Getting it Wrong about The Weak and the Strong (Part 2): What is Paul’s Argument in Romans 14-15?
In the first post in this series, I looked at the identity of the weak and the strong, and the issues giving rise to their dispute. In this post I will seek to trace Paul’s argument. I will not get into detailed exegesis. At the same time, I want to do more than just note Paul’s basic thesis. So neither a bird’s-eye view, nor a detailed mapping of the terrain. More like tracing the contour lines of the argument.
1. Both the strong and the weak must stop judging their brother or sister (14:1-12)
Paul starts by telling the community to welcome the person who is weak in faith, without making judgments (diakrisis: see the commentaries of Cranfield, Käsemann, Longenecker, Thielman) on disputable matters (v. 1).
The one who is free to eat must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not judge the one who does not (v. 3). Such judgmental attitudes usurp the lordship of Christ (v. 4).
Both the strong eat meat and the weak abstain from meat as an expression of their submission to Christ’s lordship over all of life (vv. 5-8). Both parties are acting out of principled loyalty to Christ. This is how it should be, since Christ died and rose again to be our Lord (v. 9). As such, each of us is ultimately answerable to the Lord Jesus (v. 10a). Likewise, we are accountable to God the judge, to whom we will give an account of our actions (vv. 10-12).
Application: Since we are each answerable to the Lord Jesus, and accountable to God the judge, we must not act as if our Christian brother or sister is ultimately accountable to us!
2. The strong should love their brothers and sisters, not distress or destroy them by placing a stumbling block in their path (14:13-23)
Paul seeks to lead the strong Christian towards the conclusion that “It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble” (v. 21). Eating meat is good, but there is a Christlike way that is even better!
The weak and the strong are not to judge one another, but they are to judge (there is a play on words in the original) not to put a stumbling block in a brother or sister’s path, something that could trip them up and harm their faith (v. 13). Paul is saying, “If you must judge, make this your judgment/decision: to never place a stumbling block or trap before a sister in Christ. ”
Paul adjudicates that the strong are correct in principle, since no food is unclean in itself, but it is unclean—and therefore sinful to eat—to the person who considers it unclean (v. 14).
Therefore, if the strong insist on exercising their freedoms, and grieve and destroy their weaker brethren, they are not walking in love. Christ died for my sister; am I going to destroy her for the sake of a steak? (v. 15).
Not only must the strong prioritise Christ-like love over the exercise of their legitimate freedoms, but they must not “violate the essence of the kingdom” (Moo, Romans, NICNT, 849), where righteousness, peace, and joy take precedence over lesser matters (vv. 16-17). The strong’s “good”—the freedom to eat meat—is not good at all if it destroys the peace and joy of the kingdom community. Such a stance is to be “guilty of a grave lack of proportion” (Stott, Romans, BST, 366).
So the strong must prioritise peace and not destroy either the weak, or the precious community that God has built (vv. 19-20). It is good for the strong to curtail their freedoms and abstain. In fact, it’s good to avoid anything that might cause my brother to stumble into spiritual ruin, since if he acts against his conscience, he is condemned (vv. 21-23).
Application: Am I willing to put loving my weak brother above exercising my legitimate rights? And have I counted the cost of pursuing those rights in the face my weak sister’s scruples? Namely, division in the church, distress for my brother, and destruction for my sister. Do I consider that compound cost worth it?
3. Just as Christ did not please himself, the strong likewise should use their strength for the weak. This is the way to true unity (15:1-6)
Paul continues to challenge the strong. For the first time, in 15:1, he names those who are free to eat meat as “the strong” (and includes himself among their number: “we who are strong”) and relabels the weak as “those who lack strength”.
Paul probably withholds labelling the group as “the strong” until now, because he wants them to associate real strength with the cruciform strength of Christ.
As the strong, they are to bear/carry the weaknesses (rightly CSB; wrongly “failings” in ESV & NIV) of those who lack strength (v. 1). That is real strength in action! “Bear” does not mean “put up with” but “shoulder the burdens of”. The strong are to abstain for the sake of the weak, since by choosing to please their neighbour in this way they strengthen them (i.e. build them up rather than tear them down/destroy them, v. 2!).
Paul quotes Ps 69 to show that Christ is the ultimate example of such loving, selfless strength. His zeal for God’s cause (the context of Ps 69) led him to suffer terrible reproach at the hands of others, not to please himself at their expense (v. 3). The implication is clear: if Christ sacrificed his life for us, we can sacrifice food for our brothers and sisters! (There may also be the inference that, in bearing the weaknesses of their Jewish brothers and sisters, the gentile majority might well suffer reproach from their unbelieving neighbours for adopting culturally odd practices. They should be willing to face such reproach.)
Paul then prays that through such scriptural encouragement, God would unite the believers in Rome around this pattern of Christlike love. They can become of one outlook (v. 5), mind, and voice (v. 6), in practising such sacrificial love. Through such unity, God will be glorified.
Application: Am I expecting the weak to just get over their scruples? Or will I be like Christ in bearing the burden of those scruples myself? How much do I value the unity of the church and the glory of God?
4. Welcome one another, because God’s promise is to unite Jew and Gentile in the praise of God (15:7-13)
Having started with a challenge to both the strong and the weak to adopt the right attitude to each other (14:1–12), and then having challenged the strong to get their priorities straight, and to modify their actions in light of those priorities (14:13–15:6), Paul addresses the whole community again, reiterating the command with which he first addressed the strong: “Welcome one another” (15:7).
They are to welcome one another because Christ has welcomed them (all). He has done so by becoming a servant of the Jews, in order to bring the Gentiles to worship God together with the Jews (15:8-9). Scripture confirms God’s plan of bringing Jews and Gentiles together in worship (15:9-12), with Christ “orchestrating this united praise” (Thielman, Romans, ZECNT, 665).
Paul is continuing to deal with the issue of misplaced priorities and implies that the Roman Christians needed to “Get with God’s program”, and live in the light of his biblical promises. They have lost sight of the big picture.
Paul concludes with the prayer wish that God would fill the believers in Rome with this biblical vision of united, joyful praise and hope (15:13). In short, Paul longs that God’s age-long purpose and plan for his people would be realised in their united chorus of praise to their faithful, merciful God.
Application: Have I grasped God’s great vision for his people? Am I fuelled by the great scriptural hope of Jews and Gentiles united together in song around the throne of God? Do I realise that how I handle practical disagreements in church life either supports or sabotages this great scriptural, gospel vision?
5. Two false assumptions
I am keen in this series to give particular attention to misunderstandings and misapplications of Rom 14-15. Here I will note two false assumptions about the sort of unity God seeks between the strong and the weak.
One false assumption is that God wants a sort of co-existence, a mutual tolerance in which space is given for both weak and strong to live out their convictions without hurting the other. This would be like a marriage counsellor encouraging husband and wife to independently express themselves, by making as much time and space as possible for individual pursuits.
But Paul’s vision is of weak and strong joining hands together as one. (Picture the weak and strong, hands interlocked together in worship, then lifting arms and voices in unison to the Lord in praise).
The other false assumption is that Paul the marriage counsellor tells both parties to make allowances, stop insisting on their own way, and learn to meet on negotiated middle ground. A sort of give-and-take compromise solution, finding a balance between opposing views.
But, although Paul does challenge both groups to change their attitudes, he only challenges the strong to modify their actions. As John Barclay says, “He [Paul] does not require the ‘weak’ to change their behaviour in any respect, but (as we shall see) puts all the weight of obligation on the ‘strong.’” (“Faith and Self-Detachment”, ZNW 104(2), 2013, 202)
Paul wants the strong party to embrace the weak, removing the impediments that are forcing the weak towards the periphery of church life. (Picture the strong seeking out the weak, spreading their arms in a welcoming embrace, and inviting them to church Sunday lunch, where only vegetables (tasty vegetables!) and apple pie are served).
Paul shows us a more beautiful, Christ-like way than either the way of mutual tolerance, or the way of mutual compromise. It’s the way of sacrificial love.
In the church of Jesus Christ, every member belongs not just to the one body, but to all the other members in the body (Rom 12:5). This unique unity-in-diversity in the church body is preserved as the strong members lovingly prioritise the welfare of the weak in faith, using their strength from a posture of sacrificial love.
6. An important concession and a word of caution
John Barclay notes that, “Paul requires of the ‘weak’ only that they stop judging the ‘strong’, but that is still a significant concession.” (“Faith and Self-Detachment”, 207)
What makes it significant is that the great temptation for the weak is to make their practice (or non-practice) a universal, non-negotiable Christian distinctive, in effect raising the practice of a disputable matter to an essential mark of Christian identity. The challenge to the weak is to accept that genuine Christians can form a different conclusion to their own. They must acknowledge this, lest they make what is disputable into a primary article of faith.
That said, Paul’s solution to the conflict is emphatically not a middle path between the weak and the strong, and certainly not an encouragement to the strong to get their way. If you assume that Rom 14-15 is merely a spiritualising of the conflict-management practices taught by corporate HR, or coached by the latest relationship guru, then you will completely miss the radical cross-shaped wisdom of Jesus’ apostle.
In the church, unity is maintained as the strong—while still maintaining their personal convictions—sacrifice the exercise of their freedom for the sake of the weak. If even an army operates by the motto “No Man Left Behind”, how much more the church of Jesus Christ, which follows one who sacrificed his life for the wounded and dying.
Jesus laid down his life for the weak (Rom 5:6). Those who own him as Lord are called to follow in his footsteps. The strong have freedom that the weak don’t have. In the kingdom of God, freedom is always used in the service of love, and strength to shoulder the burdens of the weak.
In the previous post we looked at who the parties are and the issues dividing them. In this post we’ve traced the shape of Paul’s argument, and the type of unity Paul seeks.
In the next post, we consider, “What is at stake in the dispute?” It is a great error to think that “matters of indifference” make little difference to church life. Nothing could be further from the truth. So much rides on how the weak and, especially, the strong handle disputes over non-essentials. As we will see, the unity of the church, the cause of the gospel, and the salvation of the weak is at stake.
Share this post:
