(1) “So
then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one
another”: Begin by briefly
reflecting on how you understand Paul’s ethical exhortations to relate to his
theological musings in Romans. How does the character of God, as revealed in
the Christ Event, inform Paul’s instructions regarding how the community ought
to behave and treat one another? What key images stand out to you as you survey
Paul’s paraenesis? What are the ethical implications Paul draws for the
community of believers who are “in Christ”? How does Paul’s understanding of
faith inform his exhortation to practice? In short, How do you see Paul’s
theology and ethics “fitting together”?
--------------------------------------------------------
1. It is still the same good news of
the gospel message in Chapters 1-11 which offers the exact indispensable connection
to Paul’s ethical exhortations found in the remaining three chapters of Romans. While he certainly goes into specifics in
14:1-15:13, there is no shortage of underlying theme – believers are in Christ. Paul has done a fantastic job of calling
attention to the aboveboard essentialism which is intrinsic in God’s grace; now
he continues to illustrate various ways in which His grace should be incorporated
into the daily lives (i.e. actions) of those belonging in Christ.
While Paul’s whole point is unity, he
initially separates the bunch into two groups according to their faith: those
who are “weak” (in it) and those who are “strong.” He does not admonish either group for being
entirely right or wrong, but instead focuses on the attitude of “the strong”
which he includes himself among (15:1) by indicating they have been treating
the weak with ridicule and judgement. I
find this interesting in that Paul is essentially throwing himself under the
proverbial bus to solidify his point of having both groups in mind. Unity cannot occur by definition unless there
is a consolidation, and Paul is coaxing each side here to make specific choices
regarding purity (of food in 14:1, et al) which he knows/hopes will
subsequently lead to specific purity of more significance, i.e. clean consciences
in their own estimations in and effort “to foster unity and other-regard, with the
example of Christ in mind (15:1-9).”[1] While the specificity with which Paul’s
examples (14:14, 17, 20) must have resonated, the subject in his exhortation
remains the same throughout: the good news of the saving power of God’s love
revealed in Christ.[2]
The Furnish article says it best in my
opinion – the word ‘intersection’ cannot do justice to the organic relationship of theology
and ethics seen in Romans; neither term is utilized at all within the epistle. Perhaps trumping both words is what Paul’s
own singular word says best: “gospel.”
We certainly see key images appear in Paul’s rhetoric/exhortation, but
there is zero question that those images serve as more of a backdrop against
the center stage of the Christ Event and the deliverance from sin and death
into a new life reigned under grace which it brings. In Paul’s first perspicuous appeal, believers
are called to a realization that they are “dead to sin and alive to God in
Christ Jesus” (5:11), while two further appeals in 6:12-13 demand consideration
for the inherently moral character of “this new life.” Those who have died (to sin; to their “old
ways”) have been freed to “belong to one another.” The imagery Paul uses of baptism to portray the
burial of a sin-dominated self that has been “crucified with” Christ shows a
release of the power of sin in favor of a “newness of life” (6:4) just as
Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father.
Paul is neatly wrapping up his theological
exhortations with a bow of ethical practice. While he has initially segregated (strong v.
weak, etc.) camps, the critical effort in so doing was not to isolate, but
rather to insulate. Paul was insulating
the entire group of believers so they might finally and fully understand that
it is not a matter of which group they
belong, but that they must be a part of the
group – those who belong to Christ who “died and lived again, so that he might
be Lord of both the dead and the living” (14:9).[3]
------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) The
ethical paradigm of Christ and Christian hospitality:
(A.i.) Discuss what you think to be the basic
issues Paul is addressing in terms of exhortation to “the strong” and “the
weak”, not yet identifying who you think might be “the weak” and “the
strong”. Name the particular issues and in which verses they appear, and
the particularities of Paul’s choice of words. (This first part is primarily
about what issues are on the table, and why you think they might relate
to what Paul has previously said in the epistle.) (A.ii.) And, then, discuss the particular warrants
that Paul uses as the reasons for his exhortation (i.e., 15:1–3, 7–12).
(B) Now compare some different approaches of
other commentators with Sampley regarding Paul’s rhetorical strategy in
addressing the issues of “the strong” and “the weak”. (What difference does
it make if one assumes that the referents of Paul’s division between “the weak”
vs. “the strong” are “Jew” vs. “gentile”, versus if one assumes that Paul is
deliberately obscure about identifying the referents? What is the significance
of choosing to compare Rom 14:1 – 15:13 with either 1 Corinthians 8–10 or with
2 Corinthians 1–7? What kind of presupposition does each of the commentators
have [e.g., what is at stake for these commentators and for Sampley]?)
------------------------------------------------------
2A.i. My estimation of the basic issues which Paul
is addressing in his “strong v. weak” exhortation include the following: (micro) - food purity as it relates to
practicality and long-standing customs; (macro) - addressing how an established
community can maintain its unity (i.e. practicality & long-standing
customs) in the face of differing opinions.
According to the Karris article, “maintenance of unity is rooted in a
strong community which in faith and love and concern can tolerate differences
of opinion in indifferent matters such as eating or not eating certain types of
food” (page 172). The article points out
there is a clear predominance of words connoting “community”: adelphos
(14: 10, 13, 15 [cf. Rom. 13:8-10], 21; 15:2 [toplesion]); allelous (14:13, 19; 15:5, 7); oikodome (14:19; 15:2); “we are the Lord’s” (14:9); “with one voice”
(15:6). The purpose of multiple variants
of “community,” I believe, is not that dissimilar to Paul’s altogether purpose
of unification among an entire body.
Whether the “weak” and “strong” epitomizes a particular group or entire disparate
communities is not the pressing issue.
The overarching ultra-important issue Paul is addressing here is the
relationship between freedom and love, as it (according to Karris) “introduces
Christ.”
2A.ii. Once we, or they,
or an inclusionary or exclusionary group “get to Christ”…all are unified as one body of Christ. The foundation(s) which Paul uses as the
reasons for his exhortations (15:1-3; 7-12) is then, in direct proportional
effort to “get people to Christ,” i.e. Paul’s theological “spin” in his paraenesis
is tactically done in order to spread the gospel. He wisely realizes, as he has always done,
that there is a two-fold approach to his central message. The warrants Paul uses addressed and related
to the possible present situations within the Roman community, but also within any Christian community. When someone comes in from the outside to a
community, a group, a self-contained entity rooted in its strength of tradition
and acceptance, they must connect. Paul
connected to those whom he gave his exhortations on the basis of he knew what
was going on in their collective group-world.
He was establishing “his cred,” so the group would not just quickly
dismiss what he was beseeching under the heading of “he doesn’t know us,
therefore he doesn’t know what he’s talking about! Why should we listen?!?”
Beyond that,
Paul is putting the encumbrance squarely on the shoulders of the purported “strong”
to help the “weak” and to please them (15:1), therein stating that each of them
should please his neighbor for his good (15:2), for the purpose of “upbuilding”
(in the Greek). Again, the reasons in
these statements are (also) two-fold: not
only was there some literal sense of “strengthening” the actual households that
served as the bases for the Christ-movement in Rome, but also a figurative
sense of community “betterment.” Esler
points out that Paul’s use of “neighbor” deserves exposition. Just prior, in Rom. 13:9, a quote of
instruction from Leviticus 19:18 was made:
“You will love your neighbor as yourself,” and immediately thereafter in
13:10, “Love does no evil to a neighbor.”
I believe the usage we see Paul engaging in here in his exhortation is
the markedly important issue of the freedom and love relationship…as it
introduces Christ. Everything for Paul was about relationships, but none more valuable than each individual's with Jesus.
2B. Sampley’s approach and discussion made
roughly 150% sense to me; in fact, I loved the entire article! The idea of frank speech verses oblique or
indirect speech by Paul on the basis of the established relationship(s) he had
with his audience should not have been such a novel idea, but light bulbs were happening a la Christmas tree displays. For Sampley, the
significance of choosing to compare Rom. 14:1-15:13 with 2 Cor. 1-7 was to
highlight that point exactly. Paul wrote
a “painful letter” (i.e. elicited their guilt) to the Corinthians, calling
them to task. His letter and the words
within were direct and pulled no punches, for he had an established and solid
relationship with those readers and was in a position to speak candidly. However, that
was absolutely not the case with people in Rome.
Paul had not been there. He did not have the luxury or necessity of time in establishing any kind of personal
connections or relationships. Therefore,
his usage of figured speech was ingenious and purposeful. Figured speech requires the readers or
hearers to draw their own conclusions, with the application to themselves of
what has just been said their own sole responsibility. The deliverer of the information (Paul)
assumes no responsibility, because he has not yet earned the right (via
relationship and trust) to take it.
Whereas direct speech – again, Paul's chosen methodology to the Corinthians
and Galatians – comes across as argumentative and confrontational, figured
speech (according to Sampley) is “allusive and evocative” (page 45). Direct speech needs proofs (which the Romans
would have scoffed about, believing full-well in their minds that Paul did not
possess [their specific] proofs); figured speech invites the hearer to
establish its accuracy by self-application.
This is an
absolutely beautiful approach by Paul, as he is nothing but elusive in any kind
of identification of “the weak” or “the strong” and instead simply encourages
the strong to help the weak. Obviously,
it’s a win-win for him, as everyone will narcissistically throw themselves
into the “strong” camp, thereby rendering them in a position of “helping” their
brothers and sisters in Christ. Ah,
unity.
Sampley
contends that defining the strong and the weak is insignificant. He even goes so far as to remind us that many
of the interpretive models which are used to uncover particulars in Romans are
probably the same models that are used to do the same in Corinthians and
Galatians – and that it’s like putting a square peg in a round hole. Paul did not speak to the Romans in the same
manner as he did to those in other communities, because he couldn’t. “By
whatever means necessary” is the motto which comes to my mind as I continue to
study and learn more about this. Paul was on a mission; he was a missionary! And the only implication as far as he was
concerned was what would happen to non-believers and those “groups” of people
he failed to reach.
Certainly,
the implication of who was in the “weak” camp and who comprise the “strong”
camp was of no consequence, for everyone is addressed in Romans 15:7 when Paul
again refers to an example of Christ that is a development of the thought of 1
Cor. 11:1: “Be imitators of me as I am
of Christ.” It does not say “The ‘weak’
be imitators of me” nor “The ‘strong’ be imitators of me.” The example of Christ that the Romans are
being implored to imitate as they welcome one another is found in the example
contained in 1 Cor. 10:32-33: “Give no
offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please all men in everything I do, not seeking
my own advantage, but that of many,
that they may be saved.” Karris states it so well: “The stress of Rom. 15:7-13, therefore is on the
servant nature of Christ (15:7), who makes the
two one.
Christ is all things to all men, to Jews and Gentiles, so that
he might save them all, so that they might give glory to God.”
Karl Barth
states it even better on this passage: “Jesus
reveals and realizes God’s mercy upon earth, ‘in order to make the one nation
and the many together into one.”” Paul,
as an incredible servant himself, was also making the two (strong and weak) one
– one solid body unified in Christ – despite themselves or their indifferences
over insignificant matters.
[1] Blackwell,
Ben C., Goodrich, John K., Maston, Jason. Reading
Romans in Context, Paul and Second Temple Judaism. Page 151. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2015.
[2]
Furnish, Victor Paul. Living to God, Walking in Love: Theology and
Ethics in Romans. Page 193. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2012.
[3] Furnish,
Victor Paul. Living to God, Walking in Love: Theology and Ethics in Romans. Page 200.
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.
