18
A Plea for Unity in the Church
Romans 14:1–15:13
Outline
- Condemning Each Other Violates God’s Prerogative (14:1–12)
- Limiting the Exercise of Liberty through Love (14:13–23)
- Receiving Each Other to the Glory of God (15:1–13)
Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to
- Explain why Christians in the Roman church were condemning one another.
- Identify the kinds of issues in our day that would correspond to the problem in the first-century Roman church.
- Identify the theological bases of Paul’s plea for reconciliation.
- Relate the issue that Paul deals with in this section to the larger argument of the letter.
The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the importance of unity in the church. God calls all believers to belong to one body, and that body is strong and has integrity in the eyes of the world to the degree that it functions in unison, with every member playing his or her necessary role (cf. 12:3–8). Yet often the Christian church as a whole, as well as Christian churches individually, is marked more by division and distrust than by unity and singleness of purpose. To be sure, division is sometimes necessary, for the New Testament also demands that Christians abide by apostolic teaching. When deviations from that teaching occur, the faithful need to respond and to criticize. And if faithful teaching cannot be restored, then Christians sometimes must make the sad decision to split from a church or denomination. Peace and unity are not the only virtues for the church; maintaining the truth is equally important. And there does come a time when unity might have to be sacrificed for the sake of truth.
Roman Colosseum as it appears today
But many, perhaps most, church divisions do not take place over serious doctrinal matters. Churches divide over what kind of instruments to use in worship, whether the pastor has the right personality for the job, what color carpeting to put in the new sanctuary, and the like. Many of the quarrels and causes for disunity that we see in the church are quite unjustified. Paul addresses this kind of situation in Romans 14:1–15:13. The Christians in Rome have divided into two groups. One of these groups, whom Paul calls the “weak” in faith (14:1, 2; 15:1), is criticizing the other group, accusing them of behavior that calls into question their status as Christians. The other group is responding in kind, accusing the weak of harboring silly prejudices that undermine their faith. Paul never explicitly labels this group, although 15:1—“we who are strong”—suggests that we can call them the “strong.” Paul, of course, directs his teaching to this specific situation. But, as we will see in the comments that follow, this situation is analogous to many other situations that we confront in the church all the time. So what Paul writes about unity to the Roman Christians is both relevant and important for Christians today.
Because Paul repeats himself a bit in this section of the letter, and because we can understand his teaching in specific verses only by knowing something of the bigger issue, I begin by surveying the whole section for evidence of the specific issue that divided the Christians in Rome. I will then set this evidence against the background of the first-century world in an attempt to pin down the problem. Only then will we be in a position to interpret Paul’s specific advice and to apply that advice accurately to our own day.
Sculpture of a Roman male offering a sacrifice (Bibi Saint-Pol/Wikimedia Commons)
Paul mentions two, or perhaps three, specific issues over which the Roman Christians were quarreling. The biggest problem seems to be whether Christians can eat anything they want or whether they should avoid eating meat (14:2–3, 14–15, 17, 20–21, 23). The weak apparently are those who refrain from eating any meat. The strong, on the other hand, think it quite all right to eat anything they want (see esp. 14:1–3). But Paul also refers explicitly to a second point of dispute: setting aside special days for religious purposes. Again, we can surmise that it was the weak who considered “one day more sacred than another,” while the strong considered “every day alike” (14:5). There also might have been a third basis for division. In 14:21, Paul mentions drinking wine, along with eating meat, as the kind of behavior that Christians should avoid if they think that it might cause another brother or sister to fall. While not absolutely clear, it is likely that the weak refrained from drinking wine, while the strong saw nothing wrong with it.
The crucial question is this: What was the underlying reason that led the weak to refrain from eating meat and drinking wine and to elevate some days over others in religious significance? Scholars have responded with a catalogue of answers to this question. Some think that the weak might have been legalists such as those Paul encountered in Galatia—people claiming that certain rules had to be followed if one were to be saved.1 Others suggest that some kind of pagan religious influence might have been at work. We do know of a couple of pagan religions that taught asceticism—avoidance of the pleasures of food, drink, sex, and so on—and considered certain days lucky (a bit like the reverse of our Friday the Thirteenth tradition).2 Neither of these options seems likely. Surely Paul would have dealt more strictly with the weak if they really were trying to base salvation on following rules. And Paul uses several words and arguments that plainly point to a Jewish rather than pagan basis for the problem. A more attractive possibility is that the basic problem had to do with eating meat sacrificed to idols.3 We find many parallels between Romans 14:1–15:13 and the passage in 1 Corinthians 8–10, where Paul deals with this problem. But this background, while it might explain the division over eating meat, does not explain why the Christians in Rome were also fighting over the observance of days and, possibly, the drinking of wine. We need to find a broader concern to explain all three of the specific points of conflict in Rome.
The best solution is to think that the weak were influenced by a Jewish tradition of asceticism based on the torah. The torah, the law of Moses, does not forbid eating meat or drinking wine. However, many Jews living in the midst of a pagan culture decided to avoid eating meat, because they could not be sure that meat sold in the marketplace had been slaughtered and prepared in accordance with the requirements of Moses. For similar reasons, they would often refrain from drinking wine, for wine was associated with libations to the gods and was prepared in ways that might also violate Jewish kosher rules. The best biblical example of this tradition comes from the book of Daniel. Immersed in the pagan culture of the Babylonian capital, Daniel “resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine” (Dan. 1:8; cf. 10:3; and from Jewish Second Temple literature, Tob. 1:10–11; Jdt. 12:1–2, 19; Add. Esth. 14:17; Joseph and Aseneth 7.2). And, of course, Jews followed the law in observing the weekly Sabbath and the prescribed feasts.4
The scenario that best explains all the evidence of the text in its first-century context, then, would run something like this: Jewish Christians in Rome, convinced that the torah was still authoritative for Christians, claimed that a sincere Christian should avoid meat and wine and should observe the Sabbath and Jewish holy days. Only by following such practices could a Christian avoid ritual contamination and please God. These Jewish Christians, however, ended up as a minority in the Roman church, and the dominant gentile majority thought that such requirements were a ridiculous holdover from Judaism. Christians were no longer obliged to follow the torah, and the truly liberated Christian would understand that. Undoubtedly it was these gentile Christians who labeled the other group in the church with the pejorative term “weak.” They, for their part, prided themselves on being “strong.” Paul makes clear his agreement with the strong (cf. 14:14; 15:1). He has taught in Romans itself that Christians are not “under the law” (6:14), and he himself does not always follow the practices of the Jewish law (see 1 Cor. 9:19–23). Nevertheless, Paul’s overriding concern in this passage is not with who is right and who is wrong. He is concerned about unity. He does not think that these particular issues are worth fighting over. Furthermore, he is particularly annoyed with the strong for their attitude of condescension toward the weak and the lack of love they are displaying toward them. So, although he rebukes the weak for their judgmentalism, he spends most of his time berating the strong for their selfish use (abuse) of their liberty in Christ. As R. Jewett puts it, “The frown of the legalist is just as inappropriate for the realm of Christ as the disdainful smile of the liberated.”5
The bottom line for Paul in regard to those who pride themselves on being strong in their faith has never been expressed better than by Martin Luther: “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none. A Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to all.”6
Condemning Each Other Violates God’s Prerogative (14:1–12)
In this paragraph, Paul accomplishes two purposes. First, he gets the basic issue out on the table: the Christians in Rome are to stop judging each other (vv. 1–3). Second, he explains why they are to stop judging each other: they all are fellow slaves of Christ, to whom alone they answer (vv. 4–9), and God alone has the right to judge his people (vv. 10–12). The shifts in the argument are marked by the second-person singular address “you” (sy [Greek has separate words for the singular and plural of “you”]) that occurs at the beginning of verse 4 and verse 10.
A correct estimation of the problem that Paul is addressing must recognize the exact significance of the phrase “the one whose faith is weak.” A more literal rendering would be “the one who is weak with respect to faith.” Almost certainly this does not mean “a Christian who does not have much faith.” In verse 2 Paul refers to the person whose “faith allows them to eat anything,” as opposed to the one whose “faith is weak,” who eats only vegetables. In other words, the issue is not who has the most faith. The issue is who thinks that his or her faith lets him or her do this or that. The weak in faith were not necessarily Christians who were more immature in their faith than the strong; they were Christians who did not recognize that the faith they had enabled them to do certain things. The strong, on the other hand, thought that their faith did give them the right to, for instance, eat meat and drink wine. An important, though not decisive, factor in where a Christian landed in these two groups is the way one was raised. Undoubtedly the weak in faith were mainly Jewish in background. They had been taught since birth that they must avoid certain practices in order to maintain their religious identity, especially as that identity was severely challenged by the overwhelmingly pagan environment in which they lived. It is no wonder that they found it difficult to discard some of their rituals when they became Christians. Nor, Paul implies, did they need to. He finds nothing wrong with the Jewish Christian who wants to continue to express his or her piety by following all the rules of the torah and of Jewish tradition. What he does object to is the tendency of the weak in faith to criticize other Christians for not following their practices. Christians no longer need to follow the ritual requirements of the law, Paul insists (see v. 14). Therefore, Jewish Christians must not condemn gentile Christians who ignore such requirements (v. 3). Neither, however, should the gentile Christian scorn the Jewish Christian who wants to follow them (v. 3 again). Following the torah as a way of personal piety (not as a requirement of salvation) is in the category of what we call “adiaphora”—things neither prohibited nor required by the Christian faith.
Why is it wrong for weak and strong to be condemning each other? Because, Paul reminds them, all Christians are fellow slaves (oiketēs, “household slave”). We all serve one master, one “Lord”—Jesus Christ (v. 4).7 Whether we “stand” (are vindicated in the judgment) or “fall” (are condemned in the judgment) is up to Christ, not our fellow Christians. So what is important is that every believer behave with integrity. Each one should be convinced in his or her own mind (v. 5) and should do whatever he or she decides to do in honor of the Lord and in accordance with his will (v. 6). Everything that we do takes place before the Lord. There are no neutral areas of life; there is nothing we do or say or think that the Lord is unconcerned about. Death itself takes place in light of the Lord (vv. 7–8). Christ died and was raised precisely so that he might be the Lord of both “the dead and the living” (v. 9). All this means, to return to where Paul begins in this paragraph, that Christians should not condemn each other over the observance of sacred days and whether they eat meat or not (vv. 5–6).
Paul adds a second, closely related reason for his condemnation of the Roman Christians’ infighting: God, and God alone, is the one who has the right to judge our conduct and determine whether it meets his standards or not. Therefore, the weak Christian should stop judging the strong Christian, and the strong Christian should stop looking down on the weak Christian (v. 10), for weak and strong alike will have to render an account of their behavior to God (vv. 10b, 12). Paul might mean that God will condemn believers for judging one another, but it is more likely that he reminds them again (cf. vv. 7–9) that God is the only one with whom we need to be concerned when it comes to eating meat and observing days. Paul’s quotation of Isaiah 45:23 in verse 11 underscores the fact that all people will have to render an account to God in the end (cf. Phil. 2:11).
Limiting the Exercise of Liberty through Love (14:13–23)
Paul begins his plea for unity in the church in Rome by calling on both the weak and the strong to discard their condemnatory attitudes. In verses 1–12, he has focused on the weak, but now he shifts gears. Verses 13–23 concentrate almost entirely on the strong. He rebukes the strong for having a selfish attitude in the way they use their liberty in Christ. Paul affirms the reality of that liberty (v. 14); no one, he implies, can take it away from us. But that liberty must be used in light of a more important consideration: love. The strong in Rome are ignoring the spiritual problems of their brothers and sisters as they flaunt their liberty before them. Their unconcern has the potential of doing real and lasting spiritual harm to their weaker brothers and sisters. Our liberty in Christ, a precious blessing, should be used instead to serve brothers and sisters. We should be focused not simply on what we can do but on what we should do for the spiritual strengthening of other believers and the building up of the body of Christ. Paul issues this plea in verses 13–16 and verses 19–23; in between (vv. 17–18), he provides the theological rationale for that plea (see the sidebar “The Chiastic Structure of Romans 14:13–23”).
Verse 13a seems to be addressed to both weak and strong, but it becomes clear as the passage unfolds that Paul really has the strong in view. They are the ones who pride themselves on having the insight to see that their faith allows them to eat meat, ignore holy days, and drink wine. And Paul has no quarrel with their basic theological view. He agrees: “nothing is unclean in itself” (v. 14). Theologically, he sides with the strong (see 15:1). His problem is with the way the strong are using their theology. Right theology must be combined with insight into the needs of other believers, but the strong are ignoring the fact that there are other Christians who don’t share their view. Other Christians cannot bring themselves to realize that their faith allows them to eat anything, and so for them, such food remains “unclean” (v. 14b). Although Paul does not use the word “conscience” in this context, that is the concern here (Paul does use this word as he deals with the similar problem in 1 Cor. 8–10). That all food can be eaten by Christians is a truth that, theoretically, all Christians should know. Not all Christians, however, have been able to internalize this truth. The consciences of some Christians still tells them that eating certain foods is wrong, and Paul is worried that the activity of the strong in faith will create such pressure on the weak that they will cave in, go against their consciences, and eat meat. This is what Paul seems to mean by his language of “stumbling block” (v. 13b; cf. v. 20) and “distressing” the weak (v. 15a). The strong can cause spiritual harm to the weak by exercising their liberty to eat meat and drink wine in their presence. Since the strong are in a majority, the weak might be inclined simply to go along with the crowd and eat and drink as well. And by violating their consciences, the weak would be doing spiritual damage to themselves. Indeed, so serious might the situation become, Paul suggests, that the weak brother or sister might be destroyed (v. 15b; cf. v. 20). The language of “destroy”(which is also translated “perish” elsewhere in Paul), used in a spiritual sense, usually refers to eternal condemnation (see Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 1:18; 8:11; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3, 9; 2 Thess. 2:10). Does this mean that Paul thinks that the behavior of the strong could lead a weak believer to lose his or her salvation? Some think so. But it might be that Paul simply warns about the ultimate destiny of those who keep violating their consciences, and perhaps he believes that the true believer will always be kept from that ultimate consequence.
In addition to the practical issue that the behavior of strong Christians might lead to severe spiritual damage to other Christians, Paul adds three other reasons why the strong Christians should be careful about the way they exercise their liberty. First, they are not acting in love (v. 15a). As Paul has just reminded the Roman Christians (12:9–21; 13:8–10), love is the paramount Christian virtue. It must guide all Christian behavior. The strong do indeed have the liberty to eat meat and to drink wine. In the abstract, Paul would find nothing wrong with them doing so. But liberty is not as important as love. How and when a believer exercises liberty must be guided by love. And when a believer eats and drinks in a context that brings spiritual harm to another Christian, that believer clearly is not acting in love. A second reason that the strong need to refrain has to do with the liberty itself. That liberty is a “good” (v. 16), but if we abuse it and bring harm to other believers and dissension to the church, then it will begin to look like an evil thing. Third, believers should be willing to refrain from exercising their liberty because they should have a paramount concern for the well-being of the church. The kingdom of God, Paul reminds us, focuses not on “eating and drinking” but on “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (v. 17). Our concern, therefore, should be to act in ways that enhance those virtues. We should be doing what leads to “peace” and to “mutual edification” (v. 19). Yet by insisting on eating and drinking whatever they want, the strong are disrupting the peace of the church. They “destroy the work of God for the sake of food” (v. 20; the “work of God” probably refers to the church). What backward priorities!
Paul concludes with a final plea to the strong (vv. 22–23). Rather than trying to impose their views on the weak, they should be willing to keep their views to themselves. What a shame if they had to blame themselves for harming believers and the church by doing what they approve of doing! And, for one last time, Paul reminds the strong how it is that they might be harming the weak (v. 23): if the weak go against what they believe, then they are sinning. It is not that their behavior in itself is wrong. Paul has already made clear that it is not. Their sin would arise from the fact that their actions would not be done out of faith, because anything not done out of faith, Paul claims, is sin. As we come to the end of this chapter, we must go back to where we began. The faith Paul refers to here probably is the same kind of faith he refers to in verses 1–2: faith that enables a Christian to do certain things. So verse 23 probably is not a general principle about sin and faith. In its context, it simply makes the point that weak believers sin if they act against what they believe they can and cannot do.
Paul’s plea for unity takes a bit of a turn at 15:1, so we pause briefly to note the overall principle that Paul has established in chapter 14. That principle is clear: Christians must agree to disagree over matters that belong to the adiaphora. If a matter is not clearly prohibited in Scripture, or prohibited by virtue of clear theological reasoning, that matter should not lead believers to criticize one another or to break fellowship. Toleration, of course, can be taken too far. Some theologians suggest that anybody who claims to be a Christian should have a right to his or her beliefs no matter what they are. The New Testament, however, sets clear boundaries, marking some matters as clear truths of the gospel. No Christian can deviate from these boundaries or tolerate those who hold different views on these matters. But toleration on the inessentials is what Paul calls for in this chapter. Many of the issues that divide Christians today fall into this category, and Paul would mourn over the divisions we have created over some of these matters.
Receiving Each Other to the Glory of God (15:1–13)
In verses 1–6, Paul issues a final, general plea to the strong. Then, in verses 7–13, he broadens his scope by calling on all the Christians in Rome to “accept one another.” The theology that he uses to buttress this call in verses 8–13 casts an even wider net. His reminder of the way in which God has worked in salvation history to bring his salvation to both Jew and gentile summarizes a key theme of the entire letter (e.g., 1:16, “everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile”; chaps. 9–11).
Paul identifies with the strong and exhorts them to join him in bearing with the “failings of the weak” (v. 1). The language of this verse is similar to Galatians 6:2, where Paul urges, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” Paul does not explicitly identify the law of Christ in Galatians 6, but certainly it includes, very prominently, the love command, which Paul has highlighted as the fulfillment of the law in Galatians 5:13–15. That command, from Leviticus 19:18, urges believers, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” With this background in place, then, we can understand why Paul introduces the word “neighbors” in verse 2. By seeking the good of the weak and not just pleasing themselves by using their liberty in Christ in any way they wish, the strong will love their neighbors and so fulfill Christ’s law. Christ did not simply issue the law of love; he also lived it. Christ, Paul reminds us in verse 3, did not “please himself.” Rather, as the crucifixion story especially demonstrates, he bore the insults of those who had turned against God. Paul quotes Psalm 69:9 to make this point. This psalm features prominently as a source for language that the Gospel writers use to describe Christ’s death (see Matt. 27:34; John 2:17; 15:25; cf. Acts 1:20; Rom. 11:9). So it is no surprise that Paul would turn to it here. But why this particular verse? Perhaps Paul is thinking of the insults that the weak are heaping on the strong for their failure to follow the strictures of the law. Rather than retaliating in kind, with criticism and mockery, the strong are to imitate Christ. They should refrain from insults and from any kind of mockery and content themselves with holding their own views and dealing gently with the weak.
Paul often teaches us in his letters by allowing us to overhear his prayers. In verses 5–6, he records a prayer wish for our benefit. Paul addresses God and asks for God to intervene in the lives of those to whom he writes. Paul thereby both seeks divine help for his readers so that they might be able to carry out his instructions and reminds his readers of the behavior they need to adopt. Paul calls on the “God who gives endurance and encouragement.” Verse 4 (a parenthetical statement) reminds us that the Old Testament Scriptures were written so that we might have “endurance” and “encouragement.” We need these qualities if we are to have the unity that is the heart of Paul’s prayer here. We should be people who have “the same attitude of mind toward each other.” Paul loves to use the term “have an attitude of mind” or “think” (phroneō) in these kinds of contexts (see esp. Phil. 2:1–5; Rom. 12:3–4). The word suggests a mind-set, a way of looking at life and steering our course accordingly. Paul does not require absolute uniformity of thinking, as if Christians need to be clones, never disagreeing about anything. Rather, he refers to a unity in spirit and attitude, an underlying sense of belonging to each other and loving each other that creates a loving context for the differences that inevitably exist among believers. It is when we exhibit this kind of united spirit that the church is able to praise God as he desires to be praised (v. 6). God is especially honored when his people unite, “with one mind and one voice,” in their worship of him. Corporate worship should involve more than a group of isolated individuals who happen to come under the same roof at the same time of the week. It should be a union of like-minded people, all dedicated to God and to one another.
Romans 15:7 neatly summarizes all of 14:1–15:13: “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you.” To “accept” another Christian means to recognize that person as a true brother or sister in Christ. It means to welcome other Christians into our worship services and give them a full place along with other worshipers. That reception should not be a grudging one (cf. 14:1); it should not come with a superior attitude, as if we are doing these brothers or sisters a favor by allowing them to worship with us. We may have differences over inessential points of theology or the way theology should be translated into practice, but these differences should not diminish our wholehearted welcome. For the bottom line is that Christ himself has accepted us. Considering what we were in our sinful state, his acceptance of us is a matter of sheer grace. How can we withhold that grace from others when we ourselves have experienced it?
In verses 8–12, Paul grounds his appeal made in verse 7, and he does so by sounding very explicitly a note that runs as a constant theme throughout Romans: God has acted in salvation history to create a people composed of both Jews and gentiles. Paul therefore implies quite clearly that the whole issue dividing the weak and the strong has to do with tensions between Jews and gentiles. As we have seen, the specific problem seems to have been a sharp debate over whether Christians needed to observe the Mosaic law or not. The strong were not entirely made up of gentiles, as Paul’s standpoint makes clear (15:1), but most of them were probably gentiles. And while there may have been some gentiles who aligned themselves with the weak, we can conclude that most of the weak were Jewish. So Paul’s reminder here of a key theological theme in the letter—the union of Jew and gentile in Christ—provides perhaps the most important theological basis for his plea for unity.
The exact structure of verses 8–9a is debated. But the NIV reflects the better alternative:
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
and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.
Christ’s ministry to Jews leads, first of all, to the fulfillment of God’s promise to the patriarchs. And by fulfilling that promise, Christ then also enables gentiles to join with Jews in glorifying God. Throughout Romans, Paul has stressed that the gospel, as he puts it in 1:16, is for the Jew first. The title “Christ” means “Messiah.” Jesus was, first of all, the one whom God promised the Jews he would send to usher in the age of salvation. And so he has confirmed God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Paul points out in 9:4–5 and 11:28, God’s continuing faithfulness to his promise means that the Jewish people still have a secure hope for God’s mercy. However, in a theme equally important in Romans, Paul has also made clear that the fulfillment of God’s promise given in the Old Testament spells blessing for the gentiles as well. If the gospel is first for the Jew, it is also then for the gentile (see 1:16). As “all” have sinned, so “all” now have the opportunity to believe and receive God’s forgiveness (3:22–24).
Paul has also shown that this extension of God’s mercy to the gentiles is in accordance with the Old Testament itself (see esp. chap. 4; 9:24–25; 10:19–20). Now he bolsters the point, citing a series of four Old Testament texts that speak of gentiles joining with Jews in praising God as part of his people. Paul makes his case as comprehensively as he can, citing each of the three major sections of the Old Testament: the Law (Deut. 32:43 in v. 10), the Prophets (Isa. 11:10 in v. 12), and the Writings (Ps. 18:49 in v. 9b; Ps. 117:1 in v. 11).
Paul concludes his plea for unity in the Roman church with another prayer wish (v. 13). The prayer touches on some of the major themes of the earlier exhortation. “The God of hope” reminds us of the opportunity gentiles now have to hope in him (v. 12). When Paul prays that God might fill the Roman Christians with “joy and peace,” undoubtedly he is referring back to 14:17: “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” By trusting in God, the Roman Christians will find that the Holy Spirit produces an overflow of hope. Jews and gentiles alike can look ahead with eager anticipation to the time when together they can be set free from all remaining vestiges of sin and enjoy God’s presence fully (cf. 8:19–25).