Identity Crisis Reflected in Romans 14:10 - -  15:13 and the Implications for the Chinese Christians Controversy on Ancestral Worship

 

LO, Lung-kwong

Theology Division, Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

 

Introduction

 

Paul  Letter to Romans has been interpreted from different perspectives and frameworks in the long history of interpretation.  With critical awareness of  the practice of exegesis in relation to author, text and interpreter,[1] I would like to join the collective discussion of a passage in Romans from my own social and cultural locations.

 

     I am a Chinese, the only member of a family  from Mainland China born in British Hong Kong, who holds a Passport, since 1997, issued by the People=s Republic of China for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region  which does not grant the right of abode in Mainland China and also a Passport issued by the British Government which does not grant the right of abode in Britain. While I obtained primary and secondary education in British Hong Kong, I got a first degree from a national university in Taiwan, a rebellious province of  China seeking for independence.  I received my initial theological education (M.Div.) from the Chinese University of Hong Kong  and had my post-graduate studies at Durham, England. I have been a Methodist minister and a social activist served in Hong Kong and overseas Chinese churches for nineteen years before I joined the academic circle as a full time lecturer (part-time circuit minister) in Hong Kong and also as a Visiting  Professor of a university in Mainland China in last seven years. I regard myself as a Chinese who lives in the interface of Chinese and  western cultures, a marginal Chinese among overseas and mainland Chinese,  a minister, social activist and scholar travelling between local churches, society and scholarly world. With this background as a person on the boundaries,  I enter the study of the Christian Scripture, Paul=s letter to the Romans in particular, with a strong concern about the identity crisis faced by Chinese Christians as both Chinese (overseas, marginal and Mainlander) and Christians.

 

     In this paper I seek to  provide an analytical studies of the chosen text, Rm. 14:1 B 15:13, and a discussion of my contextual and hermeneutical concerns raised by the passage in relation to the Chinese Christian controversy on ancestral worship.

 

I. Analytical Frames

         


     This passage has drawn the attention of many scholars since the publication of a lengthy study of Rauer (1923).[2]  The main issues are as follows:

1.              The Sitz im Leben of Romans in general and the context of the controversy of Rm. 14:1 B 15:13 in particular;

2.                  the identities of the Astrong@ and the Aweak@;

3.                  the issues of controversy; and

4.                  Paul=s  solution to the controversy.

 

      We provide a brief discussion on these concerns at the following.

5.              The Sitz im Leben of Romans and the Context of Rm. 14:1 B 15:13

 

        Since the publication of The Romans Debate in 1977,[3] there is a growing consensus among scholars[4]  that Romans was a letter addressed to the concrete situation of  Roman Christians.[5] The more controversial issue is the identity of the Astrong@ and the Aweak@ which we will discuss in the next section.

 

        However, as far as the context of the tension between the Astrong@ and the Aweak@ is concerned, the issues of eating foods, drinking wine and observing special days are raised in a setting in which these two kinds of Christians meet. According to the evidence of the characteristics of the Roman Christians which we found in Rm. 16,[6]  it is quite possible that the Roman Christians belonged to different house churches organized according to their background, without substantial inter-relationship. Paul's use of household language, such as proslambanô (14:1, 3; 15:7, 7) and oiketês (v.4)[7] support the hypothesis that the setting of house churches is the Sitz im Leben of 14:1-15:13.

 

        Minear was probably the first scholar who showed us the significance of using the information uncovered from the last three chapters of Romans (14-16) to reconstruct the picture of the situation in Rome and to interpret the letter as a whole accordingly.[8] He rightly challenges the assumption held by most commentators that there was a single Christian congregation in Rome where different groups of Christians worshipped side by side.[9] In our opinion, he rightly suggests that there were plausibly five or six different house churches existing in Rome.[10] However, he probably goes too far when he suggests that it is possible to identify at least five distinct factions or five different positions among these various groups from the evidence of 14: 1-15: 13.[11]

 

         In view of Paul=s use of liturgical languages in Rm.  14:10c-12.[12] and 15:9b-12,[13] it is quite probable the more specific context of Rm. 14:1 B 15:13 is related to a setting of  corporate worship. Further discussion of the context of the passage will be included  below.

6.              The Identity of the AStrong@ and the AWeak@

 

         In 14: 1-15: 13, the controversy is between the 'strong' and the 'weak'. Some scholars, such as Karris,[14] who appealed to the argument of Rauer,[15] have argued strongly that the 'weak' might be Christians with syncretistic or ascetic tendencies, but not ordinary Jews.[16] However, the evidence that the issue involves clean and unclean foods (koinos in 14: 14, cf. katharos in 14: 20) strongly supports the view that the >weak= were Christians who observed the Mosaic law,[17] it is probable that most of them would be ethnically Jewish but may include some Gentiles. The >strong= were mostly Gentile Christians who did not follow the Mosaic law, among whom may be included some ethnic Jews who act like Paul.[18] For convenience, these two groups of Christians are designated 'Jewish Christians' and 'Gentile Christians' respectively. This way of identifying the 'strong' and the 'weak' has been a point of growing consensus among most scholars.[19]

 

        The most significant difficulty of this interpretation is the evidence that the 'weak' were vegetarians (14: 2) who not only abstained from meat but also from wine (14: 21). However, the evidence found in Dan. 1: 8-16; Esth. 14: 17 (LXX); Jud. 12: 1-4; Josephus V 14 indicates that there were cases of Jews who abstained from both meat and wine when they were in a situation which was controlled by Gentiles.[20]

 

7.              The Issues of Controversy

The Sitz im Leben of the controversy between the 'weak' and the 'strong' is probably more specific than many scholars have thought. Minear rightly, in our opinion, suggests that the controversy happened on the specific occasion when the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians worshipped together and had communal meals.[21] The 'weak' (Jewish Christians) did not abstain from meat or wine in general,[22] they were vegetarian only when eating with the 'strong' (Gentile Christians).[23] The crucial issue to concern a Jew when eating a meal with Gentiles was probably how to keep the Jewish food laws in such a situation, vis-à-vis the Jewish identity.[24] The controversy in Rm. 14: 1 -15: 13 probably reflects the issues related to identity crisis faced by Jewish Christians in Rome. We think this suggestion is more plausible than others, and will seek to demonstrate that plausibility in a subsequent discussion.

 

It is generally agreed that the Roman Christian movement emerged from the Roman Jewish community. It is quite possible that the situation of the Roman Jewish community was a prototype of the situation of the Roman Christians.[25] In the study of the situation of the Roman Jewish community, there are several findings which are specifically relevant to our understanding of the context and controversy of the Roman Christians:[26]

 

1.  The Roman Jewish community was organized as a community net-work[27] which consisted of several synagogues without a central governing body.

2.  These synagogues were quite diverse in their background and they adopted the principle of toleration and mutual acceptance in their relationship.

3.  The Roman Jews had  considerable interaction with their Gentile neighbours and also   made a great effort to preserve their Jewish identity.

4.  Through the Jewish community net-work, different Roman synagogues could share their resources, such as using catacombs.

 

        Moreover, the controversy reflected in 14: 1-15: 13 probably suggests that there were different practices in following Jewish food laws among house churches. Their differences caused tension among these house churches.[28] In other words, the principle of toleration and mutual acceptance was not yet adopted in dealing with differences among these Roman Christians who are organized into different house churches.. This situation probably occurred when the Jews returned to Rome after the death of Claudius in 54 C.E..[29] When Paul wrote his letter to Rome around 55-57 C.E.,[30] he perhaps tried to address this situation.

 

8.              Paul=s Solution to the controversy

 

        Minear is probably right to see that, in this passage,

 

(1) Paul did not try to persuade the 'weak' to relax their dietary or calendrical scruples, in fact, Paul endorsed them;[31] and

(2) Paul did not expect to combine the 'weak' and the 'strong' into one group by persuading all to take the same attitude towards food and days.[32]

 

        What are Paul=s positive teachings directed to the controversy? They will be presented in the personae analysis of Rm. 14:1-15:13 below.

 

I.                Personae Analysis

 

       In 1976, David Cline published a small but very interesting book: I, He, We, & They: A Literary Approach to Isaiah 53, JSOT Supplement Series 1 (Sheffield, JSOT Press). In studying the poem Isaiah 52: 13 - 53: 12, he studies the identities and the function of the personae in the text and the relationship between them. [33]