Getting it Wrong about The Weak and the Strong, Part 1: Who are the Weak and the Strong in Romans 14-15?
In Romans 14:1–15:13, Paul gives pastoral counsel to the house churches of Rome, with the aim of bringing joyful unity where there is presently judgmentalism and division. It is a masterpiece of pastoral instruction.
This post starts a short series of reflections on these chapters, with a particular eye to where we can easily go astray in either our interpretation or application of Paul’s teaching.
For several years now I’ve been suffering from debilitating chronic health issues. Even writing a series of simple posts like this involves some effort and sacrifice, given how limited my reserves are. I mention this to explain that I’m writing these posts because I feel a particular burden to, with a strong sense that Paul’s wisdom in these chapters is a critical antidote to our frayed, fractious, and divided culture (and churches).
Most of us—certainly I speak for myself in this—are more intimately familiar with Paul’s teaching in earlier parts of Romans, and fall into the trap of treating chs 14-15 as a sort of addendum, a bit of practical advice for those with extra time on their hands. But, if we approach these chapters like that, it is to our peril.
I will try to deal with one important question in each blog post. I’m not claiming to have all the answers. But I am claiming that wrestling with Paul’s teaching in Rom 14-15 will transform our approach to disagreements and divisions.
The first question: Who are “the Weak” and “the Strong”?
1. Restriction vs Freedom
The division between “the weak” and “the strong” in Rome centres around eating or not eating certain foods (14:2–3, 6), and observing or not observing certain holy days (14:5–6). The weak considered certain foods to be unclean (14:14, 20), and certain days to be especially holy (14:5). The strong considered all days and all foods alike (14:2, 5).
Therefore, the weak adhere to restrictions that the strong regard as unnecessary impositions. Conversely, the strong have freedoms that the weak do not accept. The strong are free to eat meat or not to eat meat. The weak are only free to refuse meat. They cannot eat meat without betraying their convictions and wounding their consciences.
2. Historical Reconstruction
The most plausible historical reconstruction is that the weak are mainly (but not exclusively) Jewish believers in Christ who considered the biblical dietary laws, which they had formally practiced in Judaism, to be an integral part of Christian faithfulness as well. On the other hand, the strong are mainly (but not exclusively) gentile believers who believed that they had freedom to eat whatever they liked.
The weak group were “traditionalists” and the strong were “nontraditionalists” (the language of Thielman, Romans, 2018, 623-24), differing on the extent to which Jewish traditions were integral to faithful Christian practice.
It is highly likely that the strong were in the majority, as the churches in Rome are generally considered to have been gentile-majority churches, and also because, in 14:1, Paul addresses the church as a whole and tells them to “receive the one who is weak in faith”, which assumes that the majority of believers in Rome identified with “the strong”.
Since the disputed practices were inherently social and communal in nature, it is possible that a physical separation had formed between the groups, with some of the weak no longer feeling able to join in the fellowship meals. If so, Paul’s overriding desire to see the strong welcoming or “receiving” the weak (14:1), and all church members welcoming one another (15:7) might well have implied physically joining together again for their weekly food and fellowship gatherings.
In the early church, table fellowship was at the heart of the community’s common life, and it expressed the unity and love in the Spirit that believers shared with one another. “Welcoming” or “receiving” in this context meant more than a friendly greeting at the front door; it implied deep relational belonging and full integration into the communal life of the church.
This is the great burden of Paul’s instruction—he wants the weak and the strong not just to tolerate one another, but to be of one mind, one accord, and one voice, glorifying God together (15:5-6). He wants them to express a joyful unity in Christ that runs much deeper than agreement over disputable matters.
3. “Matters of Indifference”
Paul labels the issues he is addressing in Romans 14-15 as “disputes” (dialogismos, 14:1). From Paul’s wording we get the phrase “disputable matters”, which is used to describe issues over which believers have freedom of conscience.
However, historically the phrase the adiaphora, that is “matters of indifference”, has typically been used, which leads to some possible misunderstandings. There are three common misconceptions.
First, “matters of indifference” are not matters that either the weak or the strong are indifferent about! What the terminology denotes is that the contested issues are neither clearly mandated nor prohibited in Scripture, or that their practice or non-practice is not essential to salvation.
Second, matters of indifference are not personal “preferences” or mere “opinions” as we typically use the word (the NIV and CSB translations of 14:1 are preferable to the ESV at this point). I prefer poached eggs to fried—it is my opinion that they are better—but I have never either grieved a Christian sister by my preference (at least I don’t think I have!), or been grieved by a brother’s preference for fried eggs. You might prefer Scandinavian to French interior design, but I doubt your preference is held “in honour of the Lord” (literally “to the Lord”, 14:6), as a considered part of your submission to Christ’s lordship over every area of your life (14:7-9).
“The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.” (Rom 14:6-9, ESV)
The point Paul is making in these verses is that both the weak and the strong hold their convictions on dietary practice and festival adherence as part of a sincere, faithful, devoted adherence to the Lord Jesus.
As such, what distinguishes the weak from the strong is not different tastes or preferences, but different convictions about the path of Christian faithfulness. That is what makes “weak and strong” issues potentially so divisive.
Therefore, even if we conclude that an issue is very much a “matter of indifference”—e.g. whether Christians should shop fair trade or commit to being carbon neutral—we must never downplay the extent to which such an issue can bind the consciences of believers.
Third, “matters of indifference” are not “non-gospel issues”. Saying something is or is not a “gospel issue” is not terribly helpful. In the sense that Rom 14-type debates are not debates about primary articles of the Christian faith (e.g. the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ) then, yes, it’s true that they are not “gospel issues”. But, as we will see, even relatively minor matters are very much gospel issues in another sense, in that how we approach them must be shaped by the truths of the gospel.
As Mark Seifrid observes,
“In the Roman church neither the faith of the ‘strong’ nor the practices of ‘the weak in faith’ threaten to violate the gospel. Paul deals with this as an adiaphoron, or matter of indifference. Yet in this adiaphoron the gospel is at stake.” (“Romans” in NT Commentary on OT, 684).
Therefore we’re talking about issues that are not gospel issues in one sense, but are gospel issues in another sense.
4. “The Weak” and “The Strong”
But why the language “weak” and “strong”?
The weak in faith—or perhaps better translated “weak with respect to faith”—didn’t have a weaker faith in Jesus. Their life was very much lived “to the Lord” in devotion to him. Nor does it mean they vacillated on what they believed on the issue. They made a clear judgment on the matter (14:5) and were tempted to be judgmental and censorious towards those who ate non-kosher food (14:3-4).
They were weak with respect to faith because they lacked the conviction that their faith permitted them to do certain things that were, in fact, permissible. They couldn’t eat meat from a posture of faith; their faith didn’t enable them to do what God, in fact, permitted them to do.
In 15:1, Paul labels the majority, who have no scruples about eating non-kosher food, as simply “the strong”, without the qualification “in faith”. This may imply a broader sense in which this group was strong. Namely, not only did their faith enable them to engage the disputed practices without qualms, but also, as the majority, they had the power to determine church practice and, therefore, exert significant influence over the weak. Whether or not the phrase “the strong” implies this, the weak were certainly doubly vulnerable, both because they were not able to eat without seriously wounding their consciences, and because the strong were in a position to call the shots.
Of course, when we see a dispute between Christians today, it is not always the case that the group whose consciences forbid a particular practice are the ones who are incorrect. It is often very hard to make an unequivocal judgment, as Paul does in 14:14, on who is correct on the disputed point. As long as we bear that in mind, it is still helpful I think to label the restrictive group on a given issue as “the weak”, and the permissive group as “the strong”.
Not having an apostolic ruling on who is in the right doesn’t actually matter, since, as we will see in future posts, being “right” on a disputed issue for a follower of Christ is much more about how we relate to those who disagree with us, than it is about coming down on the correct side of an argument.
So, how should we summarise who “the weak” and “the strong” are?
The weak in faith (on any given issue) are those who lack the persuasion (faith) that they can sincerely adopt a practice to the Lord Jesus, in submission to him. Conversely, the strong are those who are persuaded that they can sincerely adopt a practice to the Lord Jesus, in submission to him.
Often this difference in conviction relates to the extent to which certain inherited traditions are integral to faithful Christian practice.
In the next post we will ask, “What is the shape of Paul’s argument?”
Share this post:
