Sunday, July 3, 2022

Romans 14: One Lord, One Strong, One Weak

 RESEARCH PAPER 

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

the Department of Biblical Studies & Christian Ministry

College of Arts & Sciences

Regent University

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the degree

Biblical and Theological Studies

___________________

by

John C. Carroll 



Research Paper

Exegetical Section

Romans 14:1-12

            Romans 14:1-12 is propositional literature where Paul argued for the unity of believers. There are two categories of believers that Paul had in mind when writing this section of Romans: weak and strong. Another way to view this section of Pauline literature is in terms of love and liberty.[1] The emphasis of this text is, “Both weak and strong Christians at Rome are accepted in Christ, and therefore they should accept one another.”[2] There is liberty in Christ for believers to live at different levels of their faith. Not all believers will grow in faith and grace at the same pace. Consequently, there will be differences in practice between believers in non-essential categories. Paul’s argument here is that those differences should not divide us from love and fellowship. 

Romans 14:1

Paul immediately referred to the “weak” in this section (14:1). However, he did not mention the “strong” until Romans 15:1. While Romans 15:1 is not in the immediate context under consideration, it is still in the context of the topic of our selected verses. Scholarly commentaries often make Romans 14:1-15:13 a single section.[3] Therefore, Paul’s use of “strong” in Romans 15:1 is the contrast to Paul’s use of weak in Romans 14:1. 

 

Romans 14:1 set the tone perfectly for this entire section of verses: “As for the one who is weak in faith, receive him, but not to quarrel over opinions” (Rom. 14:1, [English Standard Version]). The first verse summarizes everything that Paul wrote throughout the remainder of the verses under immediate consideration as well as the larger section. It is about the strong and the weak accepting one another in Christ. 

It is not certain who the strong and weak believers are. There are at least six different possibilities for who the weak and strong are.[4] For the present section, that is unimportant. What is important is Paul message of mutual acceptance in Christ. Paul exhorted the Romans to “welcome” the one who is “weak in faith” (Rom. 14:1). The Romans were not just to welcome the weak, they were to welcome them for the right reasons. “Paul’s admonition not to welcome the weak for the ‘purpose of quarreling about opinions’ suggests that the gatherings of certain believers were becoming the occasion for the strong to dispute with the weak about what faith in Christ allowed.”[5] It was important that the gathering of believers for worship would remain a fellowship and not become a battleship. 

Romans 14:2

            Paul provided some clarity as to what he meant by weak faith. He means weak faith regarding what one may eat. One side thinks that he may eat anything, and the other side thinks that only vegetables are permissible. “The person who believes that he can eat anything

represents the strong, while the one who eats only vegetables represents the

weak.”[6]  The weakness in faith is about what one may or may not eat, not necessarily weakness in faith concerning Christ.[7]

Romans 14:3

            The one whose faith is strong enough to eat meat should not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains should not judge the one who eats. What they are not despise and judge one another concerning is eating meats and vegetables. The strong have the tendency to look down on the weak, and the weak have the tendency to judge the strong. Sometimes the strong look at the weak as less spiritual, and sometimes the weak look at the strong as less holy.[8]And Paul was arguing that they should not do that. 

Romans 14:4

            Neither the strong nor the weak have the right judge the other. Both are servants, and neither is the other’s master. One does not have the authority to judge one over whom he is not the master. They are both servants. The term servant isοἰκέτης and is literally a “household slave.”[9] Both servant stands before his own κύριος. In the context, God is the one master before whom both servants stand. And God will uphold both of his servants. 

Romans 14:5

            One person versus another person is a contrast between the weak person and the strong person. In keeping with the weak versus strong context, it is the weak who esteems one day above another and the strong that esteems all days alike.[10] Furthermore, it is important to note that the “one person” and “another” person are both house servants to the same Lord. They are both insiders. It is not a matter of one being in and the other being out.

            Even though they disagree, each one should be “fully convinced” in “his own mind.” There are two points here that are important. Whatever position one holds, they should be “fully convinced” of it. And they should be convinced their “own mind.” They should not be forced to live in subjection to the persuasion in the mind of another. If the Lord of the house permits a range of different views, then he wants his servant to have a mind of their own. 

Romans 14:6

Both the observer and the abstainer honor the Lord. The Lord receives honor from both the observation and abstention of the day. Both activities are honorable. Every servant does not have to hold the same view or perform the same services to honor their Lord. It is to the glory of the Lord that He can receive honor from opposite practices on a single issue. The greater issue for the Lord of both servant is not whether they choose to observe or abstain, but their thankfulness toward their Lord. 

Romans 14:7-9

            Without context, one may be tempted to become altruistic in this verse. One might expect Paul to follow up with how we are to live for others, but that is not what he did.[11] He goes on to say that servants live and die unto the Lord, and not to fellow servants who may wish to judge them.[12] To continue the image of the servants of the house from earlier, one lives ultimately for the pleasure of the Lord of the house and not the servants of the house. 

Romans 14:10

            Paul asked a powerful question based on the above conclusion: If one lives and dies to his Lord and not to other servants, then why do we pass judgment on our brothers. We are fellow servants and not the Lord of the house. Only the Lord of the house has the authority to judge the servants in the house. 

Romans 14:11

            Now the Lord of the house speaks for himself: “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” This is a citation from Isaiah 45:23. Therefore, this is not just Paul’s opinion about to whom the servants are accountable, or who should be judging the servants; it is the Lord’s opinion. The Lord made it clear that He and He alone will judge His servants. 

Romans 14:12

The conclusion of the Lord of the house motif is that we will all give an account of ourselves to God. We should not be worrying about what the other brother/servant is doing; we should focus on our own relationship with the Lord. When I stand before him, I can only account for my actions. The Lord will not hear my criticisms of his other servants. 

Theological Section 

Exegetical Summary

            Romans 14:1-12 is a powerful text demonstrating unity in diversity. There is room in the body of Christ for differences of opinion and practice. One reason that diversity of opinion and practice is permissible in body of Christ is because not all believers are at the same level of conscience and faith.  Some believers are weak in faith (Rom. 14:1), and some believers are strong (Rom. 15:1). Even though they have different levels of faith, they are both brothers in Christ. The weak and strong need to act charitably toward one another. 

Schools of Thought 

            There are differences of opinions among scholars as to what the weaker brother refers. As with most texts, there is no universal consensus in this topic. According to Pate, Moo offers six possibilities for who the weak brother is:[13]

1.     The “weak” were mainly Gentile Christians who abstained from meat (and perhaps wine), particularly on certain “fast” days, under the influence of certain pagan religions.[14]

2.     The “weak” were Christians, perhaps both Jewish and Gentile, who practiced an ascetic lifestyle for reasons that we cannot determine.[15]

3.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who observed certain practices derived from the Mosaic Law out of a concern to establish righteousness before God.[16]

4.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who followed a sectarian ascetic program as a means of expressing their piety. This program may have been the product of syncretistic tendencies.[17]

5.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who, like some of the Corinthians, believed that it was wrong to eat meat that was sold in the marketplace and probably was tainted by idolatry.[18]

6.     The “weak” were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds of food and observed certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic Law.[19]

There are theologians that hold to at least one of those views. Moo, Cranfield, and Pate hold to view number 6.[20] There may be merit to most of the views expressed above, but there was a view that the author intended. There is not enough space to make an argument for each of the views, but I will make the case for my view in the next. 

My View 

            The view presented in this paper will affirm the sixth view from the above list. Pate recapitulated Moo’s four reasons for choosing option six. First, the weak in faith and the strong parallels the differences to Jew and Gentile.[21]“Second, a Jewish origin of the position of the weak can clearly be seen in the term koinos (“unclean” [14:14]), which had become a semitechnical way of proscribing certain foods under the Mosaic law (see Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14).”[22]Furthermore, this is the way we are to understand abstention from meat and wine, and participation in holy days.[23]These points challenge the validity of options 1, 2, and 4.[24]

            Third, Paul’s insistence that the weak and strong accept one another demonstrated that the weak were not teaching anti-gospel views like the Judaizers thus refuting option 3.[25] Fourth, the lack of mention of “food sacrificed to idols” is against option 5. Therefore, that leaves option 6 as the best option. The weak in faith were Jews who still felt an obligation to the law, and the strong in faith were Gentiles who felt no obligation to the law because they knew that law ended at the cross.[26]

Cultural Analysis and Application 

            There are many ways in which the culture can benefit from a Christian community that lives out the message of the gospel in practical ways. While the specific details about the first century and the twenty-first century may differ, the big picture of a sinful culture and an imperfect church remain the same. That is why the principles and doctrines of the New Testament remain relevant. When dealing with humanity, there are things about our nature that will always remain true. Humanity will always be fallen. Humanity will always have a tendency toward works-based salvation regardless of the religion. Finally, humanity will always have to fight to resist the temptation to condemn others who do not hold their particular religious practices. 

The issue of weak and strong Christians as it relates to the secular and church cultures around us is still a major issue. In the day-to-day life of a Christian, there are many ways in which the principles from this text are applicable. We must understand that our brothers and sisters in Christ can stand at radically different places in faith than we do and still be a true Christian. We need maturity to walk in charity towards fellow Christians who are not on the same level of faith as we are. There are many secondary issues with which Christians must deal that will test our love for one another. The principles of the weak brother versus the strong brother is not about the essentials of the gospel; there is no room to move on that. The sinfulness of man, the holiness of God, the incarnation, the death burial and resurrection, and the deity of Christ are non-negotiable. Issues like eschatology, ecclesiology, and many other practices should not cause division among true believers. 

In the certain corners of modern Christianity, we fight over things that do not affect the gospel. It is no different now than in the first century. Some condemn others over facial hair on men, pants on women, television, holidays (Christmas, Easter, etc.), the timing of the second coming, women preachers, jewelry, wine or grape juice for communion, and so many other issues. Today’s church continues to need the message of Romans 14:19: “So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.” Adam Solorio made a powerful observation on this topic: “Disfellowshipping over petty issues is the luxury of an affluent church. If we were a persecuted church, then we would not be dividing over nearly as many things as we do.”[27] Perhaps, he was right. If our survival depended on other believers, then we would probably expand our definition of what true believers are.  

God is going to bring together all His people into perfect oneness (Eph. 4:11-16). God is at work on both ends and in the middle to bring together all the belong to Him. He has members of His elect in most denominations in Christianity and is going to bring them all together. God will accomplish this without compromise of the gospel. He will challenge the minds and change the thinking of those who belong to Him until we gravitate to one another by His leading. I believe that there are great things in store for the church. God is producing a church that will walk in charity to the so that the weak and strong may co-exist peacefully under the banner of the gospel. 

Conclusion 

From the time of the New Testament there has been conflict in the body of Christ. Even the apostle’s had disagreements among themselves (Gal. 2:11-13). While that may be uncomfortable to some, it ought to be source of comfort and reassurance. The message is that we do not have to be perfect to be accepted. There is room to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ (II Peter 3:18). If the first believers had issues, then we will as well. Life in the church will always include internal struggle, but God uses it for His glory. There have always been differences within the Christian community and there always will be. But when we understand that those with whom we have disagreements are also members of Christ’s body, then we can live out the gospel in an incarnational way. 

 

References

Matera, Frank J. Romans. Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament. eds. Mikeal C. Parsons and Charles H. Talbert. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.

Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. eds. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon Fee. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996. 

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. ed. D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.  

Pate, Marvin C. Romans. Teach the Text Commentary Series. eds. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013.

 

 



[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 455, PDF. 

 

[2] C. Marvin Pate, Romans, Teach the Text Commentary Series, eds. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013), 409, PDF. 

 

[3] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 455, PDF; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, eds. Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, and Gordon Fee (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 848, PDF. 

 

[4] Pate, Romans, 410-11.

 

[5] Frank J. Matera, Romans, Paideia Commentaries on the New Testament, eds. Mikeal C. Parsons and Charles H. Talbert (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 311, PDF. 

 

[6] Ibid. 

 

[7] Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 457. 

            

[8] Ibid., 459. 

 

[9] Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 848.

 

 

[10] Matera, Romans, 312.

 

[11] Ibid., 313. 

 

[12] Moo, The Epislte to the Romans, 866. 

[13] C. Marvin Pate, Romans, Teach the Text Commentary Series, eds. Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2013). 410-11, PDF. 

 

[14] Ibid.

 

[15] Ibid. 

 

[16] Ibid. 

 

[17] Ibid. 

 

[18] Ibid. 

 

[19] Ibid. 

 

[20] Ibid., 411.  

 

[21] Ibid., 411-2. 

 

[22] Ibid., 412

 

[23] Ibid., 412.

 

[24] Ibid. 

 

[25] Ibid. 

 

[26] Ibid. 

[27] Adam Solorio, verbal communication with John C. Carroll, 2018.