Getting it Wrong about The Weak and the Strong (Part 3): Why do Disputable Matters Matter to God?
In the previous post in this series, I sketched Paul’s argument in Romans 14-15. I now want to begin the process of reflecting on the important issues raised by Paul’s teaching. In this post and the next, I will ask, “Why do disputable matters matter so much to God? What did Paul think was at stake?”
In this post, I’ll note two factors, and then a further two in the next post.
1. The Mind and Heart of the Church is at Stake
What is at stake is whether the church will seek God’s good and pleasing will through a gospel-renewed mind, or be conformed to this world-age instead (Rom 12:1-2). If the latter, then the believers in Rome will, by their lives, subvert the gospel that they confess with their lips.
Notice the theological underpinning to everything Paul says in chs 14-15. In challenging the judgmentalism and pride of both the strong and weak, he affirms the lordship of Christ (through his death and resurrection) and the judgment of God (14:4-12).
In rebuking the strong for their misplaced priorities, he affirms the primacy of Christ-like love (14:15; 15:1-3), and the character of the kingdom of God (14:17).
And in countering the alienation between the weak and the strong, he affirms the gracious, unconditional welcome of God and Jesus Christ (14:1; 15:7), irrespective of ethnicity, culture, or status.
Paul is demonstrating how to approach the dispute with a gospel-renewed mind. How we respond to the nitty-gritty of disputable matters is a major test of whether our minds have been spiritually renewed by the gospel.
Three aspects of a gospel-renewed church stand out.
First, the gospel of justifying, reconciling grace (Rom 3:21–5:21) turns judgmentalism into acceptance and welcome.
The attitudes that Paul critiques—the strong “despising” the weak, and the weak “judging” the strong (14:3-4)—are the ancient equivalent to our modern-day cancel culture.
The gospel of grace replaces such a cancel culture with a culture of welcome: “He is my brother; she is my sister; we belong to each other; therefore I will welcome her in, not push her away by my behaviour.”
Second, the gospel of the cross destroys the world’s approach to power and influence.
The wisdom and power of God is manifested in the weakness of the cross, on behalf of the weak (Rom 5:6). In the church, power and strength now becomes—or should become—cruciform in nature (1 Cor 1:18—2:5). The strong should now shoulder the burdens of the weak, just as Christ did (15:1-3).
Paul is applying a general gospel principle—the strong carry the burdens of the weak—to a specific type of strength and weakness, namely strength and weakness of conscience.
In the church, if the strong were to trample over the sensibilities of the weak, they would be re-establishing the world’s power dynamics from which the cross has delivered us. Those who follow Jesus are to gladly shoulder the weaknesses of those without strength (15:1).
Third, the gospel of the kingdom creates a new hierarchy of values and, therefore, a new set of priorities.
“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Rom 14:17).
This statement about the kingdom initially appears a bit out of place. But it is, in effect, another way of speaking of the entailments of the gospel. Earlier, in 5:1-2, Paul says, “Since we have been justified [declared righteous] by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God”. Paul then goes on to speak of the “reign” of sin and grace (5:14, 17, 21), which anticipates the otherwise unexpected reference to the kingdom in 14:17.
The kingdom of God—that is the sphere over which God rules through Christ—is “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (14:17), the same three elements, in the same order as in Rom 5:1-2 (As noted by M. Lloyd-Jones in one of his Romans lectures; see also N.T. Wright, Romans, NIB, 741).
Through the gospel, God establishes a reign of grace, a kingdom marked by righteousness, peace, and joy. Paul implies that the church is the place where these extraordinary kingdom blessings are manifested in the power of the Spirit, as the gospel word does its work among God’s people.
In effect, Paul is saying to the strong in Rome: “Are you really willing to disrupt the glorious peace and joy with which the Spirit of Christ fills the church, by insisting on your right to eat meat?” He is shaming the strong at their complete lack of perspective.
Note that it’s not just that they are trampling over the sensibilities of the weak—though it is that as well!—but it’s that they are devaluing the precious jewel of the kingdom, and telling God that their own set of priorities are more important. But, as N.T. Wright (Romans, 741) puts it, after noting the connection back to Rom 5, “If Rom 5:1–5 is threatened, whatever is posing the threat must take second place.”
It may be that Paul’s statement about the kingdom of God not only echoes his earlier teaching in 5:1-2, but is phrased to deliberately evoke Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount: “Don’t worry about what you will eat or drink … for the Gentiles seek after these things … but seek first his kingdom and righteousness” (Matt 6:31-33; again M. Lloyd-Jones draws the link). The similarity of phrasing is striking.
Whether or not the echo is deliberate, Paul, like Jesus before him, is challenging his hearers about what they truly value: will it be food, or the kingdom of God? Will you be a church that treasures the gospel of the kingdom above everything else?
It’s not that food and drink are not good. It’s about what’s best.
The meat that the strong in Rome wanted to be able to eat was indeed a good gift. And their freedom to eat it was both established by Jesus (Mark 7:19) and confirmed by Paul (Rom 14:14). In short, they were biblically correct in their position. But being “biblical” is only valuable to the extent that we prize what God prizes, and treasure what God most values.
The gospel of the kingdom creates a new hierarchy of values. It reshapes and reorders what matters most. Nothing is more important than God’s gift of righteousness and the right-relating with others that it brings. Nothing is more important than God’s reconciling us to himself and one another by Jesus’ death. And nothing is more important than the joy God gives by turning a bleak future into a glorious eternal hope.
Paul’s argumentation assumes a prioritising of values or “goods” (14:16; 15:2). He assumes that, in the church, some things that may very well be good in themselves—“biblical” even (certainly as far as the strong are concerned)—have to give way to what is better, in order to pursue what is ultimate.
The better things are the peace, joy, and unity of the church, and the salvation of every believer, especially the weak (who are vulnerable). In pursuing these, both the strong and the weak bring glory to God, which is ultimate (Rom 15:6, 7, 9).
Moo (Romans, 872) insightfully notes, “Theirs [the strong], paradoxically, is the same fault as that of the Pharisees, only in reverse: where the Pharisees insisted on strict adherence to the ritual law at the expense of ‘justice, mercy, and faith’ (Matt. 23:23), the strong are insisting on exercising their freedom from the ritual law at the expense of ‘righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.’”
We’re only truly free when we are free to lay aside not only our sin, but our legitimate rights and freedoms as well, in order to maximise the joy of others in the kingdom of God. Easier said than done of course!
So, to summarise this first point, what is at stake, at least in part, is whether the church’s value system and perspective is transformed by the gospel of the kingdom. Or, to put it in terms of 12:1, whether we are being transformed by the renewal of our mind.
A church can preach the gospel of the kingdom, while subverting the gospel in its life together.
2. The Peace and Unity of the Church is at Stake
We need to remember that the issue dividing the believers in Rome affected their visible unity and their practical worship. If the strong insisted on exercising their freedom to eat meat then the weak had no choice long term but to either capitulate and participate against their consciences, or else leave and form a separate church or, even worse, revert to Judaism.
When Paul prays for the unity of the church in 15:5-6—to become of one mind, one accord, and one voice—he is not praying that they would come to a consensus on whether they can eat non-kosher food. He is praying that they would display a mindset united around the pattern of love set by the cross of Christ.
A mindset thoroughly shaped by the gospel leads to becoming of one mind and one accord. Any other “unity” is merely a fragile uniformity that masks discord and discontent.
Unity-in-diversity means no to segregation
A visible, embodied unity-in-diversity reflects the nature of the church as the body of Christ, where all believers both belong to the one body and to one another (Rom 12:5). Paul’s repeated use of “one another” language (12:5, 10, 16; 13:8; 14:13, 19; 15:5, 7) reflects that reality. Like one of those 3D ball-and-stick chemical-bonding models, every member of the body is intimately bound to all the others.
However, an embodied, harmonious unity-in-diversity also reflects God’s scriptural promise and purpose, which is to unite Jew and Gentile into a single, harmonious choir of praise in which distinctive voices blend together in a united chorus to the glory of God (15:7-13).
So whether we picture the church as a model of molecular bonding, or a diverse, but harmonious choir, you cannot just hive off a part—e.g. get rid of the alto section— and not radically change the melody.
Therefore, Paul’s whole argument is premised on the conviction that segregation is not a legitimate option. As Michael Gorman says (Romans, 490) and rightly emphasises, “Segregation was not, and is not, a Christian option.”
We don’t see the seriousness of this anything like as clearly as Paul did, in part because of the church’s shameful history of segregation, splintering into a myriad of denominational groupings, masking the biblical norm and ideal.
When tensions become too much we tend to go the easy route, and see segregation as the path to peace. But it is not the peace Paul had in mind, which is synonymous with mutual upbuilding, not mutual separation (14:19)! Segregation is what Paul feared and what he is so dead set against.
The homogeneous unit principle is nice and easy, and solves a whole tonne of complication, but it is a complete non-starter for Paul, as it should be for us.
Pursuing edifying behaviour
We also need to be clear that there is no indication that the strong were deliberately disturbing the peace, trying to be antagonistic, as if they had formed a pact to all enter church on a Sunday morning gleefully eating bacon sandwiches.
Sometimes commentators assume that the strong must have been flaunting their freedom in a particularly insensitive way. There is no indication of that. Paul’s concern is not with how they are eating their meat, but that they are eating it in a context where the weak are present (the church fellowship meal).
In a parallel situation in Corinth, the strong were eating idol food that the believers of weak conscience did not feel able to eat. But the strong were doing so sincerely believing that their behaviour was edifying, setting a positive example of gospel freedom for the weak to follow.
But Paul’s response is scathing:
“If anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will they not be edified [many translations have “encouraged” here, but it’s literally “edified”], if their conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died.” (1 Cor 8:10-11)
Paul is parodying their stance. He is asking, “So you want to edify your weaker brothers? Do you really think that is how to go about it? Edifying them to eat against their conscience, and therefore to embrace a practice of sinning? Is that really how you are going to build them up? You think you will build them up by tearing them down?”
So, when Paul says, “Pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding [edification]” (Rom 14:19), he doesn’t let us determine what that means in practice, as if our good motives are enough. He goes on to clarify exactly what is involved:
“Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.” (Rom 14:20-21)
So it is not a question of whether the behaviour of the strong was legitimately Christian—it was, as the food was “clean”—nor whether their motives were good or bad, but a question of what might lead to stumbling, to causing other believers to participate in something that they cannot embrace in good conscience.
Such behaviour tears down rather than builds up, whatever the intent, and is, therefore, destructive of the church’s peace and unity.
Avoid even non-essential good things that are seen by others as bad things
The practical pointer that Paul gives to the strong is to ensure that what they consider to be good and right in God’s eyes, is not spoken of as evil by others (14:16).
Commentators disagree as to who Paul envisages speaking against the practice of the strong, whether the weak in the church or unbelievers outside the church. I believe the context favours the former. The corollary of the weak being “grieved” by the practice of the strong (14:15), is speaking of their practice as wrong, as displeasing to God (14:16).
In the parallel situation in Corinth, it seems (though again it’s not entirely clear) that Paul fears that unbelievers might view the behaviour of Christians as unprincipled and evil (1 Cor 10:30).
Neither reference is completely clear, but both seem to embrace the same principle, which is that we should do nothing—even if genuinely “good” in itself—that could boomerang back to us as “unholy”, “unprincipled”, “bad”, or “unfaithful to God”.
Paul states the principle succinctly in 1 Cor 10:32, “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.”
If this principle is followed, the peace of the church is protected and its unity is upheld. But if the strong exert their strength through “verbal persuasion or through the enforcement of uniformity of practice on their terms” (Barclay, “Faith and Self-Detachment”, 205), they will destroy the peace of the church, which in turn will destroy the unity of the church.
Paul’s teaching makes complete sense at the level of logic. Where we come unstuck I think is in not sufficiently valuing what Paul (and Jesus before him) does. In Paul’s mind, peace (and the unity it upholds) is a non-negotiable value of the kingdom of God (Rom 14:17), something to put a great price on.
If we really valued the peace, joy, and righteousness of the kingdom, we would never (1 Cor 8:13) do anything (Rom 14:21) that could cause a brother or sister in Christ to stumble.
In the next post, we continue to consider why disputable matters matter so much to God. Not only are the mind and heart of the church, and the peace and unity of the church at stake, but the salvation of both the world and the weaker Christian are as well.
Share this post:
