It is my understanding that Luther relied heavily on Romans as a jumping off point for his theology based particularly on Paul’s stressing of the primacy of faith in response to the early christian debate regarding circumcision.  It also seems to me that Romans 14 and 15 pushes a message of inclusivity, setting out a Pauline theology based on strong and weak faith rather than on right and wrong faith.  The chapters also argue for an inclusive view of christianity.

Anyone else think the chapters are an exhortation of tolerance for difference within christianity?

cheers

John

I’ve been doing some study on Romans, John, and I agree with you that Romans 14 and 15 has lots to say about strong and weak faith—providing you don’t use Romans 14 and 15 to overturn the message of Romans 1-13 and Romans 16.

That would be making Paul out to be a dill, not to mention making God a liar.

So if you can explain a bit more about how your ideas about weak and strong faith fit the rest of the letter, that would help make clear what you mean.

We would almost certainly have a point of departure here, as I am of the view that Romans addresses the early christian debate around the need for circumcision etc.  Luther used it as a departure point to address the matter of indulgences, however the approach has been universalised, in particular in the Calvinist tradition, to deny personal agency and the sacramental aspects of christianity.

I find the intense bible centred approach of some evangelicals a sign of a weak faith, able to be parodied as idolatry of a book, similarly the experience based approach could be parodied as idolatry of personal experience.  I suggest that people who express shock horror at a range of catholic practices and cries of unchristian could adopt a similar approach.

cheers

John

Romans 14 speaks a lot about the eating of certain food, and not allowing the different customs of eating certain foods, or drinks, to cause offence to another Christian.  Paul said we should not allow eating customs to cause another fellow Christian to feel offended in any way.
Paul’s words to the Roman church strove to attain unity, especially between Jewish Christians, and previously Pagan Christians. The two sides come from different eating backgrounds, different religions.

Romans 14:19

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

And Romans 15:

1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2 Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. 5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

John you said:

Anyone else think the chapters are an exhortation of tolerance for difference within christianity?

These verses arewritten in a particular context, but do apply in the broader context to all Christians.

Christians should be unified, but I think that unity should really be on the basis of God’s revelation of Himself. He revealed Himself especially in Jesus, but also by His messengers and prophets prior to Jesus; and by apostles and eyewitnesses later on . God’s revelation to these people is clearly presented in Scripture, in the Bible.

The Bible is a medium that is truly reliable and consistent. It is the best medium available to Christians, to my understanding.

It would also be false unity if false doctrines were ignored. The truth of Scripture should be the main basis of unity, I think.
If Christians allow errors to creep in, those errors should be lovingly pointed out. The reason - to help people to understand God and not be confused. I don’t think that I, or others that I meet with, either worship, or treat the Bible as some kind of God. (But the Bible is sufficient for all Christians for instruction, understanding, edification relationship etc.)

Paul pointed out the errors of different Churches, in his letters, with a Godly hope for reformation in the wayward Churches. He tried to deal with man’s misunderstanding of the Gospel by prophesying from the Gospel message.

We need to be gentle with believers when exhorting the truth of Scripture.
Christians should present God’s message with love; and not with intolerance; or with a view to point scoring.
(Some, including myself in the past have made that mistake. For that, I am repentant.)

Hi John.

Hmm, yes, the view you’ve expressed is stupid so it looks like we will have to part company on our understanding of what Romans is about.

Thank you, nonetheless, for the explanation.

Gordon Cheng - 12 December 2008 11:26 PM

Hmm, yes, the view you’ve expressed is stupid

And people wonder why I’m in awe of your analytical powers, Gordon!

Hi Gordo

Well that is a telling exegesis. 

On the other hand, it seems to be the level of argument I have come to expect from smug evangelicals on this website when invited in any way to question their beliefs.

Is it stupid because it is illogical, not based on data or simply doesn’t agree with your heart felt opinion? 

cheers

John

Hiya Ken

Romans actually is about conflicts between the Jewish sacramental beliefs in both food rituals and circumcision.  The Jews felt that these were fundamental to being a Christian however Paul disagreed.  The background is set out in Acts.

Your view that it is about customs is entirely incorrect and understates the importance and meaning and the degree of division in the early church around this matter.  You might like to discuss “kosher” with a Jewish friend and “halal” with a Muslim friend to get some perspective.  Similarly you could discuss circumcision with a Jewish friend.

Paul’s words didn’t strive to attain unity as you said.  Paul had a theological position that circumcision and Jewish food rituals were not required to be adhered to by Christians.  Don’t forget in the early church, Christians went to the synagogue, they saw themselves as a subset of Judaism, not an alternative.  It seems to me from Acts, that Jewish Christians, including the apostles but with Peter as a bit of a standout although ambiguous, felt that converts needed to become Jews to be Christians.

Paul was arguing that you don’t need to be Jew to be a Christian, although because of Luther’s and by extension Protestantism’s reliance on this epistle as a departure point to oppose sacramentalism and agency in Christianity, this theme seems to be missed by evangelicals, as they focus on one or two verses.

Paul goes on to say, as an extension of his view that compliance with Judaic sacramentalism is not required to be a Christian, that it is also important that those not subscribing to sacramentalism use this as a basis for superiority.

It is interesting that you state the verses are written in a particular context but then do not identify that context correctly.  The true context is the early debate regarding circumcision and food. 

All your statements after the line “these verses…” are a gloss.  They are no more than Ken making a view.

Paul’s view, clearly expressed in Romans and elsewhere, is that what matters is a belief in the resurrection.  Paul says nothing at all about scripture.  In his time, scripture would most likely be the Septuagint, with the new testament as we know not existing for another 300 years.

Have you considered that you may hold false doctrines?  What makes you certain that you don’t?

One the one hand, you state that you don’t idolise the bible, and on the other hand, you seem to present Christianity as a religion of a book, the bible, rather than as a living faith.  Where do you think the line is between idolatry and Christianity in this regard?

Your argument has a heavy reliance on your opinions.  Why should these be given any sort of privelege?

You may find it interesting to read through Acts.  Such a reading will contextualise Paul’s epistles and save you from having to guess or surmise what Paul is talking about.

Cheers

John

Hi John, the subject is Romans 14 and 15. Where in those chapters is circumcision mentioned?
Sorry, I was unable to find anything about circumcision in these chapters. Which verse are you referring to John?

It is true the chapters refer to Jewish Christians being unwilling to give up the observance of certain requirements of the law.
In 14:2,3

2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.

Paul describes the “strong” Christian. Here faith is used in the sense of assurance or confidence. The strong Christian’s understanding of the gospel allows him to recognise that one’s diet has no spiritual significance.

In 14:6

6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

the motivation behind the actions of both the strong and the weak is to be the same. Both should want to serve the Lord and give thanks for his provision.

Don’t you think these chapters are about gaining unity between Christians?
In 14:19 for example

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

15:5,6

5 May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, 6 so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Finally John, do you agree that the only way all Chrisitians may be truly unified is as written above ?  - as I suggested in my previous post. Unity under the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Or, do you think instead that it would be possible that unity might spring from getting all Christians to agree with the Roman Catholic position?

The gospel of Jesus Christ was spoken of in the early Church, and it is reckoned that these recollections of Jesus were the basis of the book of Mark and later gospels. Paul knew of this gospel prior to writing his letters, which preceded the later writing of the gospels. Oral tradition and letters forming much of the New Testament Bible scripture.

Hi Ken

Thank you for the thoughtful response.  I think the chapters have an important message.

With respect to your points:

Faith is the central theme of Romans, written in response to the twin issues of circumcision and food rituals.  (See chapter two and also refer to acts).

I am somewhat concerned by your apparent focus on the chapters alone without considering them in the context of the entire epistle.  In my view this type of approach can be used to find a biblical verse to prove anything, particularly the writers personal hobby horses.

It is not about right and wrong views of Christianity as you seem to suggest.  The problem was not that Jewish Christians were not Christians because they did not give up the law, but rather that they claimed that non jews could not be also Christians, an exclusionary message.  Paul, as the apostle to the gentiles, opposed this view.

I disagree about your view of strong and weak faith.  Paul seems to me to say that those who have strong faith do not need rituals, but that these may support those of weak faith.

I think the verses are about, not gaining unity as Christians in the term of orthodoxy, but about tolerance of difference.

I would agree with your statement however I suspect that what you would say is the gospel of Jesus would not align with what I would say is the gospel of Jesus.  It would for example probably exclude works despite the clear words of Jesus, the eucharist despite the clear words of Jesus and perhaps baptism despite the clear words of Jesus.

I don’t particularly care if you adopt a Catholic view or not.  I am a catholic by culture and there are areas where the catholic view is more aligned with the Christianity preached by Jesus, particularly with the sacramental aspects.  There are other areas where the catholic view seems a bit thinner to me.

Who “reckons” this?  I am very suspicious of the passive voice.  Otherwise I am not too sure of what your point is.  It seems a bit of a no brainer to say that the written gospels were based on an extant oral tradition.  I would hope they would be, otherwise someone has fabricated them from whole cloth.

Cheers

John

G’day John,

Could you flesh out a little more (with Biblical references, if you could) why and how you see Acts driving the context in which Romans is to be understood, particularly why you feel it speaks very strongly on the issue of circumcision and food rituals? Would you by extension also argue that Acts sets the context by which all the other Pauline (or even all NT) epsitles are to be interpreted?

Cheers,

Timbo

Dear Tim

I would refer to Acts 10, 11 (note particularly the reference to the circumcision party (RSV)), 15 and 21:18 ff.

It is my view, based on this evidence, that there was a considerable debate in the early church regarding Jewish notions of being unclean (from eating unclean food and from mixing with non Jews) and of the need for circumcision.  Paul is clearly on one side of the question (Refer Acts 15:1-30).  Furthermore, in his mission to the gentiles, he confronts the matter regularly.  It was a very important issue for him.

Paul’s letters seem to be written in response to particular issues.  The major issue, or matter of conflict that Romans addresses is the matter of clean and unclean and of circumcision. 

However Romans is somewhat more methodical in its theological development, and probably shows that Paul has worked through the problem and developed a systematic approach.  He seems to take a deductive approach, leading from the general to the particular, rather than writing from the particular to the general, as is the case in say 1 Corinthians where he leads off with the disagreement he is addressing.  In Romans, he leads off by discussing faith and then leads into particular concerns.

With regard to your second sentence, I would think that Paul’s letters need to be historically contextualised, and that context is available and set out, apparently by a disciple or companion of Paul, in Acts.

I am not sure about all other epistles.  Whoever wrote Acts knew about the very early church in Jerusalem, but from about Chapter 13, the focus is almost entirely on the history of Paul.  James seems to be written by someone who saw the Pauline approach as extreme in its stress on faith alone with the logical extension that works were unnecessary.  Presumably there was a tension within the early church.  That tension can also be seen in say Mathew, with its stress on works.  See for example Matt 25:34ff)

The other non Pauline letters seem more general, and are focussed on the good news rather than targeted towards any particular doctrinal matter or matter of conflict.

This is all very brief.  A book could easily be written around your question.  I have just tried to touch on a few points which appear pertinent.

Cheers

John