of the Lord’s unique sovereignty: “I am God, and there is no other” (v. 22b); “Only in the Lord, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength” (v. 24a). Paul introduces the quotation with his usual formula, “it is written,” and reproduces the LXX fairly closely.107 However, there is an exception: the opening words of Paul’s quotation, “As I live, says the Lord,” do not occur in Isa. 45:23. These words are, however, found in a number of OT texts, including Isa. 49:18.108 Why does Paul add them here? Some interpreters think that this is Paul’s way of identifying the “Lord” (kyrios) in the OT quotation with Christ.109 Paul uses kyrios with reference to Christ throughout vv. 4–9, and, in his other allusion to Isa. 45:23 (in Phil. 2:11), he relates the confession of “every tongue” to the fact that “Jesus Christ is Lord.”110 And there is precedent within Romans itself for the identification of kyrios in the OT with Christ (see 10:13). Yet Paul does not usually identify the kyrios of his OT quotations with Christ; and his focus within this paragraph seems to have shifted from Christ to God the Father.111 Probably, then, we should not read an implicit christological identification into the reference to kyrios in the quotation. Paul may introduce these words inadvertently because of a slip in memory;112 or he may have deliberately added them to accentuate the words that follow.113

12 Paul summarizes vv. 10c–11: “Therefore each of us will give account114 of himself to God.” “Each of us” carries on the universalistic emphasis of the previous verses: “we must all appear before the judgment seat of God” (v. 10c); “every knee will bow”; “every tongue will confess” (v. 11). But, as the first person plural (“we”) of v. 10c and the “us” here indicate, Paul is especially concerned to remind Christians that they will be among those who must “give an account” of their behavior before the sovereign and all-knowing judge of history. This reminder, with which Paul concludes this part of his exhortation, is two-pronged. On the one hand, as Paul has emphasized earlier (vv. 4, 10), it shows why it is wrong for a Christian to stand in judgment over another: “Do not judge your brother, for God will judge him.” But the fact of judgment to come also reminds believers that they will have to answer before the Lord for their own behavior: “Do not judge your brother (and so sin), for God will judge you.”115

2. Do Not Cause Your Brother to Stumble! (14:13–23)

13Therefore, let us no longer be judging one another. But judge this rather: not to place a stumbling block or hindrance before your brother. 14I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself. But to the one who reckons it to be unclean, to that person it is unclean. 15For if through food your brother is caused pain, you are no longer walking in love. Do not because of food destroy one for whom Christ died. 16Therefore let not your good be blasphemed.

17For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18For the one who serves Christ in this is pleasing to God and esteemed by people.

19Therefore, let us pursue1 those things that make for peace and the edification of one another. 20Do not, on account of food, tear down the work of God. All things are indeed clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat while causing another to stumble. 21It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine or to do anything else in which your brother might be caused to stumble.2 22The faith that3 you have, keep to yourself before God. Blessed is the one who does not judge himself in what he approves. 23But the one who doubts when he eats is condemned, for it is not out of faith. And everything that is not out of faith is sin.4

Although Paul begins vv. 1–12 with a plea to the “strong” and quickly moves on to address both the “strong” and the “weak” (v. 3; cf. also v. 10), his focus is on the “weak” (vv. 3b–4; and the argument of vv. 7–9, while relevant to both groups, is especially applicable to the “weak”). Paul balances this focus by concentrating in vv. 13–23 almost exclusively on the “strong.” On the negative side, Paul exhorts the “strong” not to use their liberty in such a way that they would cause their weaker brothers to suffer spiritual harm (e.g., “stumble”; cf. vv. 13b, 20b–21; cf. also vv. 15a, 15c, and 20a). Positively, Paul urges the “strong” to recognize that their freedom on these matters (“their good” in v. 16) must be governed by love for their fellow believers (v. 15) and concern for the “building up” of the body of Christ (v. 19). Structurally, Paul’s exhortation to the “strong” takes a form that resembles the one he has used in vv. 1–12. Again his basic exhortation is found at the beginning and at the end of the text—“don’t cause a weaker Christian to stumble” (vv. 13b–16 and vv. 19–23)—while a central section sets forth the basic theological rationale for his exhortation—the nature of the kingdom of God (vv. 17–18).5 Further, the basic points Paul makes in the two exhortation sections are in chiastic order:

A Warning about stumbling blocks (proskomma)—v. 13b

B Nothing is “unclean” (koinos) in itself—v. 14a

C Do not “destroy” one for whom Christ died—v. 15b

C′ Do not tear down “the work of God”—v. 20a

B′ All things are “clean” (katharos)—v. 20b

A′ Don’t do anything to cause the fellow believer to stumble—v. 216

13 “Let us no longer be judging one another” is transitional.7 The exhortation sums up vv. 1–12 while preparing for the new focus in vv. 13–23. Both the “strong” Christian and the “weak” Christian, Paul has made clear, are to stop standing in judgment over one another; for God has accepted each one, and it is to their master, the Lord who has redeemed them, and not to any fellow servant, that they are answerable. In the second half of the verse, however, Paul turns to the “strong” in faith, using a play on the word krinō to forge his transition. In the first part of the verse, this verb means “condemn”; in the second half, however, it means “determine,” “decide.”8 Rather than “judging” (condemning) others, the “strong” in faith are to “judge” (decide)9 “not to place a stumbling block or cause of offense before their fellow believer.” “Stumbling block” translates a word that refers to that which causes a person to trip or stumble. The word took on a metaphorical sense and is always used in the NT with reference to spiritual downfall.10 Similar is the origin and use of skandalon, “cause of offense.” It, too, originally denoted a literal “trap,” but it came quickly to have a metaphorical meaning, “occasion of misfortune,” “cause of ruin.”11 The words are essentially synonymous here.12 Paul neither here nor anywhere in this paragraph delineates the exact manner in which the “strong” believer might cause “spiritual downfall” to the “weak” believer. But Paul’s concern to remind the “strong” believers that food, while in theory “clean,” might be “unclean” to the “weak” believer (v. 14), coupled with his concluding assertion that a person who acts against “what he believes” commits sin, suggests that he is thinking of the possibility that the “strong” believers’ exercise of liberty might create pressure on the “weak” believers to do what their consciences were telling them not to do and so fall into sin and potential spiritual ruin.13

14 In this verse Paul lays the groundwork for the suggestion, implicit in his exhortation of v. 13b, that the behavior of the “strong” could bring spiritual harm to the “weak.” Paul begins by stating a fundamental principle—one to which the “strong” would no doubt give an enthusiastic “Amen!”: “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself.” “Unclean” translates a word that means “common.” But Jews began using the word to denote those things that, by virtue of what they considered inappropriate contact with the ordinary, secular, world, were ritually defiled or unclean.14 Paul clearly uses the word here in this sense, as the antonym “clean” (katharos) in the parallel v. 20 makes clear. This connotation of the word “common” or “unclean” also makes clear that Paul is not here claiming that there is nothing at all that is absolutely evil or sinful. His statement must be confined to the point at issue: ritual defilement as defined by OT/Jewish law.15

It is not clear what role “the Lord Jesus” has in this emphatic declaration of Paul’s. Three possibilities deserve consideration: (1) “I know through my fellowship with the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean”16; (2) “I know through my understanding of the truth revealed in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean”17; (3) “I know through the teaching of the Lord Jesus on earth that nothing is unclean.”18 Good evidence can be marshaled for this last interpretation. Jesus’ teaching about true defilement was so important that Mark (writing in Rome at about this time?) added his own editorial comment to make the point clear to his readers: “And so he declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19b). Paul’s “in the Lord Jesus” rather than his usual “in Christ [Jesus]” might also point to the historical Jesus. And a reference to this teaching of Christ’s would fit with Paul’s propensity to allude to the teaching of Jesus in this part of Romans. In the last analysis, however, this interpretation reads quite a bit into the phrase “in the Lord Jesus.” Perhaps, then, view 1 or 2, or a combination of them, is preferable.

The “strong” in faith would certainly agree with this declaration of liberty; indeed, their position may well be the result of their acquaintance, directly or indirectly, with Paul’s own bold stance on these matters.19 But, as he does in the very similar Corinthian situation (see 1 Cor. 8:4–7), Paul quickly adds a complementary and qualifying truth: “But20 to the one who reckons something to be unclean, to that person it is unclean.” What Paul wants the “strong” to realize is that people differ in their ability to internalize truth. The fact that Christ’s coming brought an end to the absolute validity of the Mosaic law (cf. 6:14, 15; 7:4), and thus explicitly to the ritual provisions of that law, was standard early Christian teaching. And, at the intellectual level, the “weak” Christians may themselves have understood this truth. But Paul wants the “strong” in faith to recognize that people cannot always “existentially” grasp such truth—particularly when it runs so counter to a long and strongly held tradition basic to their own identity as God’s people.

15 Verse 14, supplying the theoretical basis for Paul’s use of the language of spiritual downfall in v. 13, is somewhat parenthetical. Verse 15, accordingly, probably relates especially to v. 13:21 Don’t put a stumbling block in the way of a brother (v. 13b), … “for”22 this is just what you are doing—by insisting on exercising your freedom to eat food, you bring pain to your fellow believer and thereby violate the cardinal Christian virtue of love. The “pain” that the “strong” believer causes the “weak” believer is more than the annoyance or irritation that the “weak” believer might feel toward those who act in ways they do not approve.23 Its relationship to the warnings about spiritual downfall in vv. 13b and 15b show that it must denote the pain caused the “weak” believer by the violation of his or her conscience.24 The eating of the “strong,” coupled with their attitude of superiority and scorn toward those who think differently, can pressure the “weak” into eating even when they do not yet have the faith to believe that it is right for them to do so. And by doing what does not come “out of faith,” the “weak” sin (v. 23) and suffer the pain of that knowledge. In behaving as they are, then, the “strong” are ignoring what Paul has set forth in 12:9–21; 13:8–10 as basic to Christian conduct: love for “the neighbor.”

Paul sharpens his point by issuing a direct command: “Do not because of food25 destroy26 one for whom Christ died.” This command raises the stakes in two ways. First, instead of speaking generally about the “spiritual harm” (v. 13b) and “pain” (v. 15a) that the “strong” might cause the “weak,” Paul stresses that their actions can “destroy” them. “Destroy” might refer to the spiritual grief and self-condemnation that the “weak” incur by following the practices of the “strong” against their consciences.27 But Pauline usage suggests rather that Paul is warning the “strong” that their behavior has the potential to bring the “weak” to ultimate spiritual ruin—failure to attain final salvation.28 If Paul is not simply exaggerating for effect, perhaps he thinks that the “weak” in faith might be led by the scorn of the “strong” to turn away entirely from their faith.

Second, Paul accentuates the matter by reminding the “strong” in faith about the tremendous sacrifice that Christ had already made to provide for the salvation of that “weak” believer. If, Paul implies, Christ has already paid the supreme price for that “weak” Christian, how can the “strong” refuse to pay the quite insignificant price of a minor and occasional restriction in their diet?

16 This verse, returning to the second person plural address of v. 13b (after the second person singular in v. 15), rounds off the opening paragraph in this section.29 The prohibition in the verse is a conclusion30 that Paul draws from what he has just said in vv. 14–15. Freedom from the dietary laws is a “good” thing, a legitimate implication of the coming of Jesus the Messiah and the New Covenant. But if the Christian were to use that freedom in such a way that a fellow believer was put in spiritual danger, that “good” would quickly become something that would be “blasphemed”—that is, it would become the cause of other people reviling and defaming that which is a divine gift.31 I am therefore assuming that “the good thing” refers to the freedom enjoyed by the “strong”32 rather than, more generally, to Christian teaching, or the kingdom of God, or faith.33 I think the possessive pronoun, “your,” points in this direction since it most naturally refers to the “strong” (cf. v. 15). On this view, it is more likely that those who are “blaspheming” the good are the “weak”34 rather than non-Christians.35 Paul is warning the “strong” Christians that their insistence on exercising their freedom in ceremonial matters in the name of Christ can lead those who are spiritually harmed by their behavior to revile the legitimate freedom that Christ has won for them.

17 In verses 17–18, Paul provides the theological underpinnings for his imperatives in vv. 13–16 and 19–23.36 The “strong” need perspective; and this is just what Paul tries to give them here. For the “strong” are placing too high a value on Christian freedom from ceremonial observances. By insisting that they exercise their liberty in these matters, they are causing spiritual harm to fellow believers and are thereby failing to maintain a proper focus on what is truly important in the kingdom of God. Theirs, paradoxically, is the same fault as that of the Pharisees, only in reverse: where the Pharisees insisted on strict adherence to the ritual law at the expense of “justice, mercy, and faith” (Matt. 23:23), the “strong” are insisting on exercising their freedom from the ritual law at the expense of “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” For these are the qualities, Paul reminds the “strong,” that are what the kingdom of God is all about—not “eating37 and drinking.” At the same time, of course, while not explicitly directed to them, this theology would be important for the “weak” also to hear—and act upon.

This is the first time in the passage that Paul has said anything about “drinking.” He may add the word here simply because it is a natural complement to “eating.”38 But it is also possible, in light of the reference in v. 21, that drinking wine was another issue that separated the “strong” and the “weak.” We would therefore assume that it was the “weak” who abstained from drinking wine, while the “strong” insisted on using their liberty to do so. But it is important to note that, supposing this to be the case, the “weak” would have abstained not because they were afraid of the intoxicating or enslaving potential of alcohol, but because they were afraid that the wine had been contaminated by association with pagan religious practices.39

Paul does not often refer to the kingdom of God;40 and his use of the concept here, in a context with so many allusions to the teaching of Jesus, may reflect his dependence on Christ’s own emphasis on the true nature of the kingdom.41 Paul’s way of describing the kingdom, however, reflects his own theological emphases. “Righteousness”42 is, of course, a central theme of Romans, where it usually refers to the “justifying” action of God in Christ and the resultant status enjoyed by believers. And since Paul is not contrasting two types of human behavior—eating and drinking on the one hand versus “right” action on the other—many scholars think he is using the term in this sense.43 But the context focuses on relations among believers. Probably, then, the main reference here is to “ethical” righteousness—right behavior within the community of believers.44 “Peace,” as v. 19 strongly suggests, will have a similar horizontal meaning: harmony and mutual support of the believers with one another.45 It is when these blessings are experienced that the community will also be characterized by “joy.” All three blessings come as a result of the believer’s experience of the Holy Spirit.46

18 Paul now underscores the point that he has just made47: “righteousness, peace, and joy” are central to life in the kingdom, “for48 the one who serves Christ in this” both pleases49 God and is “esteemed50 by people.” The question here is the antecedent of the pronoun “this.” Many commentators think that it refers to the virtues of “righteousness, peace, and joy,”51 but the singular form of the word is against this. Others suggest a reference to the Holy Spirit,52 but the Spirit is a subordinate idea in v. 17. Still others think the antecedent is a principle or concept that emerges from v. 17: the promotion of peace,53 or the “matter” that Paul has been speaking about.54 I prefer to interpret “this” as the proper kingdom focus that Paul has delineated in v. 17, with the phrase as a whole denoting the manner of service: “the one who serves Christ by focusing on those matters that are truly central to the kingdom.”55 Paul’s description of the believer as one who is “serving Christ” reminds us of his characterization of the believer as a servant who is required to satisfy the demands of his or her master (vv. 4, 7–8). And by making the believer’s service of Christ the means of honoring God, Paul places Christ and God in a relationship that is typical of this whole section. It is only as the “strong” submit to Christ and the demands of his kingdom in this matter of ceremonial observances that they will meet with God’s approval. At the same time, by following Christ in love and putting “righteousness, peace, and joy” ahead of “eating and drinking,” the “strong,” rather than being “blasphemed” by the “weak,” will be esteemed by them.56

19 After his “indicative” interlude, Paul turns back to “imperative,” exhorting the Roman Christians to put into practice in their relationships with each other the principles of the kingdom that he has just set forth (vv. 17–18).57 This verse, then, introduces the concluding section of commands in this paragraph (vv. 19–23), a section that matches, in both structure and, to a lesser extent, content, the opening series of exhortations (vv. 13–16). Having made “peace” a basic feature of the kingdom of God (v. 17), Paul now exhorts the Roman Christians to “pursue”58 “those things that make for peace.”59 This “peace,” more clearly here than in v. 17, is horizontal: peace with other Christians. As v. 20 makes clear, Paul is still addressing the “strong”: he calls on them to maintain the kind of attitude and behavior with respect to the matters of dispute in the Roman church that will foster harmony between the two factions. Paul exhorts them also to pursue “those things that make for edification of one another.”60 Paul probably is thinking more of the edification, or “building up,” of the church as a whole than of the edification of individual believers.61 “Those things” that edify the church are probably, then, a more specific way of describing “those things” that lead to peace. The strong believers will foster peace in the community by making the interests of the church as a whole their priority.

20 Paul now uses a more direct and forceful style (the second person singular imperative) to urge a representative “strong” believer not to “tear down the work of God.” This prohibition is the flip side of the positive exhortation to “pursue … those things that make for edification” (v. 19b); for “tear down” is a natural antonym of “build up.”62 “The work of God,” accordingly, probably refers to the Christian community rather than to the individual “weak” believer.63 Paul is warning “strong” believers that they can seriously damage the church—destroy its unity and sap its strength—through their attitudes and actions toward the “weak.” And they cause this damage “for the sake of food”—because they persist in behaving in a certain way in a matter that is peripheral, at best, to the kingdom of God. To be sure, Paul admits, the strong believers are right to think that they possess the freedom as the New Covenant people of God to eat and drink without any restriction from the Old Covenant law—“all things are clean.”64 But, as he did earlier when making the same point (v. 14), Paul immediately qualifies this assertion of liberty. In the former verse, Paul’s qualification had to do with the perception and attitude of the “weak” believer: “to the one who reckons something to be unclean, to that person it is unclean.” And this may be what Paul means here also, if we translate, with the NJB, “but all the same, any kind [of food] can be evil for someone to whom it is an offense to eat it.”65 In favor of this reading is the close parallelism thereby attained between vv. 14 and 20 (and we have noted that Paul seems to intend a certain parallelism between vv. 13b–16 and 19–23).66 But context and grammar make it more likely that the “person who eats” here is the “strong believer.” Paul is therefore warning the “strong” believer that it is wrong for him or her to eat “while causing offense” or “if it causes [another] to stumble”; cf. NRSV: “it is wrong for you to make others fall by what you eat.”67

21 Paul again uses antonyms to elaborate: as it is “wrong”68 for the strong believer to eat while causing offense to the weaker brother, so it is “good”69 “not to eat meat or to drink wine70 or to do anything”71 that might cause that brother to stumble. As v. 17 sums up the central theological point, so this assertion states the basic practical point that Paul makes in vv. 13–23.72 The “stumbling” will again (cf. vv. 13b, 20b) consist in the “weak” in faith, under pressure from the arguments and example of the “strong,” doing what they still think is wrong. The issue of “eating” has been central to the argument from the beginning, but this verse clarifies what is meant in v. 2—“eats vegetables,” that is, “is a vegetarian, abstaining from meat”—and elaborates the brief references to “food” and “eating” throughout this paragraph (vv. 15, 17, 20). As I argued in the introduction to 14:1–15:13, the “weak” probably abstained from meat because they feared that it would not meet the ritual requirements of the OT law. Paul’s reference here to “drinking wine” probably implies that the same believers avoided wine out of similar concerns: for wine was widely used in pagan religious libations (see also v. 17). But Paul clearly intends to make the principle he states here as widely applicable as possible by adding “or anything else.” The believer who seeks the peace and edification of the church should gladly refrain from activities that73 might cause a fellow believer to suffer spiritual harm.

22 Paul continues to address the representative “strong” Christian. “You” is emphatic: “as for you,74 the faith that you have, keep to yourself75 before God!” This is the first time since the beginning of the chapter that Paul has used the language of faith to characterize the parties in the dispute. As in v. 1, “faith” does not refer to general Christian faith but to convictions about the issues in dispute in Rome that arise out of one’s faith in Christ. Paul is not, then, telling the “strong” Christian to be quiet about his or her faith in Christ—a plea that would be quite out of place in the NT! Nor is he necessarily requiring “strong” believers never to mention their views on these matters or to speak of their sense of freedom before others. As the context suggests, the silence that Paul requires is related to the need to avoid putting a stumbling block in the way of the “weak.” This will mean that the “strong” are not to brag about their convictions before the “weak” and, especially, that they are not to propagandize the “weak.”

The blessing that Paul adds at the end of the verse can be taken in two different ways. (1) Paul might be commending believers who have no reservations about their own beliefs on these disputed matters and therefore have no cause to “reproach” themselves for their conduct. See TEV: “Happy is the person who does not feel guilty when he does something he judges is right” (cf. also REB). In this case, Paul may have in mind both “strong” and “weak” believers,76 or, more likely, “strong” believers only.77 (2) Paul might be encouraging “strong” believers to “walk in love” toward their “weak” fellow believers and so give themselves—or God—no reason to “condemn” themselves.78 The first alternative is preferable. The latter interpretation would make good sense if Paul intended this blessing as a basis for his plea for silence in v. 22a, but he does not indicate any such relationship.79 But he does suggest a relationship between vv. 22b and 23;80 and this connection suggests that, as he warns “weak” believers about acting against what they believe in v. 23, so in v. 22b he commends “strong” believers for acting on the basis of faith. Moreover, Paul’s use of the word “approve”81 also favors a reference to the “strong.” Paul’s point, then, is that the “strong” should be content with the blessing God has given them in enabling them to understand the liberty that their faith provides them, without feeling it necessary to flaunt that liberty before their “weaker” fellow believers.

23 In contrast to the Christian who acts from conviction is the “weak” Christian “who has doubts” or “who wavers.”82 The doubts of such Christians arise from the fact that they do not have a strong enough faith to believe that they can ignore the ritual elements of the OT law. Doubters such as this, Paul says, are “condemned”83 when they eat. This is not simply a subjective self-condemnation; as the reference to sin later in the verse makes clear, Paul refers to God’s disapproval of such an act.84 Condemnation comes not because of the eating itself; as Paul has already explained (vv. 14, 20), eating anything one wants is quite all right for the believer. Rather, what brings God’s condemnation is eating when one does not have the faith to believe that it is right to do it. This, Paul claims, is “sin.”85 Why? Because,86 Paul goes on to explain, “everything that is not out of faith is sin.” Paul here asserts a general theological principle. But it is necessary to describe accurately just what that principle is. Most important is to realize that “faith” here almost certainly has the same meaning that it has elsewhere in this chapter (vv. 1, 22): “conviction” stemming from one’s faith in Christ.87 Paul is not, then, claiming that any act that does not arise out of a basic trust and dependency on Christ is sinful, true as that may be.88 What he here labels “sin,” rather, is any act that does not match our sincerely held convictions about what our Christian faith allows us to do and prohibits us from doing. “For a Christian not a single decision and action can be good which he does not think he can justify on the ground of his Christian conviction and his liberty before God in Christ.”89 Violation of the dictates of the conscience,90 even when the conscience does not conform perfectly with God’s will, is sinful. And we must remember that Paul cites this theological point to buttress his exhortation of the “strong.” The “strong,” he is suggesting, should not force the “weak” to eat meat, or drink wine, or ignore the Sabbath, when the “weak” are not yet convinced that their faith in Christ allows them to do so. For to do so would be to force them into sin, to put a “stumbling” block in their way (cf. vv. 13, 20–21). First, their faith must be strengthened, their consciences enlightened; and then they can follow the “strong” in exercising Christian liberty together.

3. Put Other People First! (15:1–6)

1But we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those who are without strength1 and not please ourselves. 2Let each of us please his neighbor for good, for edification. 3For even Christ did not please himself but, just as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you have fallen on me.”a 4For whatever was written beforehand was written for our instruction, in order that through endurance and through the comfort of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5Now may the God of endurance and comfort give to you to think the same thing among one another, according to Christ Jesus, 6in order that you might with one accord, with one mouth, glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The opening verses of chap. 15 continue Paul’s exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong” in chap. 14, but the relationship between the two is disputed. Some commentators posit a tight connection and would eliminate the usual paragraph break placed between the chapters. They see the first person plural exhortation in v. 1, with its grounding in vv. 2–3, as the conclusion to the argument of 14:20–23.2 At the other extreme are those who think that 15:1 marks a significant transition from a narrow focus on the dispute between the “weak” and the “strong” in Rome to a broader exploration of the principles Christians should follow in any such disputes.3 We prefer to steer a middle course. Paul gives no indication that he intends to shift his focus from the specific problem of disunity in the Roman church. But the introduction of new vocabulary4 and new arguments suggests that 15:1 marks a new stage in the discussion.

This paragraph runs through v. 6. Paul begins by exhorting his fellow “powerful” believers in Rome to “bear” the weaknesses of their less powerful fellow believers and not to “please themselves,” that is, to use their sense of Christian liberty selfishly (v. 1). On the contrary, the “powerful” or “strong” are to “please” others (v. 2), following the example of their Lord and master, Jesus Christ, who put others before himself when he bore the reproaches of human beings directed against God (v. 3). Having used a line from Ps. 69 to describe Christ’s bearing of reproach (v. 3b), Paul adds a general assertion about the applicability of the OT to Christian experience, focusing on its purpose of strengthening believers’ hope (v. 4). A concluding “wish-prayer” returns to the root issue, as Paul prays that God might give to the Roman Christians a common mind-set (v. 5), which would enable them to praise God with a strong and united voice (v. 6). Thus the paragraph is basically a call to the “strong” in Rome to follow Christ’s example of loving service of others as a means of bringing unity to the church. We find the same pattern of teaching in Phil. 2:1–11, where Paul pleads for believers to follow Christ’s example in preferring other’s interests to their own in order to bring unity to the community.

1 We have at the opening of this paragraph a shift in style. Dominant in the exhortations of chap. 14 is Paul’s use of the second person singular to address a representative “weak” or “strong” believer. First person plural exhortations occur only as brief interruptions to this style (vv. 13a, 19). In vv. 1–4, however, Paul uses the first person plural form of address as his mainstay. But this change in style does not signal a change in address: Paul continues to address the “strong” believers, as he has in 14:13b–23. Now, for the first time, he names them, implicitly including himself among them: “we who are strong.”5 The context requires that we delimit the significance of this description to the specific issue that Paul has been discussing: these Christians are “strong” or “capable” (dynatos) with respect to the faith to believe that certain practices are legitimate for believers. Conversely, then, those whom Paul here designates as the adynatōn are believers who are “incapable” of realizing that their faith in Christ has freed them from certain ritual observances.6

Those who pride themselves on their “strength” are obliged,7 Paul says, to use that strength to “bear the weaknesses”8 of those who are “without strength” in this matter. Paul is not urging the “strong” simply to “bear with,” to tolerate or “put up with,” the “weak” and their scruples.9 For Paul uses this same verb in Gal. 6:2 (and cf. v. 5) in a similar way, urging believers to “bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ [i.e., love for one another; cf. 5:14].”10 In this light, what Paul is exhorting the “strong” to do is willingly and lovingly to assume for themselves the burden that these weak believers are carrying. See REB: “Those of us who are strong must accept as our own burden the tender scruples of the weak.” This does not necessarily mean that the “strong” are to adopt the scruples of the “weak.” But what it does mean is that they are sympathetically to “enter into” their attitudes, refrain from criticizing and judging them, and do what love would require toward them. Love demands that the “strong” go beyond the distance implied in mere toleration; they are to treat the “weak” as brothers and sisters.11 Negatively, it means that the “strong” are not to “please12 themselves.” Lying just below the surface here is what becomes explicit in v. 3: that this “carrying” of the weaknesses of other believers is to be done in imitation of the Lord Christ, who himself “carried” our infirmities (Matt. 8:17, quoting Isa. 53:413) and did not come to be served but to serve (Mark 10:45 and pars.).

2 Rather than “pleasing ourselves,” “each of us,” Paul goes on to say, should “please the neighbor.” By using the phrase “each of us,” Paul may expand his address to include all the believers in Rome, whether “weak” or “strong.”14 Evidence for this inclusiveness can be found at the end of the paragraph, where Paul clearly includes the entire Roman community (cf. vv. 5–6). But the relationship between vv. 1 and 2—not pleasing ourselves/pleasing the neighbor—and the similarity between v. 2 and Paul’s exhortations to the “strong” in 14:13–23 (cf. the “good” with v. 16 and “edification” with v. 19) suggest rather that Paul continues in v. 2 to address the “strong” only.15 The “neighbor” will, then, be the “weak” fellow believer.16 By using the term “neighbor,” Paul makes clear that he bases his plea to the “strong” on the love command.17 The “strong” believer “walks in love” when he or she “pleases” rather than “pains” the “weak” believer (cf. 14:15). Paul thus applies to this particular issue his earlier general teaching about the centrality of love for the Christian life (13:8–10).

Picking up another key motif in his earlier exhortation, Paul asserts that the purpose of pleasing others is “the good.”18 This “good” is the good of the individual “weak” believer: his or her spiritual profit,19 in contrast to the spiritual harm that the insensitive and selfish behavior of the “strong” might cause (14:15, 20). But Paul defines this “good” more specifically in a second clause: “edification,” or “building up.”20 As in 14:19, this word takes us out of the narrowly individualistic realm. For the spiritual profit of the “weak” believer is at the same time to the advantage of the Christian community as a whole, as its unity in praise and service is enhanced.21 These two statements of purpose also define what Paul means by “pleasing” others. What is involved is not the “pleasing people” rather than God that Paul elsewhere condemns (Gal. 1:10; Col. 3:22; 1 Thess. 2:4; Eph. 6:6), but a “pleasing” fellow believers rather than ourselves.

3 In 1 Cor. 10:33–11:1, when dealing with a debate among believers in Corinth similar to that in Rome, Paul cites his own practice of “pleasing all others … so that they might be saved” and then quickly adds that he is himself acting in imitation of Christ. Paul here moves directly from an exhortation to “please the neighbor” to the example of Christ (although he implicitly refers to his own practice with the form of address). The “strong” should not think that their “giving into” others is incompatible with their “strength”; for even22 the Messiah23 “did not please24 himself.” We might have expected at this point an explicit reference to Christ’s giving of his life for the sake of sinful human beings—the “weak” (cf. 5:6). Instead, after a typical introductory formula, Paul puts words from Ps. 69:9b on the lips of Jesus: “The reproaches of those who reproached you have fallen on me.”25 “Me” in the quotation is Christ; “you” is God26—Paul has Jesus saying that the reproaches, or insults, of people that were directed at God fell on himself instead. Why Paul uses this particular quotation is not clear since we have no reason to think that the “strong” were enduring “reproaches.” Probably Paul viewed it as a convenient way to (1) make clear that the sufferings of Christ were ordained by God and in his service;27 and (2) allude to Jesus’ supreme example of service on the cross. For the reference to Christ’s “not pleasing himself” is almost certainly to the crucifixion.28 NT writers often apply language from Ps. 69 to the passion of Jesus,29 and Paul probably thinks of the “reproaches” born by Christ as those tauntings Jesus endured at the time of his crucifixion (see 27:27–31, 39–41 and pars.).30 Paul therefore implicitly appeals to Jesus’ giving of himself in service to others as a model to imitate. As Chrysostom says: “He had power not to have been reproached, power not to have suffered what He did suffer, had He been minded to look to His own things.” At the same time, perhaps, Paul may be trying to get the “strong” to put their own “suffering” in perspective: occasionally abstaining from meat or wine or observing a special religious day should not seem like much of a burden in comparison with what Christ had to suffer for the sake of others.

4 In a brief detour from his main argument,31 Paul reminds his readers that the use he has just made of the OT is entirely appropriate: “for whatever was written beforehand was written for our instruction.”32 Paul here crisply enunciates a conviction basic to his ministry and to the early church generally. The OT, though no longer a source of direct moral imperative (6:14, 15; 7:4), continues to play a central role in helping Christians to understand the climax of salvation history and their responsibilities as the New Covenant people of God.33

The instruction Christians gain from the Scriptures has many purposes. One of these, Paul asserts in the second part of the verse, is that “we might have hope.”34 The introduction of hope at this point might also seem to be a detour in Paul’s argument. But two connections with the context may be noted. First, hope is especially needed by Christians when facing suffering (cf. 5:2–5; 8:20, 24–25). And Paul has broached the general problem of Christian suffering by citing the reproaches born by Christ as a model for the “strong” believers to imitate.35 The subordinate phrases Paul adds to his main purpose statement bear out this emphasis: “through [i.e., with] endurance”36 and “through the comfort37 of the Scriptures.”38 Reading the OT and seeing its fulfillment in Christ and the church fosters the believer’s hope, a hope that is accompanied by the ability to “bear up” under the pressure of spiritually hostile and irritating circumstances. But to return to the initial point: Paul signals his intention to talk about Christian suffering by using here two key terms, “endurance” and “comfort,” that he regularly uses when discussing the trials of believers.39

A second reason for Paul to bring “hope” into the discussion here emerges when we remember that many, perhaps most, of the “strong” were Gentiles. As such, apart from Christ, they were “without hope” (Eph. 2:12). Now, however, they have been “brought near,” wild branches grafted into the promises and people of God (cf. Rom. 11:17–24). By strengthening their “hope,” therefore, the Scriptures help these “strong” believers become more secure about their place in the people of God. At the same time, they are given the very practical reminder that this hope focuses on one people of God, made up of both Jews and Gentiles and of “strong” and “weak” (a point that Paul develops in vv. 8–13).40 If the “strong” believers, therefore, wish to maintain their hope, they must work to put into effect the unity of the people of God, within which they experience their own salvation.

5 Verses 5–6 contain a “prayer-wish,” a prayer of intercession that Paul offers to God and records for the benefit of the Roman Christians. By sharing the contents of his prayer with the Romans, Paul uses it as an indirect means of exhortation.41 With this prayer, then, Paul returns to his central concern throughout 14:1–15:13: restoring the unity of the Roman church.42 Paul links this “prayer-wish” to v. 4 by addressing God as “the God of endurance and comfort,” or, we may legitimately paraphrase, “the God who is the source of endurance and comfort.”43 “God alone is doubtless the author of patience and of consolation; for he conveys both to our hearts by his Spirit: yet he employs his word as the instrument.”44 Paul signals his intent to begin bringing his exhortation to the “strong” and the “weak” to a conclusion by using a second person plural verb to address the entire community45 and by introducing the “one another” theme that occurs at crucial junctures in the exhortation (cf. 14:13a; 15:7).

Paul prays specifically that God might give46 to the Roman Christians the ability “to think the same thing.”47 In light of Paul’s insistence that both the “strong” and the “weak” respect one another’s views on the debated issues, we must not think that Paul prays that the two groups may come to the same opinion on these issues. He is, rather, asking God to give them, despite their differences of opinion, a common perspective and purpose.48 Paul’s concern is not, at least primarily, that the believers in Rome all hold the same opinion of these “matters indifferent”; but that they remain united in their devotion to the Lord Jesus and to his service in the world. The unity, therefore, as Paul prays, should be “according to Christ Jesus.” This might mean that the unity should be in accordance with the will, or spirit, of Christ,49 or that it should be in accordance with the example of Christ (cf. v. 3).50 But this may be a case where it is better to avoid such fine distinctions; Paul may well want to include both these specific ideas as part of a general inducement to think “according to Christ Jesus.”51

6 Unity among the Roman Christians is important, and Paul uses many words seeking to encourage it. But this unity has a more important ultimate object: the glory of “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”52 Only when the Roman community is united, only when the Christians in Rome can act “with one accord”53 and speak “with one voice,”54 will they be able to glorify God in the way that he deserves to be glorified. Divisions in the church over nonessentials diverts precious time and energy from its basic mission: the proclamation of the gospel and the glorifying of God.

4. Receive One Another! (15:7–13)

7Therefore receive one another, just as Christ has received you,1 to the glory of God. 8For I say that Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, 9and so that the Gentiles might glorify God for the sake of his mercy, even as it written,

Because of this I will praise you among the Gentiles

and in your name I will sing praises.a

10And again it says,

Rejoice, Gentiles, with his people.b

11And, again:

Praise, all you Gentiles, the Lord,

and let all the peoples praise him.c

12And again Isaiah says,

The root of Jesse shall come, even the one who arises

to rule the Gentiles. On him the Gentiles will hope.d

13Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you believe, in order that you might abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The opening words express the main point of this paragraph: “receive one another.” Paul thereby returns to the theme with which he opened his exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong” (cf. 14:1). But there is an important difference: in 14:1, he urged the Roman community to “receive the person who is weak in faith.” Here, however, he exhorts every believer to receive every other believer. Most of the rest of the paragraph supports this key command: the Roman Christians are to “receive one another” because (1) Christ has “received” them (v. 7b); and (2) Christ has acted to bring God’s blessing to both Jews (v. 8) and Gentiles (v. 9a), in fulfillment of Scripture (vv. 9b–12). Paul concludes with a “wish-prayer.” The whole paragraph, with its opening basic command, reference to Christ and Scripture in support of the command, and concluding prayer, closely resembles 15:1–6.2

The similarity of 15:7a to 14:1 suggests that Paul intends 15:7–13 to be the conclusion to his exhortation to the “weak” and the “strong.”3 But many disagree, arguing that the breadth of themes in 15:7–13 suggests that it is the conclusion to the hortatory section, beginning at 12:1,4 or to the entire letter.5 And it is true that this paragraph alludes to many of the themes that have dominated Romans: God’s faithfulness to his promises to Israel (v. 8; cf., e.g., 1:2; 3:1–8; 9:4–5; 11:1–2, 28); the inclusion of Gentiles in the people of God (v. 9a; cf., e.g., 3:21–31; 4:12–17; 9:24–25, 30; 10:9–13; 11:28–30); and the broader themes of hope, joy, peace, faith, and the Holy Spirit (v. 13; cf. passim).6 But many of the letter’s key themes are also omitted (e.g., justification, victory over sin, the law, and death). I think it is preferable, then, to see Paul’s allusion to some of the larger themes of the letter as a means of buttressing his final appeal to the “strong” and the “weak.” He sets the local conflict in Rome against the panorama of salvation history in order to stimulate them to obedience.7 As I argue in the introduction, this exhortation to the two groups in the Roman church is not the main driving force of the letter; but it is one of the key converging motivations that led Paul to write about the gospel the way that he has in Romans.

Paul’s emphasis on the inclusion within the people of God of both Jews and Gentiles is not, then, simply an exemplary parallel to the problem of the “weak” and the “strong”;8 it gets to the heart of that problem. For, while some of the “strong” were Jews (e.g., Paul himself) and some of the “weak” may have been Gentiles, the dividing line between these two groups was basically the issue of the continuing applicability of the Jewish law. And this made it inevitable that the two parties would split along basically ethnic lines. Paul’s “broadening” of perspective, as he reminds his readers of the New Covenant inclusion of Jews and Gentiles, provides the basic theological undergirding for his plea that the “strong” and the “weak” at Rome “receive one another.”

7 “Therefore”9 gathers up the threads of Paul’s entire exhortation to the “strong” and the “weak.” Similarly, his command that believers in both groups “receive one another” brings the section to its climax. As in 14:1, “receive” means more than “tolerate” or “give official recognition to”; Paul wants the Roman Christians to accept one another as fellow members of a family, with all the love and concern that should typify brothers and sisters. In 14:3, Paul prohibited “weak” Christians from judging their “strong” fellow believers on the grounds that God had “received” them. Now, however, he grounds a similar command on the truth that “Christ10 has received you.” Here we have yet another instance of Paul’s close association of God and Christ in this part of Romans. The conjunction that Paul uses to introduce this theological reminder, kathōs, usually indicates a comparison; and, were we to adopt this meaning here, Paul would be teaching that believers should accept one another in the same manner as Christ has accepted us.11 But kathōs here probably has its more rare causal sense.12 Paul would then be insisting that Christians treat one another as the fellow members of the family of God that they all truly are. “Mutual love ought to reign supremely in a church wholly composed of the Lord’s well-beloved.”13

The final phrase, “to the glory of God,” is a statement of purpose: “in order that God might be glorified.”14 The difficulty is to decide whether this is the purpose of believers’ receiving each other15 or of Christ’s receiving us.16 Perhaps, since the former is the leading idea, and since Paul has already drawn a connection between unity and the glorifying of God (v. 6), we should attach the phrase to the initial imperative, “receive one another.”

8–9a The sense-redundant opening verb, “I say,” has a rhetorical purpose, signifying that what follows is an especially “solemn doctrinal declaration.”17 This declaration, found in vv. 8–9a and supported with scriptural citations in vv. 9b–12, summarizes one of the central motifs of the letter: that God has fulfilled the promise of the Abrahamic covenant by bringing Gentiles into the people of God through the gospel. Paul reminds the Roman Christians of this truth in order to encourage them to “receive one another.”18 For the barrier between “strong” and “weak” is at root the barrier between Jew and Gentile, a barrier that Christ’s ministry dismantled. Paul makes this clear by showing that Christ provided both for the fulfillment of God’s promises to the Jews (v. 8) and for the inclusion of Gentiles in glorifying God (v. 9a). But the precise syntactical relationship between these two assertions is not clear. There are two basic options:

(1) Paul might intend most of v. 8 and v. 9a as two parallel assertions dependent on “I say”:

I say:

a. that Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God, in order to confirm the promises to the fathers;

b. and that the Gentiles are glorifying God for the sake of his mercy.19

(2) Paul might intend v. 8b and v. 9a as two parallel purpose expressions dependent on v. 8a:

I say that Christ has become a servant of the circumcision for the sake of the truth of God,

a. in order to confirm the promises made to the fathers;

b. and in order that the Gentiles might glorify God for the sake of his mercy.20

Despite Cranfield’s claim that it is a “syntactical horror,”21 the second alternative is preferable. As Käsemann notes, the awkward (“horror” is an exaggeration) syntax arises from Paul’s desire to maintain a critical theological balance basic to Paul’s argument in Romans: the equality of Jew and Gentile and the salvation-historical priority of the Jew (e.g., 1:16b: the gospel is “for all who believe,” but “for the Jew first”).22 Paul accomplishes this here by using parallel statements to describe the benefit that both Jews and Gentiles derive from Christ’s mission—promises made to the Jewish patriarchs are confirmed and Gentiles are enabled to glorify God for his mercy to them—while at the same time subordinating the blessing of the Gentiles to Christ’s mission to the Jews in confirmation of God’s faithfulness. Thus Paul implicitly reminds the “weak,” mainly Jewish Christians, that the “strong,” mainly Gentile Christians, are full members of the people of God: they, “wild olive shoots,” have been “grafted in” (11:17). At the same time, however, he reminds the “strong” that the status they enjoy rests on a Jewish foundation: “the root supports you” (11:18).

Having sorted out the syntax, I turn now to the details. Paul’s assertion that Christ has become a servant to23 “the circumcision,” the Jews,24 reflects Jesus’ own sense of calling “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24), a calling that Paul alludes to by asserting that Christ was “born under the law that he might redeem those under the law” (Gal. 4:4b–5a). But by using a perfect tense—“has become”25—Paul implies that Christ’s ministry to Jews is not confined to his earthly life or sacrificial death,26 but continues even now, as the benefits of his death are appropriated by Jews.27 This ministry, Paul goes on to say, was “for the sake of the truth of God,” or, as we might paraphrase, “in order to show28 that God is faithful.”29 Paul elaborates this idea in a purpose clause: “to confirm30 the promises to the fathers.” The use of the same words, “confirm the promises,” in Rom. 4:16 might suggest that the promises are those made to Abraham and intended to embrace all his “seed,” Gentile and Jewish believers alike.31 But in 9:5 and 11:28, Paul applies the language of “promise” and “fathers” (i.e., the patriarchs) to the Jewish people specifically. Probably this is Paul’s intention here also. Matching God’s purpose in confirming his promises made to the Jews is God’s purpose in causing the Gentiles to glorify God “for the sake of his mercy,” that is, because of the mercy that he has shown to them (see 11:29–30 especially).32

9b Paul uses his customary “as it is written” to introduce a series of four OT quotations. Common to all the quotations is the link-word “Gentiles,” and the first three also feature the praise of God.33 These elements suggest that Paul may intend the quotations to provide OT support for his assertion in v. 9a about the Gentiles glorifying God.34 But the second quotation, from Deut. 32:43 LXX (v. 10), links Gentiles and Jews together in the praise of God, while the fourth, from Isa. 11:10, bases the Gentiles’ hope in God on the Jewish Messiah. Probably, then, the quotations support vv. 8–9a as a whole.35 Paul cites every part of the OT—the “writings” (vv. 9b and 11), the “law” (v. 10), and the “prophets” (v. 12)—to show that the inclusion of Gentiles with Jews in the praise of God has always been part of God’s purposes.

The first quotation is from Ps. 18:49, or possibly 2 Sam. 22:50.36 Paul may cite this text simply because it speaks of God being “praised”37 among the Gentiles. But the speaker is David, and it is possible that Paul read the psalm typologically (as in his use of Ps. 69 in v. 3).38 Thus Paul may cite the verse as a claim of the risen Christ. And this possibility gains credence when we note the context of the verse that Paul quotes. For David’s praise of God “among the Gentiles” is stimulated by the fact that God has given him victory over Gentile nations. God has made him “the head of the nations,” so that a “people whom I had not known served me” (v. 43). It would fit Paul’s purposes perfectly if he were attributing to Christ this praise of God for the subduing of the Gentiles under his messianic rule. Through his death and resurrection, Gentiles who had not known the righteous rule of the Lord can now be brought into submission to him, glorifying him for his mercy to them. This opening quotation would then match the last in the series, both focusing on the way in which the Jewish king/Messiah has brought Gentiles into submission.

10 Paul introduces his next quotation with a brief linking phrase, “and again it39 says.” This second quotation is from Deut. 32:43 in the Septuagint version or from a text similar to it.40 Like Ps. 18:50, this text speaks about the praise of God for his acts in subduing other nations/enemies. But an advance from the first quotation is evident, for the Gentiles are now themselves praising God—and doing it “with his people,” namely, Israel. So what the OT text calls on the Gentiles to do, they now, through God’s mercy to them in the gospel, are able to do—join Israel in praise of God.

11 “And again” picks up the formula used in v. 10. Paul quotes another OT verse—Ps. 117:1—that calls on Gentiles to praise “the Lord.”41 It is surely no accident that the second (and only other) verse of this psalm cites God’s “mercy” (eleos) and “truth” (alētheia) as reasons for this praise (cf. vv. 8–9a).

12 Paul varies his introductory formula by citing the author of the next quotation (Isa. 11:10). Paul’s wording is again very close to the LXX,42 although in this case the LXX differs from the MT. For the Hebrew speaks of the root of Jesse standing “as a signal to the peoples” and of the Gentiles “inquiring” of him.43 With its reference to the shoot of Jesse “arising”—a possible allusion to Jesus’ resurrection44—to “rule” the Gentiles and to the Gentiles’ “hoping”—a key word in this section (cf. vv. 4, 12)—the LXX rendering obviously suits Paul’s purposes better than the MT. Nevertheless, the basic meaning of the text is the same in both versions; either would allow Paul to make the point he wants to make: that the Gentiles’ participation in the praise of God (vv. 9b–11) comes as a result of the work of “the root of Jesse,” a messianic designation.45 Increasing the appropriateness of the quotation for Paul is the immediately following reference in Isa. 11 to God’s gathering of the “remnant” of Israel from among the nations.46

13 Paul rounds off his exhortation in this paragraph, and his entire exhortation to the “strong” and the “weak,” with a final “prayer-wish.” In this prayer, Paul brings together many key elements from his exhortation and from the letter as whole.47 As he did in vv. 5–6, Paul characterizes God in the address of his prayer-wish with a concept drawn from the immediate context. As the Gentiles have now come to “set their hope” on the root of Jesse, so Paul prays to the “God who gives hope.”48 In praying that this God might “fill49 you with all joy and peace as50 you believe,” Paul is undoubtedly thinking specifically of the “weak” and the “strong” in the Roman community. He does not want the differing conclusions that they draw from their “believing” in Christ (cf. 14:1–2, 22) to take away that “peace”51 and “joy” which they should be experiencing as joint participants in the kingdom of God (cf. 14:17). It is only as the “God of hope” fills them with these qualities that they will be able to “abound in hope,” to realize in their community the hope of a new people of God in which Jews and Gentiles praise God with a united voice (cf. 15:6, 7–12). All this can happen, however, only “by52 the power of the Holy Spirit” (see, again, 14:17).

Paul’s remarks in 14:1–15:13 are directed to a set of very specific issues in the Roman (and first-century) church. All three specific issues are still debated by Christians: whether it is necessary to abstain from meat and from wine, and to observe the Sabbath and other “holy” days. But only on the issue of Sabbath observance is there a real parallel. For it was out of continuing reverence for the Mosaic law that some of the Roman Christians adopted these practices. But modern Christians who, for example, abstain from all alcoholic beverages do so not because they fear ritual contamination. Some abstain because they are leery of a product that has had such a sad history of “enslaving” those who partake (see the principle of 1 Cor. 6:12b). Many others do not drink because they do not want to set a bad example for others who might not be able to handle alcohol. Abstinence on these grounds may be a laudable course of action; but it has little basis in Paul’s argument in these chapters. For the “weak” here are not those who cannot control their drinking. They are people who are not convinced that their faith in Christ allows them to do a particular thing. They are not “weak” in respect to handling alcohol; they are “weak” in respect to their faith (14:1). And Paul urges the “strong” to abstain, not because their example might lead the “weak” to drink to excess but because their example might lead the “weak” to drink and so to violate their conscience (14:22–23). Only, therefore, where the contemporary Christian is convinced that his drinking (or eating meat) might lead another to drink (or eat meat) in violation of his conscience is Paul’s advice truly applicable to the matter of alcohol.53

But the value of this section is not limited to Paul’s advice on these specific issues.54 For Paul here sets forth principles that are applicable to a range of issues that we may loosely classify as adiaphora: matters neither required of Christians nor prohibited to them. Carefully defining these adiaphora is vital. On the one hand, not all issues can be put in this category. Paul considered certain matters pertaining to the gospel to be basic and nonnegotiable, and he fought like a tiger for them (cf. Galatians). To apply Paul’s plea for tolerance in this chapter to these issues would be to surrender the heart of Christianity.55 On the other hand, there are issues that are in this category of “things indifferent,” and on these Christians are willingly and lovingly to “agree to disagree.” Inflexible commitment to the basics; complete flexibility on the adiaphora: this was the posture of Paul that he would like every one of us to emulate.

Paul makes three specific points, each one built solidly on general theological truth.

(1) Paul was a realist: he knew that we have to deal with people “where they are.” In his day Jewish Christians who had lived all their lives believing the law of Moses to be God’s last and absolute word could not always align their consciences with the truth about the end of the law’s authority. For such believers, while eating meat that might not be kosher was not “sin” in the absolute sense, it continued to be “sin” for them (cf. 14:14, 20). In much the same manner, believers in our day cannot always “internalize” the liberty of the gospel on all matters. On one or more practices on which the gospel gives freedom, these believers continue to have scruples. To them, Paul says: “Don’t violate your conscience.” And his theological justification?—“anything not done on the basis of faith is sin” (14:23). Paul would undoubtedly hope that such believers would “grow out of” their prejudice. But until they do, Paul does not want them to do anything that their consciences are telling them not to.

(2) For whatever reason (greater spiritual maturity; background; personality), other believers will not share the scruples of these believers. They do not find any bar at all in their conscience to the practice that some of their fellow believers abhor. To them, Paul says: “Don’t use your freedom in a way that brings spiritual harm to a fellow believer” (14:13b, 20–21). And his theological justification cuts to the heart of what the gospel is all about. For the Christian, like the Christ he or she follows, should not be seeking to please him- or herself, but others (15:2–3). That same Christ is their Lord, who demands that those who belong to his kingdom “walk in love” (14:15), pursue peace with others (14:17, 19), and do everything they can to “build up” their fellow disciples (14:17, 19). Rather than “building up” fellow believers, Paul makes clear that the “strong” can run the risk of “tearing down” and causing spiritual harm to the “weak.” Such harm will be caused these believers when those who have no scruples insist on exercising their liberty in front of the “weak” in such a way as to pressure them into doing what their consciences are forbidding them.

To be sure, Paul does not want the “strong” to walk around in constant fear lest something they do might “injure” a “weak” believer; little would be left of Christian liberty were this to be the case. We are probably justified in introducing here some of those limitations that Paul brings up in the parallel 1 Cor. 8–10 passage, where he urges the “strong” to go ahead with their legitimate behavior as long as no “weak” Christian is being harmed (1 Cor. 10:25–29). I may know, for instance, that some believers do not think a certain practice “right” for Christians. I should not refrain for that reason, but only if I think that my practice might bring spiritual harm to other believers. Finally, we must emphasize: Paul is not advocating that any Christian give up his or her liberty (which no human being can take from the believer); he is advocating only that we be willing, for the sake of others, to give up our exercise of Christian liberty. In Luther’s famous formulation, “A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”56

(3) Paul’s “bottom line” is the unity of the church. As we have indicated, this unity is not to be pursued at any price; but Paul is adamant about not allowing differences among believers about the adiaphora to injure the oneness of the body of Christ. Therefore, negatively, Paul tells those with scruples not to condemn believers who think differently (14:3, 10, 13a). Paul suggests that “weak” as well as “strong” believers should be able to recognize the difference between those matters required by the gospel and those that are not. And the “weak,” while not enjoying the sense of liberty that the “strong” have, are not to condemn the “strong” for exercising that liberty. At the same time, he warns the “strong” about looking down on the “weak” (14:3, 10; cf. v. 13a). Those who consider themselves “enlightened” are always tempted to treat with condescension and even scorn those who are less “enlightened.” Paul warns the “strong” not to succumb to this tendency. Paul’s theological justification for this warning to both “weak” and “strong” is the central Christian affirmation “Christ is Lord” (14:4–9). Christians are slaves who owe absolute allegiance to their master—and only to their master; not to fellow slaves. No fellow believer, apart from Christ’s own revelation and teaching in the gospel, has the right to call us to account.

Paul expresses this same point positively in the climax of the section: “Receive one another, just as Christ has received you” (15:7). Each of us must recognize that we have been “received” by Christ, as a matter of pure grace; and that same grace has reached out and brought into the kingdom people from all kinds of races, nations, and backgrounds, and with all kinds of prejudices (see 15:8–12). Such differences should never be allowed to disturb the unity of the church.

VI. THE LETTER CLOSING (15:14–16:27)

Paul’s sustained argument about the nature and implications of the gospel is at an end. So he returns to where he began, speaking of the Roman Christians and of his own ministry and plans (cf. 1:1–15). He thereby completes the “epistolary frame” around his portrait of the gospel.

The elements that Paul includes in this final section of the letter are typical of his letter conclusions:

Paul’s Travel Plans	15:14–29	1 Cor. 16:1–9
Request for Prayer	15:30–32	cf. Eph. 6:18–20; Col. 4:3–4; 1 Thess. 5:25; 2 Thess. 3:1–2; Phlm. 22
Prayer-Wish for Peace	15:33	2 Cor. 13:11c; Gal. 6:16; Eph. 6:23; Phil. 4:9; 1 Thess. 5:23; 2 Thess. 3:16
Paul’s Associates	16:1–2	1 Cor. 16:10–12, 15–18; Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–9; 2 Tim. 4:20
Exhortation to Greet One Another	16:3–15	1 Cor. 16:20b; 2 Cor. 13:12; Phil. 4:21a; (Col. 4:15); 1 Thess. 5:26; 2 Tim. 4:19; Tit. 3:15b
The “Holy Kiss”	16:16a	1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12a; 1 Thess. 5:26
Warning/Exhortation	16:17–19	1 Cor. 16:13–14, 22; 2 Cor. 13:11b; Gal. 6:12–15 (?); Eph. 6:10–17 (?); Col. 4:17
Eschatological Wish/Promise	16:20a	1 Cor. 16:22b; 1 Thess. 5:24
Concluding “Grace”	16:20b	1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18c; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18; 1 Tim. 6:21b; 2 Tim. 4:22b; Tit. 3:15b; Phlm. 25
Greetings from Paul’s Associates	16:16b, 21–23	1 Cor. 16:19–20a; 2 Cor. 13:13; Phil. 4:21b–22; Col. 4:10–14; 2 Tim. 4:21b; Tit. 3:15a; Phlm. 23–24
Doxology	16:25–27	Phil. 4:20

Two things are evident from this chart.1 First, while Paul tends to include certain elements in his letter closings, there is considerable variation both in the items that he includes and the order in which he places them. We should not, then, be surprised if Paul includes some elements in his conclusion to Romans that are not found elsewhere (e.g., the warning about false teachers; the doxology?) or excludes some that he often includes (e.g., an affirmation about the authenticity of the letter; cf. 1 Cor. 16:21a; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:18; 2 Thess. 3:17a). These variations may well point to specific circumstances surrounding the composition of Romans. Second, the conclusion to Romans is by far the longest of Paul’s letter closings—matching in that respect its counterpart, the letter opening.

A. PAUL’S MINISTRY AND TRAVEL PLANS (15:14–33)

Paul’s travels are the leitmotif of this section and identify it as a discrete literary unit.2 It falls into three basic parts, marked by the address “brothers” in vv. 14 and 30 and the transitional “therefore” in v. 22.3 In vv. 14–21, Paul alludes to his past travels—“from Jerusalem around to Illyricum” (v. 19b)—to explain why he has written to the Roman Christians. His focus shifts to his future travel plans in vv. 22–29. Here Paul tells how he intends to “pass through” Rome on his way to Spain after delivering the collection to Jerusalem. Verses 30–33 are closely tied to this last matter, as Paul asks the Roman Christians to pray for that visit to Jerusalem. This section therefore reveals the degree to which Paul’s past ministry and especially his anticipated itinerary shape the content and emphases of the letter.4 A certain degree of reflection on the stage of ministry Paul has completed; concern about his reception by Jews and Jewish Christians in Jerusalem; preparation for his visit to Rome—all these contribute to the way in which Paul explains and applies his gospel in this letter.

The way in which the letter opening and closing “frame” the body of Romans is seen all the more clearly when we note the way in which the contents of 15:14–33 match those of 1:1–15, and especially 1:8–155:

Commendation of the Romans	15:14	1:8
“Apostle to the Gentiles”	15:15b–21	1:3, 13
Hindrance in visiting Rome	15:22	1:13a
“Indebtedness”	15:27	1:14
Desire to minister for mutual blessing	15:29	1:11–12
Prayer	15:30–32	1:9–10