Toronto Baptist Seminary & Bible College

BUILD UP THE KINGDOM OF GOD: AN EXEGETICAL PAPER ON ROMANS 14:13-23

A Paper

Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

The Letter of Paul to the Romans

by

Brent Karding

August 2014

! 1

BUILD UP THE KINGDOM OF GOD: AN EXEGETICAL PAPER ON ROMANS 14:13-23

Introductory Matters

This exegetical paper will focus on Romans 14:13-23. In this passage, Paul exhorts the

"strong" in the Roman church to pursue peace and mutual edification. They should do this by

acting in love toward the "weak" regarding their different convictions on Jewish dietary laws

because of the spiritual nature of the kingdom of God.

Textual Problems

Several textual uncertainties should be dealt with here. First, in 14:19, some texts have

the indicative διώκοµεν instead of the subjunctive διώκωµεν. It is "extremely difficult" to

discern which is the original.1 Arguments for the indicative include "the circumstance that

elsewhere in Romans the phrase ἄρα οὖν is always followed by the indicative," as well as its

"slightly superior uncial support."2 However, in the context of the passage, the subjunctive "is

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed.

(Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994, 2002), 469.

2Ibid., 469.

2

by far the better reading," and "most modern English translations and most commentators"

follow it.3 The translation below will follow the subjunctive reading as well.

At the end of verse 21, the majority text adds the words ἢ σκανδαλίζεται ἢ ἀσθενεῖ

following προσκόπτει. Metzger considers this to be a scribal modification or expansion of the

text based on 1 Corinthians 8:11-13, and most commentators concur.4 In any case, the message

of verse 21 remains the same without it. The translation below will leave it out.

Finally, the relative pronoun ἣν near the beginning of verse 22 is omitted by "the great

mass of witnesses, including most of the Old Latin manuscripts."5 This reading is also the most

difficult, and so good reason exists to omit it.6

Translation7

13 Let us judge each other no longer, but determine this instead, not to place a cause for

stumbling or a temptation before a brother. 14 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that

nothing is unclean in itself; but to the one who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the

New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 849, footnote 1. 4Ibid., footnote 2. 5Metzger, Textual Commentary, 470.

6Moo includes it, stating that "the strong external support for the inclusion of ἥν renders

this latter reading the more likely." Moo, Romans, NICNT, 849, footnote 4. 7The translation is based on Kurt Aland et al, The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised

Edition (with Morphology) (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 2006). I will follow my translation throughout this paper.

! 3

unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved because of [your] food, you are no longer walking in

love; do not destroy by your food the one for whom Christ died. 16 Therefore, do not let your

good be reviled.

17 For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking but righteousness and peace and

joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 For the one who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and

approved by men.

19 Consequently then, let us pursue what makes for each other's peace and edification.

20 Do not destroy the work of God because of food. Indeed, all things are pure; but it is evil for

a man to eat with offense. 21 It is good not to eat meat nor to drink wine nor to do anything that

causes your brother to take offense. 22 Do you have faith? Have it in yourself before God.

Blessed is the one who does not judge himself for what he approves. 23 But the one who doubts

is condemned if he eats, because [his action does] not spring from faith; and everything not of

faith is sin.

Outline

1. Exhortation: Do not cause your brother to stumble (14:13-16)

2. Theological principle behind exhortation: The nature of the Kingdom of God (14:17-

18)

3. Exhortation: Pursue peace and edification (14:19-23)

! 4

Historical and Literary Context

This section will not examine the historical context in great detail, but only those matters

that pertain to the text being studied. The literary context will be the main focus below.

Historical Context

Around AD 57, near the close of his third missionary journey, the apostle Paul was on his

way to Jerusalem to deliver to the church an offering, “gathered from Gentile-Christian churches

he [had] planted.”8 He stopped in Greece, likely in the city of Corinth, where he stayed for three

months.9 During his stay, he wrote to the church at Rome.10

This church was made up of both Jewish and Gentile Christians, both of whom Paul

addresses in his letter.11 Thus the Roman church reflected the ethnic makeup of the city’s culture.

During Paul’s day, Rome had “a population of approximately one million people from every

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed.

(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 393.

9Ibid., 394.

10Pauline authorship of Romans is almost universally accepted. See Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009), 513.

11See the helpful discussion by Carson and Moo, Introduction, 396-98, who conclude that internal evidence suggests that although “there is much to be said for confining Paul’s audience to Gentile Christians, it is doubtful that we can exclude Jewish Christians entirely.” Ibid., 398.

! 5

corner of the empire and the strange lands beyond its borders,” including “40,000 to 50,000

Jews.”12

Romans is not an obviously occasional letter, as are such epistles as Galatians and I

Corinthians. However, there clearly was tension in the Roman church between Jewish and

Gentile Christians, as seen in the controversy over following Jewish dietary laws which Paul

addresses in Romans 14:1-15:13.13

Literary Context

Paul’s purpose in writing Romans is not clear, as he makes only a general summary

comment at the end of the epistle (15:15).14 One recurring theme of Romans is the contrast

between Jews and Gentiles in salvation history and the church, which pops up at several points in

chapters 1-8, and is the focus of chapters 9-11; he also exhorts saved Jews and Gentiles to be at

peace together in chapters 14-15. His overall purpose can perhaps best be summarized by 1:16,

where he adumbrates the entire epistle, describing the gospel as “the power of God unto

salvation … to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” He fleshes this theme out in chapters 1-8,

teaching the doctrine of the Gospel in detail, while in chapters 9-11 he focuses on the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!12Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles, The Cradle, the Cross and the Crown, 519. 13Carson and Moo, Introduction, 406. 14Ibid., 403.

! 6

relationship between Israel and Gentiles in the church; finally, in chapters 12-16 he provides

many practical applications of the truths found in chapters 1-11.15

The passage under consideration is found in this application section (chapters 12-16).

That 12:1 begins a new section is demonstrated by its second word, οὖν; Paul is basing what he

is about to say upon what he has just said in chapters 1-11.16 Paul's shift "from instruction to

exhortation; from 'indicative' to 'imperative'" makes the transition clear as well.17 Without this

paranaetical section, Paul's "exposition of the gospel" would have been incomplete.18 Biblically,

true saving faith in the gospel is always followed by a gospel-impelled and gospel-transformed

life, lived within "the new community which Jesus … brought into being by his death and

resurrection" – even when ethnic differences cause conflict to flare up.19 Paul does not finish

writing until he has shown the Roman Christians what such a life looks like.

This hortatory section "falls into two parts: injunctions relating to Christian conduct

generally in chaps. 12–13 and guidelines for a specific problem affecting the Roman community

in 14:1–15:13."20 The first part contains loosely arranged advice, "suited to virtually every

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!15Paul follows this same general outline in Ephesians and Colossians as well, teaching

doctrine first and then applying it (Ephesians 1-3 and 4-6; Colossians 1-2 and 3-4).

16Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 639. God's "mercies" (12:1) were shown not only in chapters 9-11 but first of all in "the teaching of 1:16-8:39." Ibid.

17Moo, Romans, NICNT, 744. 18Ibid., 744.

19John Stott, Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,

1994), 317. 20Moo, Romans, NICNT, 747.

! 7

situation."21 The second part is "a lengthy plea for mutual acceptance," which must be examined

carefully in order to make sense of 14:13-23, the paragraph that is the subject of this paper.22

Paul's goal in writing 14:1-15:13 is seen in its beginning and its "climax," where he

commands the Roman Christians "to 'receive' fellow believers" (14:1; 15:7).23 Throughout the

paragraph he pleads with them to live in internal unity with "one another" (14:13, 19; 15:5).24

His plea can be split into four sections, each of which "combines exhortation with theological

rationale."25 He urges the Roman Christians not to condemn each other regarding eating, for

God is the ultimate Judge (14:1-12); instead of judging each other, they should do their best not

to cause each other to stumble (14:13-23). They must put each other first, having the same spirit

as Christ (15:1-6), and receive each other, Jews and Gentiles alike (15:7-13).

Paul refers to two groups in his address to the church, the "strong" and the "weak" (14:1-

2; 15:1). He could be addressing two specific groups in the Roman church, or he could simply

be continuing general ethical instruction from chapters 12-13. The latter is unlikely, because it

goes against the clear tenor of the text. While it is not necessary to posit two distinct, warring

camps within the church, Paul's specific instructions to the "strong" demonstrate that he is

addressing "a current problem in the Roman community."26 Some scholars treat this section as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!21Schreiner, Romans, 640.

22Moo, Romans, NICNT, 826.

23Ibid.

24Ibid., 826-27. 25Ibid., 832-33; see also Schreiner, Romans, 703. 26Moo, Romans, NICNT, 828.

! 8

containing general instruction because of its similarities with 1 Corinthians 8-10, so that Paul is

"giving a generalized version of his advice to the Corinthians about their disputes over idol

meat."27 However, there are some important differences between the two passages; thus Romans

14:1-15:13 is not a rehash of 1 Corinthians 8-10 in a generalized context, but a passage where

Paul is dealing with a completely different issue (see below). Therefore, it is most likely that

Paul is addressing a real, context-specific situation in 14:1-15:13.

Who were these "weak" believers? According to Moo, the "weak" in the Roman church

were probably "mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds of food and observed

certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic law."28 Moo lists six possibilities for the

identity of the "weak," and gives four supports for his above position. Schreiner agress, calling it

"the most plausible" explanation.29 Also, "[t]he final paragraph (15:7-13) confirms that the

underlying theme of the preceding paranesis [was] focused on Jew-Gentile relationships."30 The

"strong," then, who were apparently the majority (14:1), were "composed mainly of Gentile

Christians, along with some more 'liberated' Jewish Christians," who "believed that the coming

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!27Ibid., 827. 28Moo, Romans, NICNT, 829. See also C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, vol. II, IX-XVI, The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1979, 1981), 690-95, and Ben Witherington III with Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 326.

29Schreiner, Romans, 707. See his helpful discussion on 707-09. 30James D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16, vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:

Word Books, 1988), 706.

! 9

of Christ had brought an end to the ritual requirements of the Mosaic law; and, like many such

'enlightened' majorities, they tended to 'despise' and look down on the 'weak' (14:3).31

More help in understanding this specific situation in Romans can be brought to bear by

studying the notable differences between this passage and others in the Pauline corpus where

Paul addresses conflict between believing Jews and Gentiles. By doing this, it is possible to

eliminate what could not have been the problem in Rome.

In the Galatian church, Judaizers had spread a perversion of the gospel among the Gentile

Christians, teaching them that it was necessary for them to be circumcised in order to have full

membership in the people of God; this caused Gentile believers to "observe days, and months,

and times, and years" on the Jewish calendar (Gal 4:10; cf. 5:1-8).32 Paul reacted violently to

this twisting of the gospel, telling the Galatians to reject its proponents as eternally damned (Gal

1:6-9). Clearly, then, the "weak" in Rome were not attempting to achieve justification by

keeping the Mosaic law, or Paul would have reacted very differently.

In Colosse, "newly formed Gentile Christians ... [were] being badgered about their faith

by contentious Jews who took affront over their claims."33 Unsaved Jews were trying to

convince the Christians to observe Jewish "legal ordinances, circumcision, food regulations, the

sabbath, new moon and other prescriptions of the Jewish calendar," mixed with "an early and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!31Moo, Romans, NICNT, 831. 32See Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New

Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 49-51, 279; F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 27-29.

33David E. Garland, Colossians and Philemon, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 27.

! 10

simple form of gnosticism."34 Their teachings were man-made, and Paul condemns their

philosophy as anti-Christ (Col 2:8). Paul responds to this deceitful philosophy by affirming the

Colossians' completeness in Christ and the fact that he "alone is sufficient for their salvation";

Jewish dietary laws were mere shadows that have been fulfilled by Christ (Col 2:16-17). Paul's

response indicates that his opponents were "claiming that [Christians had] not attained this

fulness, that they [needed] something more" besides Christ for salvation – such as keeping

Jewish traditions.35 In Rome, on the other hand, Paul's response is very different: he urges the

"strong" to accept the "weak," and does not condemn the views of either. Therefore, the problem

in Rome must not have been between unsaved Jews and Gentiles, nor did it impinge upon the

truth of the Gospel.

The Corinthian problem that Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 8-10 "[had] to do with

eating food conspicuously sacrificed to an idol, whether at a public feast, in a temple dining

room, as a participant in an actual sacrifice, or in a private home."36 Paul "completely rejects

eating in [pagan] temples," and forbids the Corinthians to do so (1 Cor 8:9-11, 10:6-7, 14).37 In

contrast with Romans, when writing to the Corinthian church, "Paul never identifies any

particular group as 'the strong.'"38 Further, "the issues [in 1 Corinthians 8-10] are idol meat and

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!34E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the

Colossians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, 1977), 166. That the Jewish opponents were unsaved is inferred by Colossians 2:19-20. Garland, Colossians and Philemon, 31.

35Garland, Colossians and Philemon, 26. 36David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 355. 37Ibid., 359. 38Ibid., 358.

! 11

knowledge, but [in Romans] the discussion is more Jewish, involving clean and unclean and

sabbath observance."39 In the Corinthian church, "'the weak' are Gentiles who are still troubled

by their past associations with idols (1 Cor 8:7-13); 'the weak' in Romans are primarily Jewish

Christians who observe the purity laws."40 In contrast, in Romans 14:1-15:13, Paul does not

forbid eating meat; he rather bases his instructions on mutual acceptance and love, in spite of

differences.

In summary, "the dispute between the “weak” and the “strong” was rooted in differences

between Jews and Gentiles," which Paul has touched upon throughout Romans, as pointed out

above.41 In this section the conflict comes to the fore. To resolve it, Paul urges the strong to

"receive" the weak (14:1). Although he "agrees in principle with the 'strong'" (14:14, 20; 15:1),

Paul's primary "concern is not so much with the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of this particular issue but

with the 'peace' and 'mutual edification' of the body of Christ (cf. 14:19)."42 Peace and unity

should be the goal of the Roman Christians as well.

Exegesis of the Passage

In verses 1-12, Paul has just commanded the "strong" in the Corinthian church to receive

the "weak" without arguing with them about "disputed matters" (14:1), and "to treat them as

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!39Witherington, Romans, 326. 40Schreiner, Romans, 641.

41Moo, Romans, NICNT, 829. 42Ibid., 832.

! 12

brothers and sisters in the intimate fellowship typical of the people of God."43 As established

above, some "weak" believers ate only vegetables, probably "out of a concern to maintain OT

laws of purity in a pagan context where 'kosher' meat was not easily obtained."44 The "strong,"

on the other hand, had "the kind of ('strong') Christian faith as to lead him or her to think that it is

legitimate to eat anything."45 The "strong" looked down on the "weak," and the "weak"

condemned the "strong" (14:3); but Paul reminds them that they have no business judging one

another; God is the judge, before whom every believer will give account (14:4, 10-12).

Although they disagree on dietary practices, both groups were doing so in order to please their

Lord (14:6-9). All believers are brothers, received by God (14:10). Paul's argument in verses 1-

12 can be summarized thus: "Christians have no right to reject from their fellowship those whom

God himself has accepted."46 God will judge both the weak and the strong.

Exhortation: Do Not Cause Your Brother to Stumble (14:13-16)

Within the larger section of verses 13-23, verses 13-16 are an exhortation to the "strong"

to refrain from tripping up their "weak" brothers. Paul will repeat this instruction in verses 19-23,

adding "a second coat of paint" to "the same argument."47 In the centre of this section (verses

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!43Ibid., 837, 835. 44Ibid., 837. 45Ibid., 838. 46Ibid. 47N. T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,”

in vol. 10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 741, quoted in Witherington, Romans, 340.

! 13

17-18) Paul pours the concrete, theological foundation for his two-fold command, which is "the

nature of the kingdom of God."48 The whole argument of verses 13-23 is chiastic in structure,

demonstrating the importance of the central section.49

Paul begins by drawing a conclusion in verse 13 from verses 10-11, using the word

"therefore" (οὖν). Because of the reality of God's eschatological judgment (verse 10), believers

must cease from their own judgment of each other (verse 13). This statement "is transitional, …

[summing] up vv. 1–12 while preparing for the new focus in vv. 13–23."50 Paul switches his

focus from the "weak" (verses 1-12) to the "strong" (verses 13-23).51

After Paul's transitional command in verse 13a for believers not to "judge" (κρίνωµεν)

each other, he uses the same verb to instruct them to "determine" (κρίνατε) not to place

stumbling blocks in each other's path (verse 13b).52 This wordplay allows him to pivot his

argument from a negative ("don’t judge") to a positive direction ("decide to pursue peace").

This instruction in verse 13b is the key statement of verses 13-16. Paul addresses this

positive argument to the strong, for they are the ones with the ability to trip up their weaker

brethren. Paul uses two terms here to describe this action: πρόσκοµµα can be used literally "of

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!48Moo, Romans, NICNT, 850.

49See ibid. 50Ibid. 51Ibid., 849. 52τοῦτο functions here as a forward-pointing reference marker. When this device is used,

it "ends up creating a discontinuity just before the target to which it points. This extra reference has the effect of slowing down the flow of the discourse." Steven E. Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010), 63.

! 14

things against which one can stumble or that can cause one to lose one’s footing," while

σκάνδαλον was "a device for catching something alive."53 Both terms are used metaphorically

and likely synonymously here.54

The cause of this stumbling was food (14:1-3, 15). Although Paul "fundamentally agreed

with the 'strong,'" his primary concern is not the protection of their rights but the damage that

could be done to the "weak."55 If the "weak" were led to eat food and drink wine against their

own conscience because of the example of the "strong" (verse 15, 20-21), this would cause them

to stumble and be trapped (verse 13), grieved (λυπεῖται, verse 15), destroyed (ἀπόλλυε, verse 15,

κατάλυε, verse 20), and condemned (κατακέκριται, verse 23). These terms, although not

synonymous, should be understood together to communicate "the danger … [of] eschatological

judgment."56

This does not mean that a believer can lose his salvation; Schreiner points out that here

"Paul refers to believers phenomenologically, that is, at the level of appearances rather than at

the level of true spiritual reality."57 The New Testament refers to this kind of false believer

experiencing spiritual ruin elsewhere (1 Cor 8:11; 10:1-12; Heb 6:4-9; 2 Pet 2:1; Jude 1:5), so

this understanding of the weaker brother's "destruction" does not go against the tenor of Scripture.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!53BDAG, 3rd ed., s.v. "πρόσκοµµα" and "σκάνδαλον." 54Moo, Romans, NICNT, 851.

55Schreiner, Romans, 730. Cf. Colossians 2:16-17, where Paul teaches that Old Testament

dietary laws have been done away in Christ. 56Schreiner, Romans, 733-34. See Cranfield, Romans, 715, Witherington, Romans, 339,

and especially Dunn, Romans 9-16, 821 for strong support of this view.

57Schreiner, Romans, 735, footnote 17.

! 15

If someone lives a life of sin (verse 14), "[engaging] in behaviors that violated what was

understood to be the moral norms of the faith," he shows himself to have dead faith, and proves

that he is not one of Jesus' sheep (cf. James 2:14-17, 26; John 10:27-28).

The exhortation to the strong in verse 13b is followed by a parenthesis in verse 14. Paul

acknowledges that nothing is "unclean," or "ceremonially impure."58 He then cuts off the

possible "amen" of the "strong" by saying that if someone considers something "unclean," it is

unclean to him, and implies that eating meat would be a sin to that one.

Paul then returns in verse 15 to the argument he briefly left at the end of verse 13, giving

the reason why the "strong" should not trip up the "weak": it would go against the principle of

love.59 Paul has just reminded the Romans that love "is the fulfilling of the law" (13:10); the

irony is that a "strong" Christian could be certain he was not breaking God's commandments by

eating meat while at the same time breaking the greatest commandment of all! Further, the

thought of destroying a person for whom the Saviour died should be unthinkable; such a

despicable action would indicate hate, not love. Paul uses strong words in this argument (see

discussion above). Paul implies that if "Christ has already paid the supreme price for that 'weak'

Christian, how can the 'strong' refuse to pay the quite insignificant price of a minor and

occasional restriction in their diet?"60

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!58BDAG, 3rd ed., s.v. "κοινός."

59This assumes that verse 15 begins with γάρ and not δέ (Byzantine text). See "Textual

Problems" above, as well as Moo, Romans, NICNT, 853. γάρ is used to add "background information that strengthens or supports what precedes." Runge, Discourse Grammar, 52.

60Moo, Romans, NICNT, 855.

! 16

Paul then "rounds off the opening paragraph in this section" in verse 16, drawing a

"conclusion … from what he has just said in vv. 14–15."61 "Freedom from the dietary laws is a

'good' thing, a legitimate implication of the coming of Jesus the Messiah and the New

Covenant"; however, if this freedom caused believers to be destroyed, it would be "reviled."62

By their unloving actions the "strong" "would surely bring into disrepute not just the liberty of

the strong but also the very gospel itself."63 Rather than selfishly protecting their rights, the

"strong" Roman believers should selflessly choose to love their "weak" brothers and sisters.

Theological Principle Behind Exhortation: The Nature

of the Kingdom of God (14:17-18)

Paul's commands to the "strong" in verses 13-16 have a granite-solid foundation, which

Paul lays and explains in verses 17-18.

The γάρ that begins verse 17 refers back to verses 13-16 as whole.64 As always in

Pauline literature, exhortations are rooted in and grow out of doctrine. Here the doctrinal

foundation is the nature of the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God "is that realm to which

believers belong"; "[i]t is the sphere in which God's sovereignty is recognized and his will is

supreme"; it is the fundamental reality into which Jesus Christ has brought the Roman

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!61Ibid.

62Ibid. 63Cranfield, Romans, 717.

64See Runge, Discourse Grammar, 51-53 for a detailed description of the function of γάρ.

Cranfield points out the reason Paul used γάρ as well, although he sees it as pointing back only to verses 15b-16. Cranfield, Romans, 717.

! 17

Christians.65 In verse 17 Paul describes God's kingdom in both negative and positive terms: it is

not "eating and drinking"; it is Holy Spirit-given "righteousness and peace and joy."66 The

Mosaic law had many commands relating to food and drink, but they were abolished in Christ

(Acts 10:9-16). However, this newfound freedom is not what God's kingdom is all about; to

emphasize food and drink at the expense of the spiritual is to commit "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.'"67

In verse 18, Paul "underscores the point that he has just made," using γάρ again to

provide a second basis for the first.68 Stated in reverse, the principle is this: If you want to be

pleasing to Christ and approved by men (verse 18), live according to the spiritual priorities of

God's kingdom (verse 17) by acting in love toward your brothers in the Lord (verses 13-16).

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!65John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction,

Exposition and Notes, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 193. See Matthew 12:28; 17:21; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; Colossians 1:13.

66I agree with Moo that the prepositional phrase ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ modifies all three

positive elements, and not just χαρά. After all, "all three qualities are eschatological gifts of the Spirit." Moo, Romans, NICNT, 857, footnote 46. Also, "[t]hat Paul depends on his exposition of the gospel in Romans for this summary is suggested especially by its similarity to Paul’s transitional encapsulation of the argument of chaps. 1–4 in Rom. 5:1–2," where Paul uses all three positive terms. Ibid.

67Ibid., 856. 68Ibid., 857.

! 18

Paul uses the backward-pointing deictic marker ἐν τοῦτῳ in verse 18 to summarize the

acceptable way to serve God. ἐν τοῦτῳ is singular in number, and so cannot be referring back to

the three positive elements of the kingdom of God. It is best in the context to understand it as

having no specific grammatical antecedent, referring to "all of verse 17."69 Service to Christ

must be done in the midst of righteous, peaceful, and joyful community living, or God will not

accept it and will judge the church (cf. verses 10-11).70

In summary, the foundation for Paul’s exhortation in verses 13-16 and 19-23 is the

spiritual nature of the kingdom of God. The Roman Christians must live in righteousness, joy,

and peace or they will not please God, no matter how orthodox their doctrinal convictions.

Exhortation: Pursue Peace and Edification (14:19-23)

As discussed in the "Textual Problems" section above, the subjunctive διώκωµεν makes

the most sense in the context of the passage. Therefore, Paul returns to the imperative in verses

19-23 after "his 'indicative' interlude" in verses 17-18.71 Verses 19-23 repeat in reverse order the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!69Schreiner, Romans, 741. Moo agrees. Moo, Romans, NICNT, 858. Cranfield

disagrees, but his conclusion is still similar. Cranfield, Romans, 719-20. I have translated ἐν τοῦτῳ as "in these things" (plural) because I believe it refers to every quality in verse 17. The ESV translates ἐν τοῦτῳ as "thus," and the NIV (2011) as "in this way."

70Because the context of verses 13-23 is "relations among believers," righteousness,

peace, and joy (verse 17) should be understood as referring to interpersonal relationships within the church. Moo, Romans, NICNT, 857. Further, this sense of "peace" matches the clearer sense of "peace" in verse 20. Ibid., 859.

71Ibid., 858.

! 19

main points Paul made in verses 13-16, with both sections surrounding the keystone of the arch

of Paul's argument (verses 17-18).72

The imperative in verse 19 is based on the nature of God's kingdom.73 In verse 19 Paul

takes "peace" (from verse 17), adds edification as a contrast to destruction (from verse 15), and

makes them the twofold object believers should pursue. By using a hortatory subjunctive, Paul

includes himself in the exhortation and softens the rebuke. That he "is still addressing the

'strong'" is shown by the following verse.74

In verse 20a (as well as verse 22), "Paul … uses a more direct and forceful style (the

second person singular imperative) to urge a representative 'strong' believer not to 'tear down the

work of God.'"75 The Greek verb καταλύω can be used literally to describe the pulling down of a

building (Matt 24:2); this contrasts the noun οἰκοδοµῆς in verse 19, which is used literally in

extrabiblical literature to refer to the "process of building."76 "Strong" believers need to be

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!72See ibid. 850 for the chiastic details. 73Both ἄρα and οὖν, which introduce verse 19, are "inferential conjunctions," which

introduce a "deduction, conclusion, or summary to the preceding discussion." Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 673, 761. Paul uses this combination of conjunctions seven times in Romans (5:18; 7:3, 25; 8:12; 9:16, 18; 14:19). Instead of seeing both conjunctions as redundant, ἄρα should be understood as communicating inference, and οὖν as communicating "continuation" rather than inference, even though Romans 14 is not a narrative. The two conjunctions thus point backward and forward at once. See BDAG, 3rd ed., s.v. "οὖν," meaning 2; Runge, Discourse Grammar, 43.

74Moo, Romans, NICNT, 859.

75Ibid. 76BDAG, 3rd ed., s.v. "καταλύω" and "οἰκοδοµή."

! 20

careful that their vaunted strength is not inadvertently used in a demolition project – and that

over something as insignificant as food.

Paul repeats his point of verse 14 in verse 20b, stating positively what he previously

stated negatively: "all things are pure." This statement should be understood in light of the

context of ritual Jewish purity: all things are ritually pure and acceptable for the Christian to eat.

However, Paul quickly qualifies what he just said by his next sentence in verse 20c: "it is evil for

a man to eat with offense."77 Thus in verse 20 Paul both gives "the theological truth which gave

[the 'strong'] their liberty to eat anything they liked” and reminds them that "there were other

factors to consider, which would require them to limit the exercise of their liberty."78

In verse 20c the word "offense" is translated from προσκόµµατος, used here for the first

time since verse 13. The whole Greek phrase translated "with offense" is somewhat obscure, as it

could refer to either the "strong" or the "weak."79 "In favor of the former is the parallel with v 21,

and the use of πρόσκοµµα with the same force as in v 13: that is, 'a cause of stumbling'…." In

favor of the latter is the parallel with v 14 (on this interpretation v 20b would be a recapitulation

of v 14b)."80 Dunn astutely points out that "once again Paul has written ambiguously," and "his

readership [could] take the clause either or both ways."81 Either interpretation would fit the

context, but the immediate context of verse 21 makes it more likely that the one who eats "with

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!77Cranfield, Romans, 723.

78Stott, Romans, 368. 79Dunn, Romans 9-16, 826. 80Ibid.

81Ibid.

! 21

offense" in verse 20 is the "strong."82 Therefore, what is "evil" is a "strong" believer eating food

that causes a "weak" brother to fall.

In verse 21, then, Paul repeats his point of verse 20 using positive language instead of

negative. Causing a "weak" brother to stumble through what one eats is "evil"; avoiding it is

"good."83 Here, for the second time, Paul mentions drinking alongside eating (see verse 17). If,

as argued earlier, the "weak" abstained from meat because of their concern about ritual impurity,

then "Paul’s reference here to 'drinking wine' probably implies that the same believers avoided

wine out of similar concerns."84 However, Paul broadens the statement even further, saying that

avoiding anything that might cause a believer to stumble is good.

Paul’s final imperative of this passage is in verse 22a: the "strong" believer is to keep his

"faith" to himself. Moo claims that Paul uses "faith" here in the same way he used it in verse 1,

where it refers not "to general Christian faith but to convictions about the issues in dispute in

Rome that arise out of one’s faith in Christ."85 This would explain Paul's injunction to the

"strong" to keep his faith to himself, "a plea that would be quite out of place in the NT" if it

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!82Moo, Romans, NICNT, 860; see Cranfield, Romans, 724 and Max Zerwick and Mary

Grosvenor, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974), 492; contra Murray, Romans, 195.

83As the negative particle occurs between the infinitive and its article, it must modify the

infinitive. Paul's point is that avoiding eating meat, drinking wine, and doing anything to cause offense is good.

84Moo, Romans, NICNT, 861. 85Ibid.

! 22

referred to faith in Christ or even faith in the Word of God.86 Of course, although Paul wrote to

the Colossian church about Jewish dietary laws being no longer binding (Col 2:16-17) (and

makes similar statements to the Romans in 11:14 and 20), the whole canon was not yet available

to every church; therefore, this issue was not black and white. If the issue of "faith" were one of

obedience to the revealed Word of God, Paul would not have urged mutual acceptance without

requiring the sinful party to repent.

Here is the key to understanding verse 22a: Paul centers the rightness or wrongness of

this issue in the believer's conscience and not in revealed Scripture. Right and wrong are not

based on the act itself, but on the convictions of the believer committing the act. Therefore, faith,

in this context, must refer to personal convictions based on but not clearly taught in Scripture;

this definition is the only way to make sense of its use in verses 22 and 23.

A good summary of verse 22a is that Paul wants the "strong" to avoid eating food in

public that would cause a "weak" brother to stumble; they should keep their convictions to

themselves in private before the Lord, who alone judges individuals (14:4, 10-12).

Verses 22b-23 close out this section. Paul pronounces a blessing on those who can eat

with a clear conscience (verse 22b), and an eschatological curse upon those who cannot and yet

still partake (verse 23).87 The reason for this curse is action without "faith" – "'conviction'

stemming from one’s faith in Christ."88 "The doubts of such Christians arise from the fact that

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!86Ibid.; see also Cranfield, Romans, 726 and Murray, Romans, 195-96; contra Dunn,

Romans 9-16, 827, 829. Dunn defines faith as "the basic sense of creaturely dependence which is man's proper attitude and response to God." Ibid., 829.

87See earlier discussion on verse 13. 88Moo, Romans, NICNT, 863.

! 23

they do not have a strong enough faith to believe that they can ignore the ritual elements of the

OT law."89

The final sentence of verse 23 is "a general theological principle" that forms the basis for

the blessing and condemnation of verses 22b-23: any action that does not conform to one's

convictions "about what [their] Christian faith allows [them] to do and prohibits [them] from

doing is sinful."90 Paul's point in saying this should be remembered: He is addressing the

"strong," warning them that they "should not force the 'weak' to eat meat, or drink wine, or

ignore the Sabbath, when the 'weak' are not yet convinced that their faith in Christ allows them to

do so. For to do so would be to force them into sin, to put a 'stumbling' block in their way (cf. vv.

13, 20–21)."91 Rather, they should pursue peace and mutual edification within the body of Christ

(verse 19).

Application

The modern Christian likely does not struggle with the place of Jewish ritual laws in his

or her eating habits. But the same Christian may feel conflicted when his host offers him a glass

of wine at dinner, especially when that host is also a Christian. Alcohol is a hot topic among

twenty-first century Christians, and there are strong opinions on both sides. The passage under

consideration helps to shed some light on this difficult debate.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!89Ibid., 862–863. 90Ibid., 863. 91Ibid., 864.

! 24

The first reference to drinking in Romans 14:13-23 is in verse 17. The issue Paul

addresses in this passage, as discussed above, is conflict between "strong" and "weak" Christians

about the continuing legitimacy of Mosaic dietary laws. Paul exhorts the "strong" not to flaunt

their liberty in Christ over the "weak" but to pursue peace in the church, even at the expense of

curtailing their own liberties. So, when Paul says in verse 17 that "the kingdom of God is not

eating and drinking," he is not necessarily saying that God doesn't care what a believer eats and

drinks; in fact, in 1 Corinthians 8-10, he takes great pains to forbid the Corinthians from eating

meat that they know has been offered to idols because of its pagan associations (see 1 Cor 8:9-

12; 10:21-22, 27-28). Paul's argument in verse 17 is like God's statement in Hosea 6:6, where

He told Israel that he "desired mercy, and not sacrifice." God was not foreclosing the lawfulness

of following the Mosaic cultic code; He was saying mercy is at the heart of the law, and if it is

omitted, God is not pleased.

The second reference to drinking in Romans 14 is in verse 21, where Paul tells the

"strong" that avoiding eating meat, drinking wine, and abstaining from anything else is "good" if

it keeps the "weak" from stumbling. Apart from the context, it seems that Paul is saying that just

like eating all meat is lawful (verses 14 and 20), drinking wine is lawful; but should be avoided if

it causes a believer to stumble. In the context, however, "Paul’s reference here to “drinking wine”

probably implies that the same believers avoided wine [because] wine was widely used in pagan

religious libations (see also v. 17)."92 Standing on its own, verse 21 does not imply permission

for Christians to drink alcoholic beverages. "Wine" must be further defined based on the rest of

Scripture in order to decide this question with certainty; but that is beyond the scope of this paper.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!92Ibid., 861.

! 25

This passage can also help to resolve other problems that have flared up in the modern

church, such as controversies over different music styles and different dress standards for women.

How do Paul's terms "strong" and "weak" apply to those who take different sides in these

matters? It is not possible to do justice to either issue here. The Scripture does provide

guidelines for both issues, as it does for the issue of following Jewish dietary laws. If Paul told

the "strong" not to judge the "weak" based on their own "faith" regarding eating and drinking,

would he not say the same to modern Christians regarding music and clothing? If Christians

want to apply this passage to these modern issues, here are some suggestions: those who disagree

should avoid anointing their own tribe as the "strong" without careful Scriptural rationale, and

both sides need to avoid "despising" and "judging" each other (verses 1-4). Further, both sides

need to apply the principles found in this passage to their positions: the kingdom of God is not

music and clothing, but righteousness, and joy, and peace in the Holy Spirit (verse 17); do not

destroy the work of God for the sake of music (verse 20); it is not good to use musical styles or

wear clothing that causes your brother to stumble (verse 21); rather, keep your "faith" to yourself

before God, and live in peace with your spiritual family (verses 22 and 19). Lastly, do not try to

change those who disagree with you on scripturally unclear matters; Moo astutely notes that in

this passage Paul "does not say … the weak in faith must change their view. … [H]e does not

berate them for being 'immature'; he does not tell them to 'get with the program.'"93 If more

believers followed these principles, whatever their personal convictions, the church would be a

more unified and peace-filled place – a lighthouse to the world of the sacrificial love of God.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!93Douglas J. Moo, Romans, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 2000), 467.

26

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, et al. The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with Morphology). Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993, 2006.

Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New

Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bruce, F. F. Commentary on Galatians. The New International Greek Testament Commentary.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 2005.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. II,

IX-XVI. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd., 1979, 1981.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 9-16. Vol. 38B of Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books,

1988.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

________. Colossians and Philemon. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1998.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles. The Cradle, the Cross, and

the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2009.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart,

Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994, 2002.

27

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

________. Romans. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and

Notes. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968.

Runge, Steven E. Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for

Teaching and Exegesis. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2010.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Galatians. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.

________. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker,

1998.

Simpson, E. K., and F. F. Bruce. Commentary on the Epistles to the Ephesians and the

Colossians: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957, 1977.

Stott, John. Romans: God’s Good News for the World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1994.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek New

Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Witherington III, Ben, with Darlene Hyatt. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical

Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004.

Wright, N. T. “The Letter to the Romans: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections.” In vol.

10 of The New Interpreter’s Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, edited by Leander E. Keck, 393-770. Nashville: Abingdon, 2002. Quoted in Witherington, Romans.

Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament.

Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1974.