Romans: The Story of God Bible Commentary

images/img-37-1.jpg LISTEN to the Story

¹Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. ²One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. ³The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. ⁴Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

⁵One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. ⁶Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. ⁷For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. ⁸If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. ⁹For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

¹⁰You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. ¹¹It is written:

“ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,

‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will acknowledge God.’ ”

¹²So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God.

¹³Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. ¹⁴I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean. ¹⁵If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died. ¹⁶Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil. ¹⁷For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, ¹⁸because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval.

¹⁹Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. ²⁰Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. ²¹It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.

²²So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. ²³But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

^15:1We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. ²Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up. ³For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” ⁴For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

⁵May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, ⁶so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

⁷Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God. ⁸For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed ⁹and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy. As it is written:

“Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles;
I will sing the praises of your name.”

¹⁰Again, it says,

“Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people.”

¹¹And again,

“Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles;
let all the peoples extol him.”

¹²And again, Isaiah says,

“The Root of Jesse will spring up,
one who will arise to rule over the nations;
in him the Gentiles will hope.”

¹³May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Listening to the texts in the story: Deuteronomy 32:43; 2 Samuel 22:50; Psalm 18:49; 69:9; 117:1; Isaiah 11:10; 45:23.

Time to recap. Paul writes to the Gentile believers in Rome to gospelize them, to conform them to his theological vision of the righteousness of God revealed in the gospel. This is the gospel that will bring the Gentiles to a holy obedience and make them a consecrated people. So Paul sets out the theological scope of his gospel, showing how Christ’s death and resurrection cancels the debt of sin and defeats death. Justification by faith without Torah observance establishes the righteousness of Jews and Gentiles who are united in Messiah Jesus. True righteousness is about dying with Christ and following the Spirit, not obeying the letter of the Torah. The Gentiles experience the covenant renewal that Israel longs for and has erstwhile rejected; but Gentile acceptance may yet provoke Israel to jealousy and then to salvation. The ethical paradigm for Gentiles is based on the predominance of love expressing itself in mutual obligations to each other. If this vision becomes embedded in Rome, Paul can return to Jerusalem with the Roman Gentiles behind him and he can count on their support for his future mission trip to Spain.

But there is just one last little thing that could hinder Paul’s quest. The Roman churches had some problems, problems of disunity it seems. The problems may be potential or actual, it’s hard to tell, and Paul’s own information is undoubtedly secondhand from one or more of the folks listed in Romans 16:3 – 16. The situation appears to be that there were probably competing views on Torah observance in Rome. Whether it was socially, ethnically, or theologically motivated, there were differences of opinion among the Roman congregations about what role the Torah should have in the life of the believers. The expulsion (AD 49) and return (AD 54) of the Jewish Christians probably exacerbated some of these tensions especially over who has authority to arbitrate on these disputes. Paul’s center of gravity is that he does not want the Roman churches to fragment along ethnic lines or to have violent divisions over how to fuse Torah and Messiah. He’s been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, and it has a lot of polemical blood spilt on it after acrimonious divisions in Antioch and Galatia. So Paul engages in some preventive pastoral care to get the Roman churches united around the Lord Jesus and the mission of God through apostles like himself.

Paul’s solution was simple. He tells the Romans that you have one Lord, who is Lord over all believers, so welcome one another just as the Messiah welcomed you! He sets before them his “charter of Christian liberty and mutual tolerance” rooted in the Messiah and expressed in love.¹ Paul can say that because in his mind the climax of the biblical story is the Messiah restoring Israel and leading the Gentiles to praise God, as the dense collection of Old Testament citations in Romans 15:7 – 12 indicates. Paul sees Jesus as the Lord who presides over the united people of God.

Paul draws heavily on his previous exhortations to his churches (esp. 1 Corinthians 8 – 10); in many ways he is dealing with a universal problem that happens in any faith community where there is a mixture of the scrupulous and the accommodating or the conservatives and the progressives.² It would be wrong, however, to infer that Romans 14:1 – 15:13 is just a generalized summary of his ethical teaching from his earlier letters about how to handle differences of opinion.³ Whereas the disputes in Corinth were about whether believers could eat idol meat (1 Cor 8:1 – 10; 10:24 – 33) and attend banquets in pagan temples (1 Cor 10:1 – 23), in Romans 14 the presenting matters are vegetarianism (14:2, 20 – 21), observing sacred days (14:5 – 6), and wine (14:17, 21). Whereas the weak in Corinth were converted pagans who were trying to break with their pagan past, in Romans the weak are probably Jewish Christians and maybe judaizing Gentiles who were varyingly entrenched in the Jewish way of life.⁴

As we will see, these matters of vegetarianism, sacred days, and wine had various connotations in the Roman context.⁵ These matters were not just a fastidious fad or a mark of over-ardent piety, but encompassed the life or death issue of covenant loyalty for Jews living in a pagan world. It is crucial to grasp that if we are to understand what the disputes were about and how to apply Paul’s exhortations to our own context.

Paul proceeds by: (1) urging the Romans to embrace diversity under the lordship of Jesus (14:1 – 12); (2) offering practical advice on cultivating unity in the churches (14:13 – 23); (3) petitioning them to imitate Christ in these matters and thereby glorify God (15:1 – 6); and (4) exhorting them to welcome each other just as Christ welcomed them (15:7 – 13).

Paul continues the theme of the debt of love and shows how it should work itself out in a community where there are disputable matters. His immediate point in vv. 1 – 12 is to urge the Roman Christians to accept each other, though he accents the need for the “strong” to accept “weak” probably because the majority of his audience are among the “strong.” Everyone stands under the Lord and everyone will stand before the Lord, so it is not their place to judge one another.

“Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters” (v. 1). The imperative verb “accept” (proslambanomai) dominates the opening sentence, and its appearance again in 15:7 with “accept one another” forms an inclusio. This bracketing of 14:1 – 15:13 by the theme of “acceptance” helpfully identifies the main point of the exhortation as urging the Roman believers to “accept” each other (though “welcome” is probably a better translation as per the ESV, CEB, NJB, etc.).⁶ The root for the command is not pragmatic; it is christological, “just as Christ accepted you” (15:7). Instead of being contentious over “disputable matters,” they should imitate Christ. These disputable matters we will see pertain to meat, sacred days, and wine.

Paul counsels, implicitly the “strong,” to welcome those who’s “faith is weak.” But who are the “weak” (14:1 – 2; 15:1) and who are the “strong” (15:1)? Paul used similar language in 1 Corinthians in relation to those who are easily offended by the idea of consuming food sacrificed to idols (1 Cor 8:7 – 12) and in relation to his mission to Gentiles and Jews (1 Cor 9:21 – 23). It is important to note that the terms “strong” and “weak” do not indicate degrees of faith or a quality of faith. A person who is weak in faith is one who’s conscience is easily pricked or easily offended (see 1 Cor 8:7, “Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they [i.e., the weak] think of the food as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled”). We see the same phenomena in Greco-Roman moral discourse. Horace mentions a fellow poet, Fuscus Aristius, who refused to talk business on the Sabbath day in order not to affront a Jew and he describes himself as having scruples that are “weaker” (infirmior).⁷ Cicero regarded the morally weak person as one who has an intense belief that something ought to be avoided, though in reality it need not be.⁸

As to the identity of the “strong” and the “weak,” it most likely represents an ethnic-ethical distinction.⁹ The “weak” are probably Jewish Christians and the “strong” are probably Gentile Christians.¹⁰ That makes sense in light of the observations that: (1) Paul is directly addressing Gentile believers in the letter (see Rom 1:6, 13; 11:13), so the address to the “strong” (15:1) would naturally imply a Gentile audience; (2) the whole letter touches on the topic of the equality and mutuality between Christ-believing Jews and Gentiles (see 1:16; 2:9 – 10; 3:22, 29; 10:12; 11:25 – 32), and it is hard to imagine that it does not impinge itself here; (3) the matters of food, wine, observing days were quintessentially Jewish concerns (see Gal 4:10; Col 2:6), and when combined with the language of “unclean” and “clean” (Rom 14:14, 20) we can presuppose a setting about the boundary markers of covenantal loyalty indicative of the post-Maccabean Jewish Diaspora; and (4) ancillary support comes from 1 Corinthians, where Paul seems to identify the “weak” with Jewish persons when talking about his mission to Jews and Gentiles (1 Cor 9:22).

However, we probably should be flexible on this identification. Paul is a Jewish Christian and he can identify himself as having a perspective on unclean food the same as the “strong” (Rom 14:14). And we can easily imagine former God-fearers or proselytes still highly sensitive to anything that smacks of idolatry, given the embarrassing history of idolatry in their own religious biography (much like a former alcoholic being highly sensitive to all forms of alcohol). F. F. Bruce wrote: “Among the house-churches of Rome, then, we should probably envisage a broad spectrum of varieties in outlook and practice between the firm Jewish retention of the ancestral customs and Gentile remoteness from these customs. Some Jewish Christians might be found on the liberal side of the half-way mark between the two extremes and some Gentile Christians on the ‘legalist’ side.”¹¹

Keep in mind as well that out of the twenty-six persons to whom Paul sends greetings in Romans 16:1 – 16, at least five are Jewish, including Andronicus, Junia, Herodian, Prisca, and Aquila, plus Rufus and his mother, Mary, are probably of Jewish origins too. In all, some 20 to 30 percent of the people whom Paul mentions in his list of persons are presumably of Jewish origins. Also, we cannot assume that the congregations were divided by ethnicity into separate Jewish and Gentile house churches. Some house churches may have been ethnically homogenous; others may have been ethnically mixed. I surmise that Gentiles were probably in the majority among the Roman house churches. In the end, it makes for a complex environment where divisive debates over Torah observance were possible.¹² In essence, the danger was that the “weak” would insist that God’s people were marked out by abstentions and observances that others regarded as insignificant. Or else the “strong” put their private freedom and knowledge of matters to be held with indifference ahead of mutuality and treated the weak with disdain.¹³

It is useful to remember that Paul never demanded that Jewish Christians cease to be Jewish or that Torah observance had to be entirely phased out of their lives and devotion. He was simply adamant that the Torah not be forcibly foisted on Gentiles as a means of securing salvation or establishing corporate identity.

Paul’s approach was followed by Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew in the mid-second century. Justin said to Trypho, “in my opinion,” Jewish believers can still keep the Torah if they so wished, as long as they do not try to force Gentiles into thinking that they can be saved by observing such rites. Trypho seized on the qualifier “in my opinion” and asked if there were other Gentile Christians who did not tolerate Jewish Christians as Justin did. Justin had to admit that “there are some Christians who boldly refuse to have conversations or meals with such [Jewish Christian] persons. I don’t agree with such Christians.” When it comes to Jewish Christians, Justin said, “we should receive them and associate with them in every way as kinsmen and brothers.” Evidently Justin knew of Gentile Christians who refused to converse or eat with Jewish Christians and Jewish Christians who tried to entice Gentile Christians to keep the Torah and “refuse to share with them this same common life.”¹⁴ An analogous context of contested views of Torah between Jewish and Gentile Christians might be what Paul is addressing in Romans 14 – 15.

Back to 14:1, Paul does not want the strong to court controversy by “quarreling over disputable matters” in a manner that might inveigh against the weak. Paul was certainly resolute in his defense of the gospel, and we see that in Romans with his call for believers to remain faithful to the teaching they have received (6:17; 16:17).

However, there is no interest on Paul’s part in establishing a school of tradition to provide casuistic law for every possible moral and ritual conundrum. Paul refuses to adjudicate on the rightness or wrongness of contested topics since he regards it as a matter of personal liberty. Paul does not call for uniformity on every practice, and he can accept differences of opinion on matters that might be regarded as being of secondary importance. The issues of food, wine, and sacred days are obviously secondary for him. Origen summed up Paul like so: “To eat or not to eat and to drink or not drink wine is neither bad nor good itself, he teaches; it is neutral and indifferent.”¹⁵ Paul, by taking such a position on “disputable matters,” tries to inoculate the churches from creating an atmosphere of factious rivalry and intellectual competition.¹⁶

Paul next delineates an example of matters that might cause divisions and judgmentalism: “One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables” (v. 2). The word “only” is not present in the Greek, but in light of v. 21, “it is good not to eat meat,” a full-blown vegetarianism is obviously implied. Here we have to note that the reason for vegetarianism was not for health reasons but motivated mostly for preservation of purity.¹⁷ The Torah includes prohibition of consuming certain animals and prescribes that blood should be properly drained from an animal before cooking it (see Lev 7:26 – 27; 11:1 – 23; 17:12 – 14; Deut 12:23 – 25; 14:3 – 21). Observance of the food laws became a test case for loyalty to the covenant (see 1 Macc 1:62 – 63). It was not just the food itself; the fact that meat was handled by Gentiles in a market might have been enough to make scrupulous Jews wary of consuming it. This is why Jews living in pagan cities often avoided meats.¹⁸

Josephus records how some Jewish priests taken prisoner to Rome chose to eat only figs and nuts.¹⁹ Even in Judea the insurgent leader Judas Maccabees ate only “what grew wild to avoid contracting defilement” during his guerilla campaign against the Syrians (2 Macc 5:27). Eusebius reports that James the brother of the Lord abstained from “wine, beer, and meat” as a symbol of his piety.²⁰ In the eyes of Gentiles, Jewish abstention from certain foods and from Gentile company was one of the most characteristic features of Jewish social life.²¹ Thus, the best way to avoid eating anything “unclean” (koinos) was to abstain from meat altogether.

Furthermore, in the context of a pagan environment like Rome, the vast majority of the meat available would have been pork. Also, meat was not an everyday commodity for the masses, but was expensive and was often associated with ritual meals in temples, and was often dedicated to a pagan deity. Bruce Winter has argued that after Claudius’s expulsion of the Jews from Rome, the officials who controlled the meat market may have withdrawn the provision of appropriate meats for Jews, further forcing them to revert to vegetarianism.²² Perhaps even after the return of the Jews under Nero, the few Jewish butchers may have been unwilling to sell meat to Jewish Christians, ostracizing them further from the web of Jewish social life.²³

Looking behind the scenes, while most of the Gentile Christians in Rome felt no qualms about eating meat purchased in the market when it had almost certainly been offered in sacrifice to an idol, there were evidently some believers for whom such a thing was simply unthinkable. They were scrupulous about vegetarianism because they were serious about their religion.²⁴ If you were raised to abhor idolatry and even the food associated with it, or if you were at one time a Gentile adherent to Jewish ways who had imbibed revulsion toward idolatry, you might hesitate before relinquishing your long-held disgust toward idol food. One might naturally think that if the Messiah was the goal of the Torah, how can the Torah’s proscription of certain foods itself be set aside so easily?²⁵

In this context, Paul elaborates how those with different convictions should treat each other: “The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them” (v. 3). Paul targets the more liberally minded believers who treat conservatives as tolerable but worthy of contempt and also the conservative minded who treat the freer liberals as intolerable and beyond the bounds of acceptable conduct.²⁶ In practice those who are confident in their freedom to eat all things should not “despise” (exoutheneō) those who feel compelled to abstain from meat. Likewise, those who are sensitive to such matters must not “judge” (krinō) those who feel at liberty to eat. The strong and the weak are commanded not to be contemptuous or condescending toward each other. Any type of mutual disdain is impossible because “God has accepted them.”²⁷ As a result, it is wrongful to harbor animosity against one whom God has accepted since it would imply that God’s acceptance of that person is misjudged. According to Dunn, the strong and the weak must not fall into the “trap of dictating to God and setting up their own judgment in place of God’s.”²⁸

The incongruity of despising one whom God accepts is underscored in a rhetorical question: “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand” (v. 4). Paul returns to his diatribal style to stress that God’s view is the one that counts and that view should determine their attitudes toward each other. The Greek word oiketeē designates a domestic household slave, which builds on Paul’s view of Christians as slaves of Jesus Christ (see 1:1; 6:16 – 17, 20). The validity or invalidity of a person’s conviction in matters of meat is not for them to determine. Each person belongs to God, who is “their own master,” and God has the right to judge his slaves according to how he sees just. One slave cannot peer into an adjacent room at another slave, disagree with their conduct, and pass judgment on him or her because that is the master’s prerogative.

The fate of respective slaves is described as either “stand” or “fall,” which function as metaphors for vindication and condemnation respectively. While it is theoretically possible that a person might “stand” or “fall,” Paul remains convinced that each person will stand because “the Lord is able to make them stand.” Here “stand” (histēmi) is theologically cognate to “justify” and “accept.” Paul believes that both the strong and the weak are equally recipients of divine approval, which cannot be undermined by human judgments.

Paul adds to the topic of vegetarianism the observance of sacred days to make the same point that human judgments on such matters do not necessarily reflect divine judgments over the person: “One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind” (v. 5). The idea of “sacred days” (lit., “day alongside day” [hēmeran par’ hēmeran])²⁹ most probably pertains to the observance of the Sabbath and Jewish festivals like Passover and Pentecost. The Sabbath was rooted in creation (Gen 2:2 – 3), commanded in the Decalogue (Exod 20:8 – 11; Deut 5:12 – 14), part of Israel’s covenantal framework (Exod 31:16 – 17), expected of proselytes (Isa 56:6), and recognized by Gentiles as a distinctive habit of the Jewish people.³⁰

At the same time, one wonders if some of the Roman believers were keeping Roman holidays too or holding them to some significance. The situation is that one person observes these solemn occasions, while another considers all days to be of equal sanctity. Notice that Paul does not render judgment for or against observing the days; he is entirely neutral on whether it is right or wrong or beneficial or meaningless. He argues instead that each person “should be fully convinced in their own mind” about what they do and why they do it. The Greek word for “fully convinced” is plērophoreō, which has a connotation of coming to a decisive verdict on something.³¹ All believers are to be “fully convinced” in their own minds about the rightness of their observance or nonobservance of sacred days. Thus, on the matters of dispute, they should follow their consciences and trust the instinct of their convictions.

Paul then brings these two issues together and views them through the lens of thanksgiving: “Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God” (v. 6). It is interesting that Jewish authors regarded eating unclean food and violating the Sabbath as the chief emblems of Jews who have been unfaithful to the covenant.³² No doubt Paul would demur in light of his view of the covenant’s fulfillment in the Messiah. What matters is not the actual conviction one arrives at, but the orientation that one applies to the topic. Paul calls on the believers to exercise their convictions on such matters with a kyriocentric point of view. Whether it is observing sacred days or not, whether it is eating meat or abstaining, what counts is that it is done with respect to “the Lord”³³ and in the context of “thanksgiving to God.” If one is genuinely thankful to God in what one does or does not do, and if one seeks to honor the Lord by their decision, then the rightness of their action is beyond question.

Paul explains the point this way: “For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord” (vv. 7 – 8). Believers do not live or die for themselves, but for the Lord who saved them (see 1 Cor 6:19 – 20: “You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies”). Paul builds on that with a series of conditional clauses to the effect that their lives are so completely oriented toward the Lord that in life or in death they are living under his sovereign headship. Amidst the uncertainties of living and dying, one thing does remain certain, “we belong to God.” This idea of belonging is a fitting way of summarizing what salvation means: believers are redeemed by Jesus’ blood (Rom 3:24 – 25), united to the Messiah in his death and resurrection (4:25; 6:5; 7:4), indwelt by the Spirit (8:9), and adopted as sons of God (8:15, 23).

This belonging has a purpose: “For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living” (v. 9). It was to this end that the Messiah died and rose,³⁴ that in him God would establish his supremacy over every realm, the living and the dead, this world and the one to come. In the grand purposes of God in redemptive history, Jesus is elected to be the new Adam and the true Israel who establishes God’s kingship in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (see Eph 1:10; Phil 2:10; Rev 5:13).

It is recognition of this point that should provide some sobering perspective on how to treat disputable matters of sirloin steak and Sabbath days. If Jesus reigns, he reigns over vegetables and on Yom Kippur. What is required of believers is not to squabble over the rightness or wrongness of miniscule matters, but to live out their convictions in such a way as to make clear that Jesus has preeminence. Paul’s objective is to relativize the disputes about food and days within a grand perspective of God’s purposes set forth in Messiah Jesus.³⁵ As Eugene Peterson elegantly paraphrases: “That’s why Jesus lived and died and then lived again: so that he could be our Master across the entire range of life and death, and free us from the petty tyrannies of each other” (MSG).³⁶

In vv. 10 – 12, Paul emphasizes that judging each other on disputable matters is simply wrong because the right to judge belongs to God alone. Paul addresses his imaginary interlocutors, both the strong and the weak, with the words: “You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (v. 10). Paul repeats the substance of v. 3 that the strong must not “despise” the weak and the weak must not “judge” the strong. One reason is that they are “brothers and sisters” and each has a place in the Messiah’s family. A second reason is that each one will appear before “God’s judgment seat.” The bēma was basically the judge’s bench where magistrates and governors publicly heard cases and delivered verdicts (see Acts 18:12, 16 – 17; 25:6, 10, 17). Elsewhere Paul says that we shall all appear before the “judgment seat of Christ” (2 Cor 5:10), indicative of the view that Jesus is the one who implements the divine judgment (see John 5:27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom 2:16; 2 Tim 4:1).³⁷ Dunn is correct that Paul sees “no essential difference” between the bēma of God or Jesus.³⁸

On matters of secondary or tertiary importance, believers should refrain from denigrating remarks and instead defer to divine judgment. God is the one who will judge the behavior of his subjects. Paul backs that up with a citation of Isaiah 45:23: “ ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God’ ” (v. 11).³⁹ The universal scope (“every knee”) of judgment and salvation from this Isaianic text sets the stage for the climactic vision in Romans 15:7 – 13 about Gentile participation in the people of God as praisers of God.⁴⁰ The citation underscores that God is the one who will dish out the rewards as he sees fit — a judgment that even applies to believers so the point that “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (v. 12). This final judgment is the occasion when the fruit of believers’ lives with their choices and convictions will be given either praise or disapproval. For believers, the final judgment is not an investigation as to whether they are a Christian, but an evaluation of how they were a Christian.⁴¹ According to Morris,“A reminder of the judgment we all face is a fitting conclusion to this stage of the discussion. The fact that each will render account for himself leaves no room for despising and judging others. The verdict on them is for God, not us [humans].”⁴²

If we were to summarize vv. 1 – 12, we could say that Paul is bent on stressing that Jesus is Lord of the weak (e.g., teetotaling Sabbatarian vegan Jews) and the strong (e.g., wine-sipping, Saturday-shopping, bacon-munching Gentiles). If God has justified them, they cannot condemn each other. If God has raised them up, they cannot put each other down. If they belong to the Lord, they belong to each other. If everyone calls him “Lord,” they must call each other “brothers and sisters.” If God has accepted them, they must accept each other. If they share the same faith, they share food together. As N. T. Wright puts it, “justification by faith” entails “fellowship by faith.” This is what justification by faith looks like when it sits down at the table of Christian community.⁴³

Paul moves to offer up some practical advice as to what one can actually do or not do to demonstrate the lordship of Jesus over disputable matters.

Paul draws the inference: “Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister” (v. 13). The inference is transitional in that it sums up vv. 1 – 12 while looking ahead to vv. 13 – 23.⁴⁴ The word “judge” (krinō) is crucial, and our English translations do not bring out the play on words in the Greek. Paul wants the Roman believers to stop passing judgment (krinōmen) on each other, “but rather judge this” (alla touto krinate mallon) in the sense of “determine” or “make up your mind.” Paul cheekily remarks that if they are really into judging, they should judge not to put any stumbling block in the way of a brother or sister. This idea of placing a “stumbling block” or “obstacle” in someone’s way pertains to that which is done for the purpose of creating offense or manufacturing a disturbance toward another believer (see Isa 8:14 in Rom 9:32 – 33).⁴⁵ To use a military engineering metaphor, this stumbling block or obstacle represents an ethical embuggerance designed to impede progress and bring someone to ruin.

Paul then offers an aside about his own view on the matters of food and purity: “I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself” (v. 14a). Paul is “convinced” and “persuaded” about the nonapplicability of Old Testament food laws to believers — a view he has reached en kuriō Iēsou , where the dative could be either locative (i.e., “in the Lord Jesus”) or instrumental (i.e., “by the Lord Jesus”). While most commentators favor the locative sense, the instrumental commends itself since 14:14 looks like a representation of the Jesus tradition, where Jesus taught that the food laws are of only relative importance compared to morality (see Mark 7:1 – 23/Matt 15:1 – 20; cf. Acts 10:15, 28; 11:9; Titus 1:15).⁴⁶

Mark’s editorial commentary on Jesus’ words, “In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean” (Mark 7:19c), is strikingly similar to Paul’s declaration in Romans 14:14 to the point that it looks like Mark has adopted the Pauline perspective on the food laws in relation to Gentile believers.⁴⁷ Clearly, then, Paul believes he is following a trajectory begun by Jesus on the topic by insisting that the clean and unclean distinctions are no longer demanded of believers even if some believers still choose to follow them.⁴⁸ The same conclusion was reached by Peter after his vision at Caesarea and through his meeting with the centurion Cornelius (see Acts 10:1 – 11:18), where he learned, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” (11:9).

Paul’s interjection of his own view is as succinct as it is shocking. The Old Testament food laws of kashrut provided details about unclean foods that were to be avoided by Torah-observant Jews (see Lev 11; Deut 14). Food that was ritually unclean was known as koinos or “unclean” as Paul calls it here, the opposite of “clean” or katharos in v. 20.⁴⁹ The Old Testament food laws expressed a particular understanding of Israel’s special status as God’s holy people and their separateness from the nations. The division between clean (edible) and unclean (inedible) foods corresponded to the division between holy Israel and the Gentile nations.⁵⁰ Generally speaking, Jews in Palestine and in the Diaspora tried to keep these food laws. The practice was widely known, and the satirist Juvenal mocked Jewish abstention from pork, saying about the Jews: “They see no difference between eating swine’s flesh, from which their father abstained, and human flesh.”⁵¹ The food laws were a distinctive part of Jewish daily life. According to E. P. Sanders:

If we bring together the facts that pious groups in Palestine had some special food laws and interpreted all the laws strictly, and that the food laws of Lev. 11 were observed in the Diaspora, where it was more difficult to keep them than in Palestine, we must conclude that the biblical food laws were in general kept very strictly throughout Jewish Palestine. In terms of day-in and day-out Jewish practice, both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, the food laws stood out, along with observance of the sabbath, as being a central and defining aspect of Judaism.⁵²

Yet Paul declares ever so nonchalantly that no food is actually, truly, genuinely, intrinsically unclean “in itself.” Controversial as Paul’s view might be, it is the inevitable conclusion reached from the premises that the Messiah fulfills the Torah and is the goal of the Torah.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. As we’ve already seen, the Torah retains its prophetic function and constitutes a type of wisdom for Christian living, even while believers no longer live under its jurisdiction. Since many will no doubt still feel an attachment to the Torah’s commands, Paul adds: “But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean” (v. 14b). So no food is really unclean, except he adds, unless one sincerely believes it to be unclean. In which case, for that a person, the food can be “reckoned” (logizomai) as being “unclean.” While an ancient Jew might be shocked at Paul’s nullification of the kashrut laws, we might find ourselves equally scandalized at the blatant subjectivity that Paul applies to the topic, as if one can believe whatever one likes about food laws.

We might grind our teeth as if Paul has become a postmodern ethical relativist who believes that it is possible to say in all honesty, “That’s true for you, but not for me.”⁵³ Although Paul clearly sides with the strong that all food is “clean,” even so, he provides liberty to the weak to live according to their conscience and custom when it comes to the food laws. He’ll end this section in vv. 22 – 23 on the same point, that people should act with consistency toward conscience and leave the matter between themselves and God rather than make it a stumbling block toward others.

Paul returns to his exhortation with a reminder to act in love toward others: “If your brother or sister is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love” (v. 15a). Love, we saw earlier, was at the heart of Paul’s ethical vision (see 12:9 – 10; 13:8 – 10). If someone acts in such a way as to grieve a fellow believer over the matter of food, then their behavior is the opposite of “acting in love.” Such behavior is self-righteous and self-serving, precisely what they were told not to be (see 12:4, 10). The strong may enjoy their freedom from the Torah when it comes to food, but they are not to rub it in the faces of the weak with a view to denigrating their sensitive consciences. So Paul adds the command: “Do not by your eating destroy someone for whom Christ died” (v. 15b).

Perhaps one of the greatest lessons that this text has for us is that when it comes to secondary matters, Paul shows that it is more important to be loving than to be proven right. There is no gain to be made in proving that one’s theology of kashrut laws or the Sabbath is theologically superior if it means fostering division and denigrating the convictions of another. You might win the argument or impress like-minded peers, but you lose a brother or sister for whom the Messiah died. And if the Messiah is for them, crucified for them, to wash away their sins and yours, how can you seek to bring them to spiritual ruin? Paul does not insist that the strong have to agree with the weak, but he does insist that they constrain the exercise of their freedom to promote love, peace, and unity. For the Christians in Rome, where their faith is exercised in a context of hostility and daily uncertainty, they do not have the luxury of dividing over miniscule matters about morsels of meat, since far more is at stake than steak.

Paul returns to the second person plural form of address: “Therefore do not let what you know is good be spoken of as evil” (v. 16). The prohibition in this verse is a conclusion that Paul draws from vv. 14 – 15.⁵⁴ The “good” in question is most likely knowledge of freedom from the Old Testament food laws. Good as that freedom is, if the strong abuse it, or brandish it with arrogance, they risk the prospect that their freedom will be reviled by the weak. This freedom will be “spoken of as evil” (see NIV, ESV, NRSV) or “criticized as wrong” (CEB), or, “blasphemed” (blasphēmeō). They might cajole the weak into making human insults against a divine gift. According to Moo: “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.”⁵⁵

In vv. 17 – 18 Paul provides two explanatory sentences elaborating on the reasons for this perspective on treating each other with love on disputable matters. First, negatively, he says: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (v. 17). Paul rarely mentions the “kingdom of God,” and when he does he ordinarily has in mind the future state that God’s people are yet to enter (see 1 Cor 4:20; 6:9 – 10; 15:24, 50; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Col 1:12 – 13; 4:11; 1 Thess 2:12; 2 Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 4:1, 18). Here, though, Paul emphasizes the realized or present dimension of the kingdom of God. The kingdom is manifested in their midst by the Holy Spirit, who bestows on them the blessings of righteousness, joy, and peace. Brian Vickers comments, “By placing personal freedom, here in the form of eating and drinking, above the good of others, they are forgetting how they received the kingdom and what should mark those who belong to it.”⁵⁶ When one realizes what the kingdom is and how the kingdom is expressed among them, petty squabbles over meat and sacred days appear comparatively pointless and even pitiful.

Second, positively, he says: “because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and receives human approval” (v. 18). Paul suggests that adopting this mode of behavior is an act of service toward the Messiah since it is a service toward his people. In serving their king they should imbibe a kingdom perspective on how to treat other kingdom people. More to the point, this behavior will result in a twofold blessing. Those who conduct themselves in this way of love and restraint toward others will not only please God, but will also meet with human approval. They will be good servants who receive not only divine praise, but are esteemed by the rest of the church family. If the Roman believers consider themselves to be slaves bound to Messiah Jesus, then they are bound to act in such a way as to promote righteousness, peace, and joy.

Paul provides a summary of his main point in v. 19 and its application in vv. 20 – 21. The main assertion is: “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (v. 19). I have to confess that this is my favorite verse in Romans and how I wish it would be read out thrice at the beginning of every diaconate, eldership, session, wardens, presbytery, association, and synod meeting of Christians. The believers in Rome, despite their diversity, despite the complexity of the relationship between Christ-believing Jews and Gentiles over the last several years, and despite their personal grievances and wounds, they are to pursue peace and mutual upbuilding. The things that make for peaceful relationships, harmony, and consensus, those are the things they are to doggedly chase after. Instead of destroying God’s work in his servants, they are to build each other up, like adding another spiral to a beautiful cathedral. Paul wants a cessation of hostilities and a combined effort to create an atmosphere of mutual support.

The way this works out in practice is that the strong are to value fellowship more than food: “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a person to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble” (v. 20). Food was central to Christian fellowship. Sharing food and participating in common meals was one of the most distinctive features of Christian life. Remember that when Jesus wanted his disciples to understand the meaning of his approaching death, he did not give them a sermon or a lecture; rather, he gave them a meal to explain what his death was about.⁵⁷ Food is important because of its symbolism as much as its sustenance, and it brings the church together.

The Passover meal itself symbolized the exodus, God’s great act of deliverance for Israel. When Paul says “for the sake of food,” he means “for perspectives about food.” No belief about food is worth throwing a wrecking ball through Christian fellowship. Their fellow believers, the weak, are identified as the “work of God,” which probably refers to the Christian community. So the strong cannot attack the weak because they are the Lord’s servants (v. 4), Jesus died and rose for them (vv. 9, 15), and they are the work of God, the church (v. 20). The mutual upbuilding they are to pursue (v. 19) is built on the foundation of God’s work in creating a new people (v. 20). Dunn says: “To belong to God’s building means living out one’s life as part of that building, mutually dependent on God’s grace and mutually interdependent on the interlocking relationships by which the building exists and grows.”⁵⁸ On the tail of that, Paul can again affirm what he said in v. 14 that “all food is clean.” There are no food taboos at their table. They are free to eat anything found in the marketplace and to enjoy food because, as Paul says elsewhere, “the earth is Lord’s, and everything in it” (see 1 Cor 10:24 – 26; cf. Ps 24:1). However, what is “wrong” or “bad” is that one’s choice of eating causes another believer to “stumble” or “trip up.”

The strong should not use their freedom to offend, but relinquish it where necessary to avoid division: “It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall” (v. 21). While it is “wrong” (kakos) to cause another to stumble, it is “good” (kalos) to avoid meat and wine if it will prevent a fellow believer from stumbling. We have already discussed the reasons for avoiding meat, but concerning wine the reasons for avoidance could be various. Although avoiding drunkenness by excessive consumption of wine was well-known (see Prov 23:20; 1 Tim 3:8; Titus 2:3; Sir 31:25, 29), the Jewish tradition could also celebrate the joy and health benefits associated with wine (see 1 Tim 5:23; Wis 2:7; Sir 31:26 – 27; 2 Macc 15:39). More likely, the avoidance of wine is due to its association with idolatry as wine could be poured out for libations to pagan deities (see Add Esth 4:17, “your servant has not eaten at Haman’s table, and I have not honored the king’s feast or drunk the wine of libations”).

In the same way that v. 20 repeats v. 14a that all foods are clean, so too vv. 22 – 23 repeat the substance of v. 14b that one must remain true to their beliefs whatever those beliefs are about food and purity. Stated positively, the principle Paul reiterates is: “So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves” (v. 22). It is not so much a matter of what one believes about meat, sacred days, or wine; it’s a matter of consistency with conscience. Liberty and sensitivity are both fine as long as they arise out of faith.

The subsequent beatitude that Paul makes is that a person is happy if they can live in such a way as their principles match their practice without fear of incurring self-condemnation. Stated negatively, the implication is: “But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin” (v. 23). For a person to go ahead and eat meat, if they are unsure or haunted by doubt, is sinful. For if their action comes not from faith, but from something else like fear of shame from the strong, then faith is no longer determining their course of action. Doubt or indecision is not itself wrong; it is only wrong “if” it causes the one who wavers to go ahead and eat. Paul is extolling faith as something to be unalloyed from doubt and hesistation.⁵⁹ The strong must avoid putting any stumbling block in front of the weak, while the weak must protect their conscience as they recognize the freedom of the strong on matters of food and drink. By such respect for each other, they respect the Lord who died for them, who reigns over them, and will one day even judge them.

I like to think of Romans 15:1 – 13 as Paul’s graduating address for readers going through the “Christ College” of 12:1 – 15:13. Paul proceeds to provide a summary of his teaching about how the strong should treat the weak (15:1 – 6) and roots his exhortation in the Messiah’s own service and the testimony of the prophet Isaiah about the Gentiles sharing in Israel’s worship (15:7 – 13).

“We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves” (v. 1). By using the first person plural “we,” Paul identifies himself with the strong and their freedom from Torah observance (see 14:14, 20). Yet he places on the “strong”⁶⁰ an obligation (lit., an indebtedness) to carry the failings of the weak and not to please themselves. Carrying another’s burden (see Gal 6:2) is how they pay the debt of love that believers owe to each other (Rom 13:8). Love of this order is more than mere toleration; it means indulging the weaks’ tender consciences even at the expense of their own preferences. On top of that, to “not please themselves” means accommodating the requests of others rather than prioritizing one’s own predilections.

In addition, Paul says, “Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up” (v. 2). By employing the adjective “each of us” Paul includes the strong and the weak in the purview of this command. For both camps, pleasing others, deferring to their needs, and seeking their benefit are ways of loving one’s neighbor (13:9 – 10) and are ways that the church is built up (14:19).

Paul’s exhortation is not a compromise, but christologically centered: “For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: ‘The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me’ ” (v. 3). The conjunctive “for” (gar) shows that Paul’s plea to the strong angles around the Messiah story. The strong should not think that giving in to the weak is incompatible with their apparent strength for even the Messiah did not seek to please himself.⁶¹ Their tolerance is not a capitulation to error but a recapitulation of the Messiah’s own self-giving service. For, Paul explains, even the Messiah did “not please himself” in the sense that he did not consider his status as excusing himself from the task of serving, i.e., “[he] did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage” (Phil 2:6).

Paul then lodges a sharp contrast signified with “but” and goes on to describe the Messiah’s self-giving service by a citation of Psalm 69:9: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” The key here is that the Messiah is regarded as the speaker of the psalm. He is the suffering righteous one who is mocked and despised by his antagonists and patiently waits for his vindication from God. Paul taps into the gospel story that Jesus did not shirk from the shame and horror of his crucifixion in order to achieve atonement for God’s people (see Mark 15:29 – 32). In the same way, if the weak are insulting the strong or even speaking evil of their good freedom (see Rom 14:16), they are not to respond in kind. The strong should not shrink back from the need to show patience even to the argumentative weak members. The Messiah’s own example should lead them to be self-giving, not to be retaliatory or repay insult for insult.

Reflecting on Psalm 69 leads Paul to offer a somewhat excursive thought⁶² on the function of Scripture itself: “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope” (v. 4). Israel’s sacred texts were composed in order to provide instruction to the people, instruction that would imbibe them with endurance and encouragement and would culminate in a sense of hope. This is no random eulogizing of Scripture. We must remember, as Esler states, “What is at stake is not merely the interpretation of the past but, as clearly here, the role of memories in understanding the present and envisioning the future. Israelite scriptures were battlefields for rival groups bent on securing the victory that would preserve their respective identities.”⁶³ Scripture, then, is a major source of hope that drives and sustains the Pauline vision for a united people of Jews and Gentiles with a shared messianic identity and common experience of the Spirit.

The themes of endurance and encouragement provide a segue into Paul’s prayer wish for the Roman believers: “May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you the same attitude of mind toward each other that Christ Jesus had, so that with one mind and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (vv. 5 – 6). This is the first prayer that Paul has made for the Romans since 1:9 – 12. The prayer is simultaneously a direct intercession before God and an indirect exhortation to the Roman community. At the core of Paul’s prayer is that unity would be restored and they would think the same on such things (much like Rom 12:16; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 2:2 – 4; 4:2). He is not calling for uniformity, for the believers to think exactly the same thing about disputable matters; rather, even with their differences of opinion, he wants them to have a common perspective and purpose.⁶⁴

Paul wants more than an agreed list of ideas; he wants them to have a mind among each other that is kata Christon Iēsoun (“according to Messiah Jesus”). This is a mind that is patterned after the Messiah and pursues the vision of God’s people appropriate for those under the Messiah. The result of this messianic mind is two things: first, consensus and concord where it matters (homothymadon, lit., “one mindedness,” a favorite term of Luke, see Acts 1:14; 4:24; 8:6; 15:25; 19:29); second, worship, coming together with “one voice” to glorify the God and Father of their Lord Jesus. Unity is not prized for itself but has as its ultimate end the glory of God. Only when the Roman churches are visibly united and singing with one voice will God be glorified in a way worthy of him. It is little statements like these, so often passed over, that allow us to peer down into the tectonic plates of the theology of Romans. God brings Israel’s story to its climax through the Messiah, and in the Messiah, God makes out of Jews and Gentiles a holy and obedient people to praise his glory.

The final paragraph, 15:7 – 13, says Wright, “transforms into a coda of praise and celebration without any loss of theological poise.”⁶⁵ Paul rounds off the entire section by repeating 14:1 with a further plea to accept one another just as the Messiah himself accepted them (15:7), then declaring that the Messiah is the one through whom God’s promises to the patriarchs are fulfilled (15:8), resulting in the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s people as Scripture foresaw (15:9 – 12), and concluding with a prayer wish for more abundant spiritual fruit among these Gentile believers (15:13).

Paul buttresses his plea to the strong by summing up several various themes from across the letter like God’s faithfulness to Israel, the Messiah’s resurrection, the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s people, as well as hope, joy, peace, faith, and the Holy Spirit. Paul places the local conflict in Rome against the panoramic backdrop of redemptive history in order to prompt them to obedience and to enjoin them to a united worship. In sum, Paul provides a celebration of the Messiah’s work on behalf of the nations, a work that is first and foremost for Israel, as it fulfills the promises given to the patriarchs, by consecrating Gentiles to share in God’s people just as the Torah, Prophets, and Writings declared.⁶⁶ Thus, in 15:7 – 13 we apprehend at last the climax of the entire letter.⁶⁷

“Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God” (v. 7). The NIV lessens the inferential nature of the verse by translating the coordinating conjunction dio as “then” rather than the more forceful “therefore” (better is the ESV, NASB, NLT with “therefore, welcome/accept each other”). The transition is important as Paul intends to gather up several threads of his exhortation to the strong and the weak. Just like v. 3, the Messiah’s own action here is the basis and model for the Roman believers.⁶⁸ They are to welcome each other in the same way (kathōs) that the Messiah welcomed them (see Col 3:13 in relation to forgiving each other just as the Lord forgave them).

Notice as well the doxological end of this welcome. When Gentile believers deliberately flex in their freedom in order to extend familial bonds to Jewish believers, by this welcoming act they give praise to God (15:7). In addition, if mutual acceptance is the key idea throughout 14:1 – 15:13, then regard for “one another” is the primary instrument for achieving it. Paul mentions no less than nine times what they must do for one another, including belonging (12:5), devotion (12:10), give honor (12:10), harmony (12:16), love (13:10), refuse to pass judgment (14:13), build up (14:19), unity of mind (15:5), and acceptance (15:7). The most powerful sign that they are the renewed and consecrated people of God on whom salvation has come is the mutuality and unity evident within a network of multiethnic house churches.

The unity of Jews and Gentiles in the church is the culmination of the unfolding redemptive-historical drama where salvation comes to Gentiles only as it comes to and through the Jews with the gospel: “For I tell you that Christ has become⁶⁹ a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy” (vv. 8 – 9). Paul slips back into the first person singular with “I tell you” to make an authoritative pronouncement, this time about the Messiah, similar to his other messianic formulations in the letter (see 1:3 – 4; 9:4 – 5). The net point is that God, by bringing Israel’s covenantal history to its appointed climax in the Messiah, has opened the way for the Gentiles to join his renewed people.

It is not the case that salvation is for Jews and Gentiles and the Jews just got the first bite of the apple before it was finally offered to Gentiles. No, it was that the promises were cocooned around Israel; thus it must be to and through Israel that salvation is revealed. We might say that salvation is for the Jew first so that it can be for the Gentile second. The Messiah became a servant — indeed the Servant of whom Isaiah spoke⁷⁰ — in order to make good⁷¹ what God had promised the patriarchs. What is at stake is no less than “God’s truth,” his fidelity to what he said he would do in giving Abraham descendants as numerous as the stars.⁷² To that end, the Messiah’s work was directed at Israel, the “circumcision,” because of the particular place Israel held in God’s plan to rescue the world and to make Abraham’s promises an eschatological reality (see Matt 10:5 – 6; 15:24; Mark 7:24 – 30; John 4:22 – 26).

The two succeeding purpose clauses in vv. 8c – 9a should be taken as parallel and consequential:⁷³ (1) to confirm God’s promises to the patriarchs is precisely the theological platform on which Paul based the whole scope of Romans 4. God had always intended to create a worldwide Abrahamic family, through Israel, the kingdom of priests and light to the nations, a role fulfilled by the Messiah. Rescuing Gentiles was not an afterthought but part of the unswerving divine purpose for the whole world, where the messianic servant redeemed Jews and Gentiles and made them covenant partners in the renewed people of God.

(2) The second purpose was to bring Gentiles to the point where they would praise God for his mercy. The result of the Messiah’s ministry, and even that of his apostle to the Gentiles, is that Gentile idolaters become true God worshipers. They celebrate an experience of “mercy,” entering into divine kindness and favor (see Rom 9:16, 18, 23; 11:30 – 32; 12:2). According to Wright, “This is the doxological correlate of justification by faith: the gathering of Gentiles into the one people of God, not by works of Torah but simply by faith in God’s saving action in the Messiah, results in praise.”⁷⁴

Assuming this entire scheme — Messiah, patriarchs, Gentiles, mercy, praise, etc. — it would be utterly unthinkable for the believers in Rome to prosecute any prejudice against their Christian brothers and sisters. Gentile Christians should not despise Jewish Christians for they are the ones to whom the Messiah came to serve. Jewish Christians should not judge Gentile Christians for he has brought them into God’s mercy to be praisers of God’s glory. The Messiah accepts each group and God approves of them as his servants. In response, they must show acceptance of each other. Paul thus brings together the many themes of the letter: justification by faith for Jew and Gentile, the redemptive-historical story fulfilled by the Messiah, divine mercy, mutuality, and a united people of God devoted to each other as they engage in a common worship.

Paul closes this section off with a collection of four biblical citations drawn from the Pentateuch (Deut 32:43), Writings (Ps 18:49/2 Sam 22:50; Ps 117:1), and Prophets (Isa 11:10). Just like Romans 3:10 and 11:8, Paul commences with “as it is written” to introduce his catena of citations. The repeated refrain “and again” between citations means the texts are regarded as making the same point.⁷⁵ The common denominator in the texts is the word “Gentiles,” but together they form a redemptive-historical mosaic that weaves together the narratives threads Paul has expounded across Romans, including God, Messiah, Israel, Gentiles, mercy, and glory. The selection of scriptural texts is concrete proof that the gospel was “promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures” (1:4).⁷⁶ But it is more than that, for it reminds us that “Paul’s gospel was a Jewish message for the non-Jewish world . . . he believed the God of Israel to be the God of the whole world and Israel’s Messiah to be the world’s true lord.”⁷⁷

First is Psalm 18:49 (cf. 2 Sam 22:50), “Therefore I will praise you among the Gentiles; I will sing the praises of your name” (v. 9c). Here the Messiah is depicted as the one who prays the psalm, experiencing the pattern of suffering and vindication, and at the end he leads the Gentiles in a chorus of praise for the salvation and mercy shown to “his king . . . his Messiah, to David and his seed forever” (Ps 17:51 LXX [pers. trans.]). What is remarkable about Paul’s “messianic exegesis” here is that he focuses on the Messiah’s mission to the Gentiles. The Gentiles obey the Messiah as King and follow him in worship. Psalm 18 becomes an intertextual way of tying together the themes of Messiah, mercy, and Gentiles in vv. 7 – 12.⁷⁸

Second, Paul returns to Deuteronomy 32 with, “Rejoice, you Gentiles, with his people” (v. 10). Paul follows the LXX rather than Hebrew text on Deuteronomy 32:43 to showcase the idea of Gentiles sharing in God’s dramatic rescue of the Jewish nation by atonement for their sins and judgment on their enemies. The text fits perfectly with surrounding texts as it invites Gentiles to rejoice with Israel for the salvation that God has wrought for the entire world.⁷⁹ What the Old Testament called on Gentiles to do, namely, to join Israel in the worship of God, they now do and are able to do through God’s mercy to them in the gospel.⁸⁰

Third, Paul reverts back to the Psalter, “Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles; let all the peoples extol him” with Psalm 117:1 (v. 11). This is a short psalm, only two verses, and is a classic example of the kerygmatic nature of Israel’s worship in calling the nations to praise Israel’s God. Viewed this way, mission is an implication of monotheism, since Israel’s God was the Creator God, not merely a tribal deity or a personification of nature. As the Creator God, he was therefore worthy of the worship of the entire human race who had otherwise suppressed knowledge of their Creator and buried their minds in the dark soils of idolatry. The LXX version also adds reference to God’s “mercy” and “truth” in Psalm 117:2, which resonate nicely with Romans 15:8 – 9.

Fourth, Paul’s last citation is from “Isaiah,” the only author named in the catena, and constitutes his “anchor” for the series.⁸¹ Paul quotes from Isaiah 11:10: “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; in him the Gentiles will hope” (v. 12). The “Root of Jesse” is a messianic title (see Rev 5:5; 22:16) and this Messiah rises to reign, which naturally makes us think of the Messiah’s resurrection (Rom 1:4) and enthronement (8:34). The wider Isaianic context pertains to God’s purpose to rescue Israel by preserving a remnant and rallying the nations around it, and to bring this renewed community into a new world order. Paul’s citation of Isaiah means that the Isaianic hope for national restoration and the renewal of creation takes place through the Messiah, who does not militarily subjugate Gentiles, but incorporates them into God’s kingdom. We might add that this is probably the most politically incendiary text of the whole letter as Israel’s Messiah is destined to reign over the nations and become a beacon of hope for them — precisely what the political propaganda and imperial priesthood claimed for Rome and the emperor.

Paul finishes off with a prayer wish: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (v. 13). Paul is cued by the mention of hope in v. 12 to launch into a prayer about hope in v. 13. Hope has been a recurring theme in Paul’s exhortations throughout the letter. The reason is, perhaps, that a constant and common hope of an assured future is what they need to sustain them. Hope is the anticipation of future salvation (8:24), a hope of glory (5:5), amidst the futility and afflictions of this age (8:20; 12:12). The sign that hope in faith has taken root is the effusion of joy and peace that bubbles up in the believer by the Holy Spirit (14:17; 15:13).

Imagine a group of Gentile Christians in Rome, perhaps a mixture of slaves and artisans, sitting at the back of a leather-worker’s shop one night, huddled around a candle, singing a hymn, recounting their day, and sharing what little food they had. One of the slaves is a scribe and is able to read from a notebook a few verses from Psalm 69. Then in walks Herodion, a Jewish freedman, who had returned to Rome from Alexandria some weeks ago. Herodion turns to Rufus, the leader of the house church, and says “charein kai eirēnē” (“greetings and peace”). Rufus has not seen Herodion for six years and when they had last met there had been a ferocious debate about drinking wine. Herodion had visited Rufus’s shop to explain why drinking pagan wine was wrong; it was defiled by its use in libations, so God-worshipers must avoid it or risk God’s judgment. Rufus wasn’t convinced and Herodion stormed off cursing Rufus and his pagan drink.

Now, however, Rufus looks at Herodion; he looks weak and malnourished. Perhaps his master has cast him out for his Christian faith. Everyone in the group looks at Rufus to see what he will do. Rufus rises, kisses Herodian on the cheek, sits him down, and gives him some bread and a few turnips and pours him a cup of water. He looks at Herodion and says, “phagete, gar tou autou kuriou esmen” (“Eat! For we all belong to the same Lord”). That is why Paul wrote Romans.⁸²

In 14:1 – 15:13 we find one of the most eminently practical and yet theologically profound exhortations in all of Paul’s letters. If, as N. T. Wright has argued, the image of the church as the united people of God is the most lasting theological heirloom Paul has left to us, this is where Paul shows how that unity works itself out in community life. The church is the multiethnic people who confess Jesus as Lord, praise God as Father, and accept each other as brothers and sisters despite having different ideas about how to live faithfully in a pagan environment. What looms large here is the lordship of Jesus and some sage advice for dealing with disputable matters among believers.

Paul uses the word kyrios (“Lord”) some twelve times across 14:1 – 15:13. In some instances it is ambiguous as to whether “Lord” refers to Jesus or to God the Father (esp. 14:4, 6, 11; 15:11), but it is crystal clear most of the time that Jesus is the one designated as “Lord” (esp. 14:8 – 9, 14; 15:6). By doing this, Paul is clearly situating Jesus within the divine identity, so that the “Lord” of Israel is revealed as the Lord Jesus Christ (see 10:13, 16).⁸³ Kirk says that “the resurrected Christ, ruling the world and the people of God on God’s behalf, has transformed Paul’s vision of where God’s people look for their rule, as he applies to Jesus language and roles ascribed to God in the Old Testament.”⁸⁴

However, repeated reference to Jesus as Lord is more than an affirmation of Jesus’ deity since Paul intends Jesus’ lordship to be understood as more than an idea, but an eschatological event that imposes itself across the whole span of our lives. Paul really accents Jesus’ lordship in 14:7 – 11, and if we take this passage seriously, a few important implications emerge.

(1) There are no lone wolves under the Lord, only one flock and one shepherd, seeking one common end. It is unthinkable that one could confess Jesus as Lord and yet separate himself or herself from the Lord’s body. It is equally impossible to imagine that someone could profess to follow Jesus as Lord and yet live in deliberate isolation from his other servants. To follow Jesus as Lord will mean congregating with his other servants irrespective of how imperfect they look. The household slaves have no right to dictate who the master lets into his house!

(2) There is no area of our life that can be compartmentalized from the Lord’s authority. Whether it is labor or leisure, private life or public life, finances or family, business or busyness, it is all lived before the Lord. The aegis of Jesus’ lordship applies to every aspect of daily life from morning until evening and encompasses what we drink and what we think, what we eat and even the people we greet. We cannot quarantine certain objects, particular times, special behaviors, or certain bank accounts, and insist that these belong to us and not him. If we are truly thankful to the Lord for what he has done for us, then we owe him our everything, the shirt on our backs, the last cent in our wallet or our purse, and the very breath in our bodies. Cliché as it might sound, if we don’t make him Lord of all, we secretly harbor the belief that he is not Lord at all! The challenge for us is to order our lives according to the story, symbols, and teachings of the Lord Jesus. We are to make Jesus’ lordship a tangible and visible reality in how we live. We need to ensure that if professing and practicing Jesus as Lord is a crime, that there will be plenty of evidence to convict us.

(3) We must demur from judging Jesus’ servants and leave the right to judge with our benevolent leader. When I was younger, I was very keen to make sure that all of my church friends and fellow parishioners had the correct theology. Whether it was election or eschatology, they usually needed some tips from me on how to set them straight, and I was rather miffed when they refused to come around to my way of thinking. I would often think of those who remained disagreeable with a certain degree of disdain if they could not see the truth as I assuredly knew it. Thankfully I am now older, and while I certainly haven’t given up the importance of “first things” in Christian theology, I no longer find myself sitting in judgment of other people’s theology or lack thereof. There are still some big theological hills I’m willing to die on, but fewer small hills that I’m willing to metaphorically fight over. The reason is simple: if someone calls Jesus “Lord,” then it is his role and right to judge over them, not mine. Where the gospel is not threatened, where holiness is not tainted, there liberty may be given. Believers cannot judge each other over petty matters or condemn each other on secondary issues since that usurps the preogratives of the Lord as it is Jesus who will judge the living and the dead (2:16; 14:10).

(4) We need to have tongues wagging busily with confession and knees dirty with bowing before the lordship of Jesus. It should be clear that the lordship of Jesus is not something merely to be affirmed or assented as if it were an abstract proposition for intellectual reflection. We have a mission to proclaim the lordship of Jesus and to worship him precisely as Lord. The identity of Jesus as Lord should be central to our preaching. Yes, Jesus is Savior, Healer, and Deliverer; that is all true and should be sung from the rooftops and broadcast over the airways. But above all, Jesus is the Boss of bosses, King of kings, Master of masters, and Lord of Lords. The story of the gospel is that the one who was from the beginning Lord became a servant, so that those lost in sin might know him as Savior and love him as Lord.

At the end of the day, we must remember that Christianity is not about being nice to people. It is about being subversive people who are subversive because they are unflinchingly subservient to the kingdom, cause, and message of the Lord Jesus Christ. People who won’t bend the knee to the lords of this age. People who by their actions as much as their words tell forth the love of the Lord. People who keep pointing to the Lord who offers salvation for the repentant and will usher in justice for the world. We need to live lives of such radiance that our neighbors will become curious about our kyrios.

Naturally this will lead us into praise, singing, and praying to Jesus as Lord. Churches will become the place where the name of Jesus is honored and esteemed as the one who loves us and leads us into everlasting glory. As Charles Spurgeon preached:

The more you know of Jesus as your Savior, saving you from sin, the more will you recognize him also as your Lord. No one rebels against Christ because he believes in him; but, because we believe in him, he becomes our Lord, and we learn to obey him. That is the spirit I long to have reigning in all our hearts, the spirit of devout, worshipful reverence towards “Jesus our Lord.”⁸⁵

(5) A large part of our lives is to show forth the preeminence of Christ’s lordship by pursuing unity with each other. It is surely significant that Paul emphasizes the lordship of Jesus in the part of the letter that speaks the most clearly to the unity of the church. Jesus is Lord of both Jews and Greeks and so Lord of the strong and the weak (10:12). That is why the church is constituted as one people under one Lord. The underlying premise is that confessing Jesus as Lord is the single criterion for being a Christian (10:9 – 11). If all believers call Jesus “Lord,” they all relate to him as his fellow servants and are called to embrace each other in fellowship. Quite clearly for Paul, maintaining unity is not just a matter of preventing petty tiffs, but is an essential element of the church’s witness to the Lord by speaking about the Lord with a united voice. As Wright comments, “If the church divides along lines related to ethnic or tribal loyalty, it is still living in the world of Caesar.”⁸⁶

This task of pursuing unity as an ongoing imperative of Jesus’ lordship is something that I think evangelicals have traditionally been weak on. Many devoted Christian folk think of unity as a kind of take-it-leave-it option. We can hang about with like-minded people, who like the same theology as us, who appreciate the same worship as us, and get excited about the same social causes as us, but we can ignore those we don’t naturally gravite to. In reality, however, we really need to try to build bridges with those churches that we often don’t have an affinity with or those whom we don’t naturally relate to because their worship is louder or too liturgical, because their preaching is too flowery or too theological, or because their leaders went to different seminaries or to no seminary at all. Yet if a united church is a sign of Jesus’ lordship, then we can hardly be quite so half-hearted about pursuing unity on some level with other Christian assemblies. Charles Spurgeon put it well:

This term, “Jesus our Lord,” seems to draw a circle round all the elect of God, the whole host of the redeemed out of every nation, and kindred, and tribe, and tongue, and people in every land and every age. It seems to remind me of a kind of clanship which exists among all believers. Just as the old Highland clansmen, when they saw the head of the clan, all felt intense enthusiasm at the very sight of him, for he was the great center and meeting place for all the divers families in the clan, and with him leading them they rushed forward to victory or death with the utmost enthusiasm, so, when I look you in the face, beloved, we may differ very greatly in station, in ability, and in a thousand things, but your Lord is my Lord, so we are brothers and sisters in him, and we clasp hands around him, and say, “Jesus our Lord.”⁸⁷

I remember once thinking about what is the central message of the Christian faith. How could you sum it up in one catch phrase or one bumper sticker? Around that time I walking through my old neighborhood where a Pentecostal church had a sign posted up in some bushland adjacent to its property facing a small road junction. It said, “Jesus Reigns!” I have to say, I think that is it. That is New Testament theology in a nutshell. That is what our evangelism and ethics are about. Jesus reigns, Jesus is Lord, Jesus will be by might what he is by right, Jesus will establish his kingdom over the whole earth, yes, Jesus is Lord! After that, everything else, disputable matters and theological shibboleths, sports and movies, political debates and pumpkin pie — everything pales into insignificance when compared to the lordship of Jesus. Once we know that Jesus Christ is Lord, everything else, comparatively speaking, is about as important as knowing the reproductive habits of plankton.

You could be forgiven for wondering what is the deal with meat that Paul and his Jewish Christian buddies are so hung up about. Who cares if some pagan butcher prays to Jupiter before he hands on your McRome burger with Caesar salad on the side? Big whoopeedoo! Well, a thing that elicits a response of “Who cares?” from one person can draw a response of “Holy cow!” from another. It is vital to remember that in every generation, there are often small gestures or certain items that remind us about the deadly struggles we’ve had for survival and the painful divisions we’ve had to go through.

While meat was symbolic for the Jewish contest against idolatry, in other times the issues have been different. For instance, in sixteenth-century England, the dividing issue among Protestant churches was over the ministers’ attire. The deeply divisive “vestrian controversy” was about whether ministers could or should wear vestments like a surplice, alb, cope, and chasuble. One’s view of the preacher’s attire determined who was “in” and who was “out” of certain factions. The debate led to persecutions, imprisonments, and a monumental tract war.

An immediate outcome was the Puritan split from the Church of England into the Presbyterian churches. To this day, my own institution, Ridley College, prohibits invited speakers from wearing certain forms of clerical attire, a lingering consequent of the vestrian controversy all those centuries ago. We might respond, “Who cares if the preacher wears a chicken suit, a monastic robe, or a three-piece Armani suit? As long as the guy or gal is clothed, preaches the word, no problemo?” Well, for the Puritans, vestments were “gan problema” as they were symbolic for the continuing influence of clericalism in England, and the vestrian controversy evoked the larger story of their struggle with the influence of Roman Catholicism. So little things, like boiled meat or a bishop’s mitre, can stir up heated debates and cause folks to fire huge theological artillery at each other.

Debates, fellowship, and theology force us to identify the issues that are worth dividing over and which are not. Which hills should we be prepared to die on and which disagreements can we happily let fly through to the catcher? What we need to develop is a theological triage in relation to: (1) views essential to the faith; (2) views important to the faith and order of a church, but not necessary for salvation; and (3) views that may be treated with indifference, a matter of conscience, often called adiaphora.⁸⁸ Now for me, personally, I would put in the essential category things like the Trinity, the gospel, and salvation by faith alone, things without which no one can be a Christian. In the important category one might include church government and baptism, things that shape the visible operation and theological ethos of a church, but no one is gonna burn in hell if you do not agree with them. In the third category I would put drinking alcohol, schemes of eschatology, and Bible translations. The triage works well if everyone agrees on what issues go in which categories. But when they don’t agree on what is a major issue and a minor issue, there can be unpleasant difficulties, to put it mildly. For example, during the vestrian controversy, part of the debate was over whether vestments were an essential matter or merely adiaphora.⁸⁹

The problem is that some churches deny that such a thing as adiaphora exists as all matters are subject to some regulative principle.⁹⁰ Then there are others who misuse the concept of adiaphora to allow what Scripture expressly forbids. For instance, I once attended a Bible study where a member tried to convince us that abstaining from alcohol was an essential element of the faith. I’ve also met clergy who think that trusting in Christ alone for salvation is an optional extra for those who like the ambience of Anglican liturgy.

There are indeed weighty matters to be held of “first importance” as Paul says because they pertain to things necessary for salvation (1 Cor 15:3). Jude said that we are “to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” (Jude 3). Contending for the faith does not require, however, being contentious about all things. Matters that are to be considered adiaphora are those that may be treated with indifference as they are inconsequential. The Stoic philosopher Epictetus said: “Now the virtues and everything that shares in them are good, while vices . . . are evil, but what falls in between these . . . are indifferent.”⁹¹ Paul clearly regards eating meat, observing sacred days, and drinking wine as adiaphora. Many of the church fathers agreed, like Origen, who said:

Eating meat and drinking wine are matters of indifference in themselves. Even wicked people may abstain from those things, and some idol worshippers in fact do so, for reasons which are actually evil. Likewise quite a few heretics enjoin similar practices. The only reason abstinence of this kind is good is that it may help to avoid offending a brother.⁹²

In applying 14:1 – 15:13 we should ask about what issues divide us today between the weak and the strong. What is our “meat” and “sacred days” that some cling to for dear life and others shrug their shoulders at with blasé disinterest? What are the disputable matters that we should be teaching people to regard as adiaphora? I think two good examples of disputable matters for Christians today, especially in a multicultural context, would be halal food and food offered to ancestors.

I have a friend, Bruce, who is a prison chaplain. During his time as a chaplain, he’s led a number of young men to Christ, men from a variety of backgrounds, usually steeped in crime and violence. A number of these new coverts have vigorously protested about being made to consume halal food while in prison. A substantial number of Muslim men are also in prison, so the meat served in the prison cafeteria is usually halal, killed and prepared according to Muslim custom. Many of the Christians in the prison have strong feelings about the issue as to whether a believer should eat food prepared according to the customs of another religion. Some feel like they are being made to observe Islamic customs by eating the meat, whereas other Christians are completely unphased by the origins of the meat and eat it without question. If you were a prison chaplain, trying to mediate a dispute between professing Christians in that context and on this subject, what would you say to them about halal food, and what would be the basis of your remarks?

To give another example, I have another friend, Elise, who is from Korea. She became a Christian while studying at an Australian University. Her background was in a mixture of Buddhism and ancestor veneration. Much of the Bible’s teaching on idolatry really convicted her about her past religious practices, however mechanical and meaningless those rituals were for her. On returning to Korea, she refused to share any meal where part of the food was going to be used as an offering to the ancestors in their family shrine. It caused a huge argument in her family, trying to shame her for her disrespect, and it led to a severing of her relationship with her mother. What would you tell Elise? Would it not be better to honor her mother as the Bible commands, keep her conscience intact by avoiding ancestor food, or else come up with some kind of compromise?

My favorite story about food and boundaries come from Thomas R. Browning in his account of what happened when he and a bunch of seminary students visited a Hari Krishnah temple. Browning was both amused and grieved at the rank idolatry at the Hari Krishnah temple. On the way out, the seminarans were given a paper cup full of homemade Hari Krishna candy. Browning noticed that just outside the door was a huge pile of the candy on the ground. His fellow seminarians had no sooner walked out the door than dumped the candy at their feet. What happened next was truly memorable:

I knew, of course, immediately what had happened. Almost to a man, my seminary brothers had determined they were not going to eat any of the candy made by these pagan idolaters. They were not going to take a chance on being contaminated by Krishna candy. They were not about to let one of those blue skinned manikins get any sort of foothold down in their soul. And I have to tell you, I was, I was torn about what to do with my own little paper cup, with my own little piece of handmade, homemade Krishna candy. I was not quite as set in my ways then as I am now. The men were looking back to see what the guys coming out were going to do, so I just stopped and stepped aside and turned and looked back too when Prof. Blue came out with a giant glob of Krishna candy in his mouth. He looked sort of like a hamster with a cheek bulging with candy. He even walked over to where the guys had thrown down their candy, I had a feeling he had done this before, and sort of looked through what they had thrown down to see if anything was salvageable. I think he actually bent down and picked up a piece or two and then on his way back to the car asked first one guy and then the next, “Hey, are you gonna eat that . . . and if you are not . . . how about . . . uh . . . handing it over?” I stood there for a moment and finally made my own personal decision about what to do with my piece of candy.⁹³

Notice that the seminarians were “weak” on the matter of Krishna candy, while the professor was “strong.” The students were sensitive about eating it, while the professor had no qualms. These are the type of disputes that arise when we have a concern to protect the integrity of our faith from food tarnished with paganism. In my mind, the visit to the temple was a good training exercise for people going on the mission field or into ministry in a multicultural context, because this is the type of situation that forces them to think how to discern and decide about contentious matters like these.

The issues of course do not have to be about food and idolatry. Other disputable matters can also foster division. I can give you instances where I would be considered a “strong” believer and where I might be a considered a “weak” believer. To begin with, I enjoy a nice glass of wine with my meal, steak, pasta, or even crackers with cheese. A cold and frosty beer on a summer’s day is also refreshing. Let me add that I was raised in a home with alcohol abuse and I even engaged in binge drinking while I was a young man in the army. So I know quite well the perils of alcohol consumption. Even so, I do not see any complete biblical ban against alcohol. So I’m a “strong” believer in that my convictions incline me toward the freedom to drink responsibly. Now I have some Baptist friends who, for many reasons, choose not to drink. They can be a bit touchy on the subject, so I try to do the Romans 14:19 thing by not drinking in front of them or discussing fine wines in their presence.

Nevertheless, I am not always one of the strong, since my teetotaling Baptist friends also put on a great Halloween party. They dress up in funny costumes with make-up, drink tropical punch, play games, and eat lots of candy. Personally this weirds me out because I’ve always regarded Halloween as a pagan festival, macabre, dark, and even demonic. I don’t let my kids go trick or treating because we worship Jesus, not Voldemort or cute teenage vampires. Why would a good Christian even want to celebrate Halloween? It baffles me and horrifies me! Deep down, I know my Baptist friends are not worshiping demons, it’s just costumes and candy. But for me, it’s the vibe of the whole thing; it sends my spiritual radar crazy. I know that on this topic I’m in the minority, and it’s a minor issue so I don’t judge them for it. So here I’m a “weak” believer somewhat sensitive to Halloween celebrations.

All these examples go to show that dealing with disputable matters requires constructing a theological triage, upholding gospel freedoms, and finding ways to respect each other’s consciences. There will be some issues on which we are “strong” and others on which we are “weak.” Most of the issues that are disputed are usually minor and not worth fighting over. The reason is, as Doug Moo puts it, “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.”⁹⁴ In an age of rampant secularism and the rise of militant Islam, we have bigger things to do than argue about piddly perspectives on alcohol and Halloween. That would be like holding a diaconate meeting to argue about the proper size of liturgical candles while ISIS hordes are climbing over the walls of our city ready to kill and plunder. We need theological and pastoral priorities.

A large amount of responsibility falls on the shoulders of the strong, those mature in the faith, who rightly know their freedom, to exercise that freedom without causing the more scrupulous to stumble, or to label the more conservative as “whingers” or “fundies.” It is also incumbent on the weak, those rightly concerned with preserving the integrity of the faith, not to be judgmental, or factious, and to refuse to label others as either worldly or liberal. Instead, everyone is to recognize that we all have freedom to disagree over nonessentials. That often goes against our natural instinct, which is to think that since we are right, we can treat others as if they have no right to their position. I love how Peter Adam puts it:

If I had been writing Romans [14], I would have told those who were weak in faith, and still kept special days, to sort themselves out, and to know that they are justified by grace through faith, not by keeping special days of Jewish practice. Paul, on the other hand, told the strong in faith to accept the weak in faith, and the weak in faith to accept the strong in faith. Both the strong and the weak are answerable to God, not to each other. So we must allow people to act differently in matters that don’t contradict the gospel.⁹⁵

In terms of practice, Paul does not give the weak the power of veto over the strong. He does not ask the strong to forfeit their freedom. Rather, Paul urges the strong to be loving in the exercise of their freedom, to use it to build up, not to tear down.⁹⁶ Similarly, Paul does not give the strong the right to roll roughshod over the consciences of the weak in the name of progress. He does not demand that the weak surrender what they regard as sacred. Rather, Paul wants the weak to keep their judgments between themselves and God lest they usurp God’s authority to judge his servants.

On approaching disputable matters, we have to be realistic. It is hard to strike a balance that will please everyone. We have to balance liberty and love, protecting consciences while striving for consensus, and do it without lurching toward either license or legalism in the process. In the end, I would say that Romans 14 contains several helpful principles that we should apply to the disputable matters that might arise in our churches.⁹⁷

I think this is one of the hardest things that we can learn how to do. What are the beliefs and practices that require conformity and are the areas that allow flexibility? I hope we all agree that believing in the Trinity is mandatory and abstaining from adultery is necessary. But what about the doctrine of election or belief that Christians should not go on dates without a chaperone? Are those beliefs the basis for fellowship or purely a matter of conscience?

Generally speaking, I think the big ticket items of our faith are found in the Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed, since they have historically been symbols and signs of the apostolic faith. Those are the subjects that all churches should require consensus and comprise a basis for fellowship. Churches with a particular confessional bent or a set of denominational distinctives may also require ministers and adherents to subscribe to a wider body of teachings as well in order to preserve their distinctive way of reading Scripture and their unique way of being the church. In addition, there is a fairly recognizable common core of beliefs about what is considered holy living and righteous conduct that is incumbent on followers of Jesus. However, beyond the major creeds, denominational distinctives, and basic ethics, we should be hesistant to prescribe a theology or a set of behaviors for persons, because the result can be a legalistic construction that places more authority of human tradition than on the freedom of the Spirit.

We need to develop a triage of beliefs and place those beliefs into the categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary beliefs. Major beliefs are those that all Christians should agree on. These are the “mere Christianity” doctrines about God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, salvation by grace through faith, and eternal life. Without them we can scarcely be called Christians.

Then there are secondary beliefs, which are those beliefs that determine the texture of our theology and have ramifications for the nature of our church. These beliefs include baptism, the nature of the Lord’s Supper, eschatology, and church government. This is the kind of stuff that can be significant, but nobody is going to run anybody out of town over it.

Then there are teriary beliefs, matters of conscience and conviction, matters that we leave to the freedom of individuals and families to decide for themselves without judging them. Among tertiary beliefs are those like whether a Christian should drink alcohol, approaches to homeschooling, or what Bible translation we should use. What you should remember is that if you major on minor things, you’ll end up as a cranky fundamentalist and cling to human-centered teachings that will choke the gospel of grace. What you should also remember is that if you minor on major things, you’ll end up as a raving liberal, venerating teachings that are contrary to Scripture and permitting a pattern of life that is worldly in the worst possible sense. There is an old German proverb that speaks to this: The most important thing is to make sure the most important thing remains the most important thing.

Withhold judgment where the gospel is not threatened and where holiness is not compromised. If the gospel is at the center of our faith, guarding the integrity of the gospel will be a major task for the construction and application of Christian doctrine. Similarly, if the church is called to be holy, we must pursue holiness through committed discipleship and even the application of church discipline. However, where the gospel is not threatened and where holiness is not compromised, our automatic response should be to encourage freedom of conscience.

When it comes to tertiary matters, matters of conscience and freedom, we have to exercise our convictions to build each other up. If you feel that you have freedom to drink alcohol responsibly at home or in public, don’t flaunt it or shove it in the face of someone who is sensitive about it. Similarly, if you feel the need to abstain from alcohol, do so to God’s glory, but don’t take it on yourself to try to make people feel guilty if they choose to enjoy the fruit of the vine or some amber ale. It is okay to have different convictions about such things. The real test of maturity and the real measure of the love for one another is how we express our convictions with those who do not share them.

I have friends and students, some of whom I wish were just as conservative as me, and others whom I wish were just as free as me. However, whether they are as conservative or as free as I am, there is no disputable matter that I’m prepared to injure them over in order to clone them after my own convictions. Usually the best way to influence people for the best is not by judging them, but by letting them judge the godliness of your own example.

While we should do our best not to offend those who do not share our sense of freedom about disputable matters like drinking alcohol or watching certain television shows, still, we must be prepared to assert our freedom in Christ against those who would try to take it away. The way of Christ is the way of freedom and the Holy Spirit is the spirit of freedom. If a group of people within a church try to begin to impose their own convictions on tertiary matters on others, especially those who are vulnerable to being bullied, then those who are mature have a responsibility to graciously oppose them. Just as Paul opposed Peter for not walking according to the truth of the gospel when he separated from Gentiles during table fellowship (see Gal 2:11 – 14), so too we have to stand up to some people when Christian freedom is under threat. We cannot exchange freedom in Christ for slavery to human tradition.

When it comes to getting along on tertiary topics and disputable matters, love should be our guiding rule. If we love each other, we want the best for each other. If we love each other, we will not hurt each other over matters of food, drink, and entertainment. If we love each other, we will surely prefer to be wronged ourselves than to wrong others. If we love each other, we will be compelled to think of others ahead of ourselves. If we love each other, we will value the freedom of our friends more than the resolve of our own convictions on minor matters. If we love each other and want the best for each other, we’ll learn that hugs are more likely to influence someone for good than hurtful comments. Whenever the topic is tertiary, love should be primary.

I believe that following the above checklist is how we can “make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification” (Rom 14:19). The underlying principle, as many have said before, is “in the essentials unity, in the nonessentials liberty, but in all things charity.”⁹⁸ We need to make it so in the church today and tomorrow as well.

3. Contra R. J. Karris, “Romans 14:1 – 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans,” in The Romans Debate (ed. K. P. Donfried; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001), 81 – 84, and Johnson, Romans, 209 – 12. Ambrosiaster (Bray, Romans, 103 – 4) regarded the disputes as resulting from the Jewish origins of Christianity in Rome.

5. Cf. Augustine: “At that time, meat which had been offered in sacrifice was sold in the market; the Gentiles poured out libations of the first fruits of the wine for their idols, and some of them even made the offerings right in the pressing rooms” (cited in Burns, Romans, 336).

6. In light of the commands to hospitality (Rom 12:13) and sharing an agape meal (Rom 13:10), Jewett (Romans, 835 – 36) thinks that “welcome” here carries the technical sense of reception into the fellowship of a congregations at its common meal.

9. Cf. survey of opinions in Cranfield, Romans, 2:690 – 95 and Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 1 – 23.

10. See esp. Dunn, Romans, 2:800 – 801; Moo, Romans, 829 – 31; Esler, Romans, 341 – 44. Contra Nanos (Mystery of Romans, 103 – 39), who thinks that the “weak” were non-Christ-believing Jews. See the responses to Nanos by Robert J. Gagnon, “Why the ‘Weak’ at Rome Cannot be Non-Christian Jews,” CBQ 62 (2000): 64 – 82 and Witherington, Romans, 330 – 33. I have to say that Karl Barth (Romans, 508) reaches heights of theological hilarity when he claims that the modern equivalent of the weak in faith includes Baptists, open-air preachers, and vegetarians.

11. Bruce, Romans, 236 – 37. Cf. similarly Dunn, Romans, 2:802; Moo, Romans, 831; Wright, “Romans,” 10:731; Bryan, Preface to Romans, 211; Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 138, 214; Watson, Paul, Judaism, and the Gentiles, 175, 184; Longenecker, Introducing Romans, 144 – 45; Michele Murray, Playing a Jewish Game: Gentile Christian Judaizers in the First and Second Centuries (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2004), 29 – 100.

12. Very helpful and succinct is Reidar Hvalvik, “Jewish Believers and Jewish Influence in the Roman Church until the Early Second Century,” in Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. O. Skarsaune and R. Hvalvik; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 190 – 96.

17. On pagan reasons for vegetarianism, see Talbert, Romans, 314; Keener, Romans, 161.

18. Cf. Dan 1:3 – 16; 10:3; Tob 1:10 – 12; Jdt 12:2, 19; Jos Asen 7.1; 8.5.

21. Cf. Plutarch, Questiones Convivales 4.5; Tacitus, Hist. 4.2; 5.2; Juvenal, Sat. 14.98.

22. Bruce W. Winter, “Roman Law and Society in Romans 12 – 15,” in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (ed. P. Oakes; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 90 – 91.

27. The Greek more literally has “him” (auton), though several translation render it “them” (see NIV, CEB, NRSV) to rightly clarify that the acceptance applies to those who eat or do not eat.

29. The force of the preposition para is comparative and indicates a preference for one day over another.

32. Josephus, Ant. 11.346; 4 Macc 4:26; CD 6.17 – 18; Col 2:16; cf. Juvenal, Sat. 14.96 – 100.

33. Here the dative kuriō is probably a dative of agency or instrument. See Porter, Idioms, 98 – 99; Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics, 163 – 66.

34. The verb ezēsen is an ingressive aorist meaning “came to live” rather than “lived.”

36. Cf. Jewett (Romans, 849): “If Christ rules over everything from life to death, he certainly is the final arbiter in matters of calendar and diet. This eliminates the final shred of credibility on the part of either the weak or the powerful in their attempts to lord it over each other.”

37. Some manuscript witnesses have “judgment seat of Christ,” probably assimilating Rom 14:10 with 2 Cor 5:10.

39. Paul cites the same text in Phil 2:10 – 11 and applies it to Jesus in an instance of clear “christological monotheism,” where Jesus is a central part of the divine identity.

46. Jesus and the Old Testament food laws requires a much larger treatment; for a brief take on the issues see Michael F. Bird, “Jesus the Law-Breaker,” in Who Do My Opponents Say That I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus (eds. J. B. Modica and S. McKnight; LHJS; London: T&T Clark, 2008), 3 – 26.

47. The connection on Paul and Mark requires a larger treatment too; for an initial heads-up, see Michael F. Bird, “Mark: Interpreter of Peter and Disciple of Paul,” in Paul and the Gospels: Christologies, Conflicts, and Convergences (eds. M. F. Bird and J. Willitts; LNTS 411; London: T&T Clark, 2011), 30 – 61.

49. Cf. 1 Macc 1:47, 62; Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14, 28; 11:8; Josephus, Ant. 11.346.

50. Cf. Gordon J. Wenham, “The Theology of Unclean Food,” EvQ 53 (1981): 11.

52. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM, 1990), 27.

53. On which, see Paul Copan, True for You But Not for Me: Overcoming Objections to the Christian Faith (Minneapolis: Bethany, 2009).

56. Brian Vickers, “The Kingdom of God in Paul’s Gospel,” SBJT 12 (2008): 61.

57. Cf. N. T. Wright, The Meal Jesus Gave Us: Understanding Holy Communion (London: SPCK, 2002).

60. Paul calls the “strong,” literally “the powerful ones” (oi dynatoi) — a designation that in its Roman context signifies socioeconomic, political, and even numerical superiority (see Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak, 218 – 20).

67. Cf. Wright, Climax of the Covenant, 235; Fitzmyer, Romans, 705 – 6; Schreiner, Romans, 704; Dumbrell, Romans, 21; Wendy Dabourne, Purpose and Cause in Pauline Exegesis: Romans 1.16– 4.25 and a New Approach to the Letters (SNTSMS 104; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 72; Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 307.

69. Several commentators over interpret the significance of the perfect tense-form of gegenēsthai to signify the continued service of Jesus to the Jews (e.g., Dunn, Romans, 2:847; Moo, Romans, 877; Keck, Romans, 355), when the word is more likely accenting the state of service that Christ entered into.

70. True, Paul uses the word diakonos rather than Isaiah’s word pais for “servant.” However, pais has connotations of “child,” which is inexact for the meaning here, and the whole texture of Romans is pervaded by Isaianic imagery that would not be lost on scripturally informed listeners.

71. Wagner is correct that “confirm” here has the sense not only of “reaffirming,” but also “realizing” the divine promises (Heralds of the Good News, 309).

72. In the LXX, the Greek alētheia (“truth”) often translates the Hebrew

emet (“fidelity”), like at Exod 34:6. On “God’s truth” as “God’s covenant faithfulness,” see Cranfield, Romans, 2:741; Käsemann, Romans, 385; Dunn, Romans, 2:857; Schreiner, Romans, 754; Wright, “Romans,” 10:746 – 48.

78. Hays, Echoes of Scripture, 70 – 73; Wagner, Heralds of the Good News, 311 – 13. Ambrosiaster (Bray, Romans, 110) says, “This is the voice of Christ, which predicted what would happen in the future, that his name would be preached among the Gentiles, who would confess God and give him the glory for the gift they had received.”

82. For some helpful suggestions on teaching Romans to a Bible study group or to a seminary class, see Lareta Halteman Finger, “Getting Along When We Don’t Agree: Using Simulation and Controversy to Help Students and Lay Persons Interpret Romans,” in Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology (ed. S. E. McGinn; FS Robert Jewett; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 222 – 39.

85. Charles Spurgeon, “Jesus our Lord,” Sermon #2606. www.spurgeon.org/sermons/2806.htm.

88. Cf. Albert Mohler, “A Call for Theological Triage and Christian Maturity,” 12 July 2015. www.albertmohler.com/2005/07/12/a-call-for-theological-triage-and-christian-maturity/.

89. Cf. Bernard Verkamp, The Indifferent Mean: Adiaphorism in the English Reformation to 1554 (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1977).

93. Thomas R. Browning, “Lesson 13: Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols . . . 1 Corinthians 8,”www.posttenebraslux.com/adobe%20pdf%20files/1%20corinthians/Lesson%2013_1%20Corinthians%208.pdf. 2007.

95. Peter Adam, Gospel Trials in 1662: To Stay or to Go? (London: Latimer Trust, 2012), 56.

96. Cf. Dunn, Romans, 2:842; Keck, Romans, 346 – 47, contra Talbert, Romans, 319.

98. I have heard this saying attributed variously to Augustine, Richard Baxter, John Wesley, and Billy Graham.